Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
whoknew

The Russia Investigation: Mueller - "Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy.The Russian govt's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious."

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:

Yes, did you?

No. I’ve read highlights and certain passages. Those passages are very damning.

i’m impressed that you actually read it, but mystified that anyone could do so and be as dismissive as you are. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

No. I’ve read highlights and certain passages. Those passages are very damning.

i’m impressed that you actually read it, but mystified that anyone could do so and be as dismissive as you are. 

Spit the hook. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2019 at 2:23 PM, Bucky86 said:
On 7/19/2019 at 12:25 PM, The Z Machine said:

I'm really enjoying seeing someone above the law here.

Seems like a pretty big flaw...

"Down with Mad King George"

"No taxation without representation"

"The founding fathers were always right"

/theusualsuspects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sheriff Bart said:

Spit the hook. 

I’m going to have to because work awaits. 

But I’ll never give up on trying to have a rational discussion with these folks. Someday it might actually happen. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I’m going to have to because work awaits. 

But I’ll never give up on trying to have a rational discussion with these folks. Someday it might actually happen. 

He doesn't want to have a rational discussion. He likes to post things like that hundreds of times to derail the thread. You have to be more selective in who you engage GB. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m going to have to because work awaits. 

But I’ll never give up on trying to have a rational discussion with these folks. Someday it might actually happen. 

Narrator: It didn't.

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, timschochet said:

No. I’ve read highlights and certain passages. Those passages are very damning.

i’m impressed that you actually read it, but mystified that anyone could do so and be as dismissive as you are. 

So based on reading a brief most likely biased overview you think he's guilty. Yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:

Yes, did you?

Then calling it a nothing burger is pretty odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Question: Mr. Mueller, why didn’t you subpoena Donald Trump Jr about the Trump Tower meeting with Russia? 

Mueller: Because he informed us that if we did he would take the 5th Amendment. 

I believe this question and answer alone may drastically alter public opinion on this entire subject. 

It's possible that Don Jr pled the 5th in Grand Jury, but that was likely not the factor for not subpoenaeing Trump.

There is a whole appendix, Appendix C, devoted to Trump's responses and rejections of requests for cooperation, and I don't think the fact he would plead the 5th played a role in it. Trump was just lying and they already knew that. 

Also note a good bit of it is redacted by grand jury rules.

 

The President provided written responses through his personal counsel to questions submitted to him by the Special Counsel’s Office. We first explain the process that led to the submission of written questions and then attach the President’s responses.

Beginning in December 2017, this Office sought for more than a year to interview the President on topics relevant to both Russian-election interference and obstruction-of-justice. We advised counsel that the President was a “subject” of the investigation under the definition of the Justice Manual—“a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury’s investigation.” Justice Manual & 9-11.151 (2018). We also advised counsel that “[a]n interview with the President is vital to our investigation” and that this Office had “carefully considered the constitutional and other arguments raised by ... counsel, and they d[id] not provide us with reason to forgo seeking an interview.” 1 We additionally stated that “it is in the interest of the Presidency and the public for an interview to take place” and offered “numerous accommodations to aid the President’s preparation and avoid surprise."2 After extensive discussions with the Department of Justice about the Special Counsel’s objective of securing the President’s testimony, these accommodations included the submissions of written questions to the President on certain Russia-related topics.3

We received the President’s written responses in late November 2018.4 In December 2018, we informed counsel of the insufficiency of those responses in several respects.5 We noted, among other things, that the President stated on more than 30 occasions that he “does not recall’ or ‘remember’ or have an ‘independent recollection’” of information called for by the questions.6 Other answers were “incomplete or imprecise."7 The written responses, we informed counsel, “demonstrate the inadequacy of the written format, as we have had no opportunity to ask follow-up questions that would ensure complete answers and potentially refresh your client’s recollection or clarify the extent or nature of his lack of recollection.”8 We again requested an in-person interview, limited to certain topics, advising the President’s counsel that “[t]his is the President’s opportunity to voluntarily provide us with information for us to evaluate in the context of all of the evidence we have gathered."9 The President declined.10

■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■11■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■12

Recognizing that the President would not be interviewed voluntarily, we considered whether to issue a subpoena for his testimony. We viewed the written answers to be inadequate. But at that point, our investigation had made significant progress and had produced substantial evidence for our report. We thus weighed the costs of potentially lengthy constitutional litigation, with resulting delay in finishing our investigation, against the anticipated benefits for our investigation and report. As explained in Volume II, Section II.B., we determined that the substantial quantity of information we had obtained from other sources allowed us to draw relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility, which are often inferred from circumstantial evidence and assessed without direct testimony from the subject of the investigation.

***

 12/3/18 Letter, Special Counsel’s Office to the President’s Personal Counsel, at 3; see (noting, “for example,” that the President “did not answer whether he had at any time directed or suggested that discussions about the Trump Moscow Project should cease ... but he has since made public comments about that topic").

 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

12■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

 

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Junior probably did plead the Fifth though. The below is redacted for Grand Jury information.

On July 12, 2017, the Special Counsel’s Office ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Trump Jr. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ related to the June 9 meeting and those who attended the June 9 meeting." 733

733  ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:

nothing

Quote

Over the next several days, the President’s personal counsel repeatedly and inaccurately denied that the President played any role in drafting Trump Jr.’s statement.729

729 See, e.g., David Wright, Trump lawyer: President was aware of “nothing", CNN (July 12, 2017) (quoting the President’s personal attorney as saying, “I wasn’t involved in the statement drafting at all nor was the President.”); see also Good Morning America, ABC (July 12, 2017) (“The President didn’t sign off on anything. ... The President wasn’t involved in that.”); Meet the Press, NBC (July 16, 2017) (“I do want to be clear — the President was not involved in the drafting of the statement.”).

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wray testified to congress that Russia has not been deterred from meddling in our elections. I'm sure Trump is working really hard on this.

 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

 

You are trying way to hard here man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

Wray testified to congress that Russia has not been deterred from meddling in our elections. I'm sure Trump is working really hard on this.

 

In fairness, if McConnell won't even bring the legislation to the senate floor, there's not much Trump can do, but we all know he wouldn't do anything about it even if he could.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Commish said:

In fairness, if McConnell won't even bring the legislation to the senate floor, there's not much Trump can do, but we all know he wouldn't do anything about it even if he could.

You think McConnell isn't taking his orders from Trump on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Commish said:

In fairness, if McConnell won't even bring the legislation to the senate floor, there's not much Trump can do, but we all know he wouldn't do anything about it even if he could.

Trump did everything he could to deter Russian meddling. I mean, how many times to you want the man to ask Putin if he did it? He asked him many times and Putin said he didn't do it. Trump even looked him right in the eye and said (while laughing), "don't do it!".

Besides, he seems trustworthy enough.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amused to Death said:

Trump did everything he could to deter Russian meddling. I mean, how many times to you want the man to ask Putin if he did it? He asked him many times and Putin said he didn't do it. Trump even looked him right in the eye and said (while laughing), "don't do it!".

Besides, he seems trustworthy enough.

:goodposting:

I often appreciate the reminder that my bar is probably set too high :bag: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

You think McConnell isn't taking his orders from Trump on that?

Don't know, don't care....doesn't really matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Weebs210 said:
55 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

 

You are trying way to hard here man.

Truer and more ironic words were never spoken.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Truer and more ironic words were never spoken.

Yeah I usually get the same thought on most of your posts.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, timschochet said:

Question: Mr. Mueller, why didn’t you subpoena Donald Trump Jr about the Trump Tower meeting with Russia? 

Mueller: Because he informed us that if we did he would take the 5th Amendment. 

I believe this question and answer alone may drastically alter public opinion on this entire subject. 

Mueller: I can't comment on that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, adonis said:
3 hours ago, timschochet said:

Question: Mr. Mueller, why didn’t you subpoena Donald Trump Jr about the Trump Tower meeting with Russia? 

Mueller: Because he informed us that if we did he would take the 5th Amendment. 

I believe this question and answer alone may drastically alter public opinion on this entire subject. 

Mueller: I can't comment on that.

"And we're on to Cincinnati..."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [scooter] said:

"And we're on to Cincinnati..."

If that's a Belichick reference, it's a good one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Bucky86 said:

Wray testified to congress that Russia has not been deterred from meddling in our elections. I'm sure Trump is working really hard on this.

Quote

 

Graham: "Are the Russians still trying to interfere in our election systems?"

FBI Director Wray: "The Russians are absolutely intent on trying to interfere with our elections through foreign influence."

Video Via CBS

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Weebs210 said:

hard

Quote

At approximately 3 a.m. on election night, Trump Campaign press secretary Hope Hicks received a telephone call on her personal cell phone from a person who sounded foreign but was calling from a number with a DC area code. Although Hicks had a hard time understanding the person, she could make out the words “Putin call.” Hicks told the caller to send her an email.The following morning, on November 9, 2016, Sergey Kuznetsov, an official at the Russian Embassy to the United States, emailed Hicks from his Gmail address with the subject line, “Message from Putin.” Attached to the email was a message from Putin, in both English and Russian, which Kuznetsov asked Hicks to convey to the President-Elect. In the message, Putin offered his congratulations to Trump for his electoral victory, stating he “look[ed] forward to working with [Trump] on leading Russian-American relations out of crisis.”

A Russian Embassy officials used personal email to enable Vladimir Putin contacting Trump through Hicks after the victory, apparently/likely to avoid the notice associated with using the RU address.

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, adonis said:

Mueller: I can't comment on that.

I’m resigned that nothing will change. I believe many crimes were committed, Trump is compromised and that he obstructed justice successfully to cover for things he should be behind bars for for more than a lifetime. But there will be no justice, and half of the country is caught up in a fever dream.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's official, if Mr. Ham has given up on it it's time to let her go fellas.  Take umbrage in the fact that she wasn't a fleeting mistress.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Associate of Michael Flynn Is Found Guilty of Secretly Lobbying for Turkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller scrambles hearing by tapping top deputy as counsel

Quote

 

Robert Mueller’s top deputy will appear alongside him as his counsel for his highly-anticipated testimony on Wednesday, according to a committee source familiar with the preparations, a last-minute move that Republicans are panning as a breach of House rules that could jeopardize the hearings altogether.

...Both Zebley and James Quarles, another Mueller deputy, were initially expected to testify before both the Judiciary and Intelligence committees behind closed doors, but those sessions were called off amid opposition from Attorney General William Barr.

Barr has said that Mueller’s deputies should not testify, and he suggested that the Justice Department would move to block them from appearing if the committees issued subpoenas to compel their testimony. It is unclear whether the Justice Department will try to disrupt Wednesday’s arrangement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

From my cursory, cursory knowledge of this, this is a very smart move. If he's worried about Rs accusing him of illegally spying on Trump's campaign, best to have a lawyer there advising you on what to say.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Mueller were such a true American hero, he would tell the administration to stick it where the sun don’t shine and offer moral and ethical responses to all questions. No hiding behind DOJ policy and all that crap. 

I expect nothing out of tomorrow. And we will have wasted everyone’s time once again. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Comey on MSNBC feeding the Democrats mock questions to ask during the circus tomorrow. :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I've seen a bunch of articles along the lines of "Here are twelve questions I'd ask Mueller. You won't believe number four!"

The best article in that genre I've seen is by Al Franken:

https://alfranken.com/read/what-id-ask-mueller

Those are some good questions.

####in A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I've seen a bunch of articles along the lines of "Here are twelve questions I'd ask Mueller. You won't believe number four!"

The best article in that genre I've seen is by Al Franken:

https://alfranken.com/read/what-id-ask-mueller

Those are some good questions.

Quote

13. In fact, on page two of the Report you say, “…Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.” So, would it be fair to say that you made no judgement at all in the Report about whether there was collusion?

14. So, if a graduate of an accredited law school asserted that the Report had concluded that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, would that be person be wrong?

15. And just so the average non-lawyer understands, that means that no one could ever be charged with collusion in federal court because collusion is not a criminal offense in the U.S. code. We all understand what collusion is, but it’s just not something you could ever indict someone for. Just as you would never indict someone for, say, “being in cahoots.” We all understand what the colloquial “to be in cahoots” means. For example, in the Roger Stone indictment, which was redacted in the Report, it says that Mr. Stone and the Trump campaign were in cahoots with WikiLeaks. But I think you would agree, Director Mueller, that we are never going to hear this in a federal courtroom: “Your honor, the jury finds the defendant, Roger Stone, guilty of being in cahoots.” Am I correct?

16. And what is the statute of limitations on being in cahoots? I think everyone gets my point. The reason that’s a joke is that it’s so ridiculous. But saying the Report concluded that there was no collusion – isn’t that just as ridiculous?

❤️ :heart: ❤️ 💝

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, tonydead said:

It's official, if Mr. Ham has given up on it it's time to let her go fellas.  Take umbrage in the fact that she wasn't a fleeting mistress.

I don’t think you know what umbrage means.

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, -fish- said:

I don’t think you know what umbrage means.

I chose my words very carefully. But think what you want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tom Skerritt said:

 

I expect nothing out of tomorrow. And we will have wasted everyone’s time once again. 

:goodposting:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

:lmao:. Won't click anything on that lying hack.

He said Schiff, not Nunes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

:lmao:. Won't click anything on that lying hack.

Strange because you said you read the report and this clip is only Schiff confirming elements of it with Mueller. Mueller is agreeing with everything Schiff says.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Strange because you said you read the report and this clip is only Schiff confirming elements of it with Mueller. Mueller is agreeing with everything Schiff says.

Schiff is a proven liar.  HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don't Noonan said:

Schiff is a proven liar.  HTH

And yet in this clip, Mueller agrees with everything Schiff is asserting is in the report. The one you read and claimed it totally exonerated the president.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schiff is a liar and Nunes is a Patriot :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amused to Death said:

And yet in this clip, Mueller agrees with everything Schiff is asserting is in the report. The one you read and claimed it totally exonerated the president.

You obviously are confused but please continue on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.