Yep, Mueller was right. He just wasn't forceful enough. We have played by Marcus of Queensbury rules for too long, and Mueller is the perfect example. He did the wrong thing for the right reasons. He should have been unequivocal..... 'We would have charged Trump with multiple instances of obstruction of justice had he not been President'. But the light is shining now, and what we always knew is being confirmed. Trump broke the law on multiple occasions, Barr covered for him. Both should be in jail.
Russian interference in 2020 fails miserably
- Thread starter Concart
- Start date
Yep, Mueller was right. He just wasn't forceful enough. We have played by Marcus of Queensbury rules for too long, and Mueller is the perfect example. He did the wrong thing for the right reasons. He should have been unequivocal..... 'We would have charged Trump with multiple instances of obstruction of justice had he not been President'. But the light is shining now, and what we always knew is being confirmed. Trump broke the law on multiple occasions, Barr covered for him. Both should be in jail.
No, the Russians just had an incompetent asset in the White House. That was probably stupid on their part, and they may have ended up hurting themselves. No amount of cheating or interfering could overcome the absolute incompetence of Donald J. Trump. The worst President in the history of the country by a long shot.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Concart,
The only thing that has changed is that individual one no longer has presidential immunity.
Why is he not being charged with obstruction of justice NOW?
The only thing that has changed is that individual one no longer has presidential immunity.
Why is he not being charged with obstruction of justice NOW?
Not sure about any Russian interference but the CCP interference sure had a huge effect. Hunter and Joe are both VERY grateful and forever in their DEBT.
Not sure about any Russian interference but the CCP interference sure had a huge effect. Hunter and Joe are both VERY grateful and forever in their DEBT.
China did not interfere in our election. Try again, Stoney.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
U.S. News
May 5, 2021 / 2:27 AM
Judge orders Justice Dept. to release Trump memo over Russia investigation
"May 5 (UPI) -- A federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to release a secretive memo officials cited in 2019 as reason to not prosecute then-President Donald Trump with obstructing an investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
The opinion released late Monday by Judge Amy Berman Jackson gives the department two weeks to hand over the memo to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for it.
"It is time for the public to see that [memo]," she said in her 41-page opinion.
The opinion comes in a case linked to a two-year investigation by former special counsel Robert Mueller into Russia meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Upon the investigation's completion, Mueller on March 22, 2019, gave the highly anticipated report to then-Attorney General William Barr.
Days later, Barr, who was appointed by Trump, issued a four-page summary that said there was not enough evidence to charge the president with obstruction of justice.
The next month while delivering the report to Congress, Barr said he and his department reached its decision to not prosecute the president "in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other department lawyers."
The report, which was released that same day, says there was not enough evidence of collusion between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia for charges but it lists some 10 episodes in which obstruction of justice charges against Trump were considered, and CREW sent off a FIOA request for the information on how the Justice Department came to its decision not to prosecute Trump.
The Justice Department had argued against releasing the memo on the grounds of attorney-client privileges and that it was protected under the deliberative process privilege.
Jackson, who has seen the memo, sided against the department's arguments, saying the memo's authors and its recipient had a shared understanding they would not charge the president.
RELATED Federal agents search Rudy Giuliani's apartment, office
"In other words, the review of the document reveals that the attorney general was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the president should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given," wrote Jackson.
Jackson also said the memo is "a blend of legal and strategic advice" by those who were also drafting Barr's letter to Congress explaining the department's decision to not pursue charges.
"Along with the redacted portions of the memorandum, the chronology undermines the assertion that the authors were engaged in providing their legal advice in connection with any sort of pending prosecutorial decision," she said, adding, "[t]he government's failure to meet its burden to establish the legal ground for its invocation of the two privileges asserted means that the record must be produced."
She also criticized Barr over his four-page letter that prompted Trump, his supporters and allies to declare him as fully exonerated.
"The attorney general's characterization of what he'd hardly had time to skim, much less study closely, prompted an immediate reaction, as politicians and pundits took to their microphones and Twitter feeds to decry what they feared was an attempt to hide the ball," she wrote. ... "
May 5, 2021 / 2:27 AM
Judge orders Justice Dept. to release Trump memo over Russia investigation
"May 5 (UPI) -- A federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to release a secretive memo officials cited in 2019 as reason to not prosecute then-President Donald Trump with obstructing an investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
The opinion released late Monday by Judge Amy Berman Jackson gives the department two weeks to hand over the memo to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for it.
"It is time for the public to see that [memo]," she said in her 41-page opinion.
The opinion comes in a case linked to a two-year investigation by former special counsel Robert Mueller into Russia meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Upon the investigation's completion, Mueller on March 22, 2019, gave the highly anticipated report to then-Attorney General William Barr.
Days later, Barr, who was appointed by Trump, issued a four-page summary that said there was not enough evidence to charge the president with obstruction of justice.
The next month while delivering the report to Congress, Barr said he and his department reached its decision to not prosecute the president "in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other department lawyers."
The report, which was released that same day, says there was not enough evidence of collusion between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia for charges but it lists some 10 episodes in which obstruction of justice charges against Trump were considered, and CREW sent off a FIOA request for the information on how the Justice Department came to its decision not to prosecute Trump.
The Justice Department had argued against releasing the memo on the grounds of attorney-client privileges and that it was protected under the deliberative process privilege.
Jackson, who has seen the memo, sided against the department's arguments, saying the memo's authors and its recipient had a shared understanding they would not charge the president.
RELATED Federal agents search Rudy Giuliani's apartment, office
"In other words, the review of the document reveals that the attorney general was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the president should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given," wrote Jackson.
Jackson also said the memo is "a blend of legal and strategic advice" by those who were also drafting Barr's letter to Congress explaining the department's decision to not pursue charges.
"Along with the redacted portions of the memorandum, the chronology undermines the assertion that the authors were engaged in providing their legal advice in connection with any sort of pending prosecutorial decision," she said, adding, "[t]he government's failure to meet its burden to establish the legal ground for its invocation of the two privileges asserted means that the record must be produced."
She also criticized Barr over his four-page letter that prompted Trump, his supporters and allies to declare him as fully exonerated.
"The attorney general's characterization of what he'd hardly had time to skim, much less study closely, prompted an immediate reaction, as politicians and pundits took to their microphones and Twitter feeds to decry what they feared was an attempt to hide the ball," she wrote. ... "
"Key Judgment 4: We assess that China did not deploy interference efforts and considered but did not deploy influence efforts intended to change the outcome of the US Presidential election. We have high confidence in this judgment. China sought stability in its relationship with the United States, did not view either election outcome as being advantageous enough for China to risk getting caught meddling, and assessed its traditional influence toolsprimarily targeted economic measures and lobbying-would be sufficient to meet its goal of shaping US China policy regardless of the winner"
My dog tilts his head like that when he doesn't understand the one syllable commands I gave him.
Nawww,...Not the CCP. I mean,..its not like they ever interfere in EVERY aspect of our country or anything.
Surely you jest. What a Dufas shill.Nawww,...Not the CCP. I mean,..its not like they ever interfere in EVERY aspect of our country or anything.
If you call someone a doofus, you should make sure to spell it correctly. Otherwise, you look like a dufas.
Brought to you by the same people who said there was WMD in Iraq,....that ISIL was the JV team,...then that ISIL couldnt be driven out
That lied on Fisa warrants, that claimed DJT was a Russian asset,....ect ect ect............Brought to you by the same people who said there was WMD in Iraq,....that ISIL was the JV team,...then that ISIL couldnt be driven out
So what's your source, Stoney? Uranus?
So what's your source, Stoney? Uranus?
My ass against your cracked shriveled up old man lips.
There are different spellings for Dufas. Look it up,....Dufas.
Yes, there is the correct spelling, and the stupid fucking hillbilly redneck spelling.
I didnt know the URBAN dictionary was a hillbilly thing. Dufas.
I don't look at the urban dictionary. I use an actual, you know, dictionary.