Mueller slipped up and revealed the true nature of his “investigation” and report. Mueller, in his final clarification of a remark made to Democrat Lieu, said the conclusion of the report was “they could not exonerate the President” and “they could not establish a crime had been committed.”
Think about that.
As suspected all along, this investigation was an attempt to FIND a crime. Sure, they had collusion, based on what they all knew were lies (if they didn’t, they would have done some research to validate their “evidence” derived from the Steele dossier), and they worked and worked and worked to try and get Trump to stumble into a perjury or obstruction trap. But what they were trying to do most earnestly was to find something… ANYTHING that could be turned against Trump.
Usually, investigations are of a crime to find out who committed the crime. Their goal is not to “exonerate” someone (thus the name “prosecutor” as opposed to “savior”) but to CONVICT someone of a crime. Collusion, they admitted, was not technically a crime (though the report did make it synonymous to conspiracy, both of which Trump and his team were ultimately cleared) and obstruction can only occur as the investigation of a CRIME commences. By the way, the time to “obstruct” would be before the investigation gets too far along, not after it has gone on for over a year.
This was an investigation of Trump’s campaign colluding/conspiring with Russians. How was that exhibited? Aside from the false salacious information in the Steele dossier, later determined to have originated with three Putin associates (not a concern of the Mueller investigation, apparently… not in his “purview”), it rests on the circumstances around a Mr. Papadopolis telling someone that the Russians had the DNC’s emails. Further investigation (again, not the part that was Mueller’s “purview”) revealed that the person relating that information to Papadopolis was a person named Misfud, characterized by Mueller as a Russian asset. Turns out, he was a WESTERN asset, more specifically, working with the FBI. So, an FBI asset was directed to seek Papadopolis out at a seminar in London, passed the rumor of the Russians along to him, and then later Papadopolis related in conversation with an Australian that he heard the Russians had the DNC’s emails. THAT’S what led the FBI and this investigation to presume Trump’s campaign colluded with Russians. Get it?
By the way, there is NO evidence the DNC was ever hacked. The DNC never allowed the FBI to inspect their server themselves (why?). Instead, they had Crowdstrike (funded by Google, a Hillary supporter) “examine” the server and tell the FBI what they found. Hey, if you can’t trust the DNC, who railroaded Hillary into the Presidential candidacy and lied to all their supporters to tell the truth, who CAN you trust?
So, “cannot exonerate” and “cannot verify a crime was committed” is significant and revealing. To the surprise of a limited few, this was indeed a witch hunt seeking a crime, not a necessary investigation OF a crime.
And the Democrats want to follow the same police state logic regarding Trump’s income taxes. These people are trying to take us down a very dangerous road.
Just a regular, run-of-the-mill guy. I worked in the RV business while going to college and after before I got a job in a cabinet shop in the corporate aviation business. There I worked for 37 years doing cabinetry, service, airframe, finish, paint and upholstery work. I’m now retired. I’ve been married for almost 50 years (to the same gal, my high school sweetheart), have two daughters and 8 grandchildren. I’ve been conservative all my life, even before I knew what conservative was; it was just the right way to be.
Excellent summary of what’s gone on for 2+ years.
Now it’s time for the Dems to either go back to the top of the already thrice debunked list (meeting at Trump Tower or taxes) or they can get on with the work of the nation, (You know, their JOB.)
We’ll see how they react to the news.
“These people are trying to take us down a very dangerous road.”
They aren’t trying, they’ve done it, we are on the dangerous road.
This pathetic, compromised, Clinton/Obama-owned criminal thug should be shot or hung publicly for his treason, as should Comey, Schiff, the Clintons and the Obamas of course, Clapper and Brennan. If our Justice department is too compromised to do this, why shouldn’t we take the law into our own hands as citizens?
This pathetic, compromised, Clinton/Obama-owned criminal thug should be shot or hung publicly for his treason, as should Comey, Schiff, the Clintons, the Obamas of course, Clapper and Brennan. If our Justice department is too compromised to do this, why shouldn’t we take the law into our own hands as citizens?
@Avery Metzker</a A public lynching ya think.? Better yet turn em over to Donnie's current love interest little Kim—he's found some interesting ways to eliminate folks—he'd take great joy in executing a United States Marine Corps Officer—ol bone spurs could attend then hold a rally.
I just searched the full transcript of Mueller’s testimony and read through the entire exchange of questions and answers between Robert Mueller and Rep. Ted Lieu of California. The above quotations don’t actually appear in that context. Part of what was said follows:
Mueller was simply making clear what he said in his opening remarks: he would offer no opinions or conclusions going beyond those already stated in the report itself. It already said as much as could be said, given the constraints imposed by DoJ policy, as interpreted by their Office of Legal Counsel.
Think about Mueller’s agreement with the accuracy of the established facts that Lieu summarized. If they could be and were placed before a court, they’d constitute a strong case for obstruction of justice. Trump’s order to McGahn to create a false paper trail to cover his actions is about as damning a detail as any could be.
@Avery Metzker, #4:
Because:
(A) It wasn’t compromised until Trump began screwing around with it, trying to derail an investigation of himself; and
(B) What you’re suggesting is insurrection, which is also a serious crime.
Then you wrote:
You are correct, Greg.
This was something Mueller didn’t say in front of Congressman Lieu.
He said it at the next hearing, later that same day.
He opened the 2nd hearing by asking if he could make this clarification, was allowed to and he did.
@Greg: Yes, clarifying that his little theater with Lieu left him wide open to an accusation of perjury. Someone pointed that out to him at the earliest opportunity and he corrected the record.
They could not establish a crime had been committed. ANY crime, which would, of course, include obstruction. Further, they could not establish ANY crime… NOT the crime they set out to prove, which never existed. This is precisely the type of “investigation” these House GESTAPO agents want to conduct on Trump with his taxes; there IS no apparent crime, so let’s go LOOK for one. The legal system doesn’t work that way.
Wow. What a bombshell. “IF there had been a crime, it could have been prosecuted.” How convicting. I didn’t at first recognize Mueller from his previous appearances, but this was a vital clue.
@Greg:
When those actions are taken against a corrupt, complicit government involved in a soft coup, then no.
You and your party can’t break laws and then accuse of others of breaking laws. That’s the issue here. The Dems are staging their own insurrection because they lost the election.
Uh…if you can’t be convicted of a crime, you are referred to as “innocent”. If not, you are guilty.
“exoneration” is an invented term to imply the president is guilty when he’s not.
Resisting a soft coup investigation isn’t obstruction. It’s winning.
Trump: No Obstruction, No Collusion.
Dems: No Candidate for 2020. Double down on our hoax and further alienate ourselves from the electorate.
@Rich Wheeler: Must be dark times for the media when the usually-Left-leaning LA times writes an op-ed like this…and it comes up first on google news…
Op-Ed: The Democratic debates didn’t change anything. Trump is still likely to win in 2020
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-01/democratic-debates-trump-front-runner-joe-biden
@Nathan Blue:
Who do the Democrats really have? Booker, Harris, Castro and Warren all trying to out-Socialize Socialist Bernie Sanders. Most of the others do not even seem to know where they are.
I hand it to Tulsi for blacking Harris’ eye last night. Harris needed calling out and if we had a legitimate news media, Harris’ record would be all over the front pages today, but that would be………………..RACIST!!!!! Harris was in the best place she needed to be when she was servicing Willie Brown. She is arrogant, hateful and a loud mouth. Warren is a faux Native American who climbed the ladder using that lie as a rung. Sanders is just an angry guy who loves to shout at others. Biden, well, Joe is just Joe. Not real bright thinking he can run on his laurels as Obama’s VP. Mayor Pete seems to think that if he insults Christians enough, it will put him in the cat’s seat. So much for Mayor Pete taking the fly-over states.
When the Communist Clown Show gets called out by Rahm Emanuel asking “What the hell are they thinking?” you know it’s a sh!t show.
@retire05: Spartacus was so proud of his little Kool-aide zinger on Biden. That’s all they are; soundbites. Hollow, shallow imitations of life. Not a single one has an original thought and their “policies” change from debate to debate, depending on who is leading at the time and how their previous “policies” have polled.
Damn, I can’t imagine anyone being so totally brain-dead stupid to fall for that crap. No one over the age of 9, anyway.
@Deplorable Me, #9:
Do you not understand that the statement you just paraphrased appears only in the first part of the report that dealt with the question of collusion with Russia, and pertained only to that specific issue?
The second part, which focused on the question of obstruction of justice, does not state any such thing. Instead, it lays out at least 10 documented actions that are highly suggestive of deliberate obstruction of justice, clearly states that the testimony and evidence collected DOES NOT exonerate the President, and explains in detail why no prosecutorial decision or opinion can be stated.
Trump & Company’s spin of all of this is total b.s. He was not totally exonerated of anything. Even the statement in part one that insufficient evidence was found to establish a crime leaves the question of Trump’s own guilt unanswered, since Trump himself refused to be interviewed and refrained from answering any written questions that might implicate himself in any way.
@Nathan Blue, #11:
That’s hardly true when DoJ policy renders a sitting president totally immune from prosecution for breaking any federal law. NOTHING WHATSOEVER can be presumed, other than that such a person is presently beyond the law’s reach.
@Greg: Mueller said they could not establish a crime had been committed, so he did not charge. He also clearly stated to Collins that Trump did not “curtail, stop or hinder” the investigation. In other words, NO OBSTRUCTION (unless you want to accuse the honorable, courageous, honest Mueller of lying).
No collusion. No obstruction. No crime to be found.
Well, one can hardly be exonerated when there never was any crime, can one? And Mueller clearly stated they found no crime.
He DID answer written questions. Based on the slimy tactics used against others who did not have sufficient memory to recite precisely verbatim the transcripts the FBI had in hand, Trump was absolutely justified in answering as he did.
No collusion. No obstruction. No crime to be found.
But that does not stop Mueller from SAYING a crime was committed, does it? And he says he could find none.
No collusion. No obstruction. No crime to be found.
You can keep on saying that until the cows come home, and almost certainly will, but it’s b.s., as anyone who looks closely at the relevant statements in each part of the report itself will quickly realize. Nor did Robert Mueller say anything in his oral testimony that contradicts this. He emphasized again and again that everything is as stated in the written report itself. That report was written under his direction by a team of professional investigators who dotted every I and crossed every T to get it right.
Lieu’s summary of one of those relevant points is entirely accurate. Not only did Trump issue orders that demonstrate efforts at obstruction of justice; he also ordered his subordinate to create a false paper trail to conceal that effort.
The guy is a crook.
@Greg:
So you are saying Mueller is spreading BS? MUELLER? HONORABLE Mueller? HONEST Mueller?
He said he could not verify a crime had been committed. Two years and $35 million dollars, and no crime could be found. Then he TESTIFIED under oath that the investigation had not been “curtailed, stopped or hindered” by Trump. Grasp at as many straws as you want, but collusion, obstruction and any other crime you can imagine has been killed. The most rabid, Trump-hating, Hillary-supporting Democrats Mueller had access to could not, in two years, find anything Trump did wrong.
Poof. Gone. Just like that.
@Nathan Blue: Stated before and continue to agree DT 3-2 favorite to be re-eleced–at this juncture.
However . with 7 debates and many primaries ahead, a DT win is by no means assured.
Trump is PERSONALLY unpopular with a majority of the electorate—Dems must field the right candidate–I can’t tell you who that will be—or if that person exists—Biden has done nothing—so far.
Tulsi had little opportunity but she did smash Harris–key for her and others is get to 3rd debate in Sept—more on this race as it develops—I think Warren the current front runner—Biden and Harris follow—Booker the current dark horse Tulsi looked like the young Army Major—poised, tough and likeable
Re Russian probe—can we agree Russians interfered at some level? DT has not even admitted this sure thing.
We can agree there was no provable collusion.
Obstruction—IMO absolutely clear that Trump team tried to impede Mueller investigation—and why not– he believed it a witch hunt.
@Richard Wheeler:
So when Collins asked Mueller if Trump had “curtain, stop or hinder” (obstructed) Mr. Mueller’s investigation in any way, and Mueller responded “No” was Mueller lying?
If you think Mueller was lying, should Mueller be prosecuted for false testimony?
@Richard Wheeler:
At some level. Can we agree Obama LET it happen?
As we saw with the collapse of collusion, his IC has lied to him and about him since he became a candidate. There are also SERIOUS doubts the DNC was hacked; most likely, NOT.
But, wasn’t that racist? Democrats say it is RACIST to criticize the policies of a “woman of color”. Why are you supporting an avowed RACIST?
@retire05, #21:
Curtained would be different question. Barr curtained the report for two weeks after he misrepresented its actual conclusions. Presently, over 10 percent of the report remains hidden from public view.
Whether there were documented efforts that could represent obstruction of justice is also a different question. Collins certainly wouldn’t have wanted to ask that one directly. He had confused Mueller with his bullshit to the point where he might have received a direct, one word answer.
Mueller lied about absolutely nothing.
@Deplorable Me: Read Definition of racist provided by Nathan Blue—Her comment was certainly not racist and we all know it
You also should ck the definition of avowed before you use it again
If Mueller ever said ” I believe DT and his team did not obstruct my investigation.’ then there is a problem because his report pointed out 10 examples of obstruction.
@Rich Wheeler: Sorry, but by the Democrat rule book, she absolutely IS racist. Now, how are you going to support a racist?
@Greg: From Mueller’s own mouth, no collusion, no obstruction, NO CRIME. Clean as a whistle. You cling to your false accusations because it’s all you have. Desperate; like Michael Moore. That fat idiot is so desperate that he thinks only Michelle can save the party. Does Michelle know how to govern? Does Michelle know how to legislate? Does Michelle know how to manage or organize? No, she doesn’t. She’s just popular. You believe only a gimmick can save your party, no matter if that gimmick can run the country or not. Same as when Obama was President; very popular, utter failure.
@Deplorable Me: Both your comments in #25 are bullshit
Did you ck out definition of avowed or racist? I’ll go with Webster.on this.
Did you know Michel Moore picked Trump to win in 2016? How dumb can he be?
@Richard Wheeler:
By the rules of your Party, any criticism against a person of color is racist.
You don’t get to apply the rules to conservatives and not apply them to liberals. One rule for all.
@Rich Wheeler:
When asked if there way any interference in his investigation by Trump, Mueller said “NO”
How much clearer do you need it said or do you want “NO” to be wordsmithed to death by Mueller?
I don’t have time for games
Mueller report no collusion-definitely obstruction
No rule in Dem Party declares “any criticism of a person of color is racist”
RJW SALTY VET
TULSI 2020
@Richard Wheeler:
Here we go again, same old shit again. Just like we used to sing in BCT. Here is the Mueller report, again. Point out the exact page and paragraph number where Mueller (or whoever wrote this) said “PT committed obstruction of justice.” The last time you failed to do so. In America, unlike left wing paradises like Cuba, Venezuela, the former USSR etc., the burden of proof is on the accuser- that’s you.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport
@Deplorable Me, #25:
Robert Mueller never made such a statement. Find me a direct quote from anywhere in the report or anywhere in his testimony transcript that adds up to all of that. You won’t be able to, because there is none.
That’s Donald Trump’s endlessly repeated claim, not Mueller’s statement.
@retire05:
It doesn’t work that way. Trump(R) criticizes a “person of color” it’s racism. Tulsi(D) accuses a “person pf color”, it’s not racism. Trump(R) and Cheney(R) received deferments during VN, they are frauds and “chickenhawks”. Clinton(D), Biden(D), Durbin(D), Reid(D), and Schumer(D) received deferments during VN, no biggie.
@another vet: I’ll go with my fellow VN VET in #31—
Be honest AV—Do YOU think DT and Barr tried to obstruct Mueller’s investigation Wouldn’t you if you thought it phony?
I know damn well I would. LOL
ol bone spurs got a phony med out of VN service–are you good with that? DT not a chickenhawk like Cheney–he’s just a chicken
Dep Trump “clean as a whistle.” who really believes that? c’mon–I’ll bet not even his kids 3 wives and myriad of mistresses believe that one.
@Richard Wheeler:
Nope. Mueller himself even said no one interfered. Did he perjure himself? Publicly defending yourself from lies that are told about you is not obstruction of justice. People do it all the time.
As for your “fellow VN Vet” in #31, I have stated on this web site numerous times how I feel about him. I stopped reading his unhinged Marxist B.S. a long time ago. All I can say is that he once told me he was in communications and never left the wire. He told someone else he was sent there to kill people. One of those two statements is a lie. Perhaps that is but one reason people aren’t sure about his claims. Perhaps he’s related to J.D. Hoffman who used to post here and couldn’t keep his stories straight either.
And the others I mentioned? Clinton sent me to Bosnia and Kosovo, both hostile fire zones. Something he wouldn’t do. Does that mean he was a chickenhawk?
@Richard Wheeler:
Give your “Trump’s a draft dodger” crap a rest. No one was a bigger draft dodger than Bill Clinton and you voted for him, TWICE. So your newly found sensitivity to those who (you think) were draft dodgers is absolutely laughable.
Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?
BTW, I can’t believe that you are taking loony Greggie Goebbel’s word for being a vet, and a VN vet, at that. The guy will say any thing and is certifiably nuts.
@another vet, #34:
I suppose that would would be an example of the same sort of “logic” that brought you to the unimpeachable conclusion that Robert Mueller is a liar and part of a shameful anti-American conspiracy, while Donald Trump is an honorable man, a genuine patriot, and a teller of the truth.
The tragedy of the Vietnam years…
@Richard Wheeler:
Bet you could say the same about Jim Webb.
@Rich Wheeler: / A bit bitter and emotionally blocked from accepting reality are we? Progressives succeed mightily at but one thing: Hurling “flaming turd-bombs.” It is IMMANENTLY satisfying, not to mention amusing, to we who actually function at the adult level of cognition and communication. If this is the best you can muster repeat out loud: “TRUMP/PENCE 2020.” ELK (USNA ’68)
@Richard Wheeler:
I am going by YOUR definition. The definition YOU and YOUR PARTY use. So, are those who believe (like you do, especially when it comes to Trump or any other Republican) that merely criticizing someone’s policies is RACIST if the person being criticized is “of color” are wrong or do you support the RACIST Gabbard? Your choice to make.
So dumb as to defy measurement.
Well, there’s a problem, and that problem is you have to rely on one of those socialist, lying, anti-American roaches to defeat Trump in an election. Better start getting your buses full of illegal immigrants ready.
Mueller himself said he found no crime (which would, of course, include obstruction) then specifically stated, clearly and under oath, that Trump did not obstruct (stop, curtail or hinder) the investigation. So, definitely NOT obstruction.
The most certainly is, and I provided the proof. So, Gabbard is a racist because she criticized (harshly, I might add) Kamala. YOUR party, YOUR rule. LIVE with it or DENOUNCE it.
Well, after being investigated, including illegal surveillance and spying, NO CRIME CAN BE FOUND. I doubt either of us could come out so clean. NO crimes. That would include obstruction. So, that’s the way it is, as Cronkite used to sign off, buckaroo.
@another vet:
It’s called hypocrisy on a galactic scale and the Democrats excel at it.
@Greg:
Oh, but he has and the quotes have been provided numerous times. I suggest you read the article and my comments again. Now, YOU find me a direct quote that says, definitively, he DID. You hang all your hopes and dreams on the report contorting itself to evade and avoid (like you do a question) admitting they could find no criminal activity by Trump. NONE.
@Deplorable Me: Sl—ow down Dep—-You got Tourettes ? Banging away without thought. Very tiring. You’re like these kids with their phones attached to their arms—-you oughta take a two day break—bet you couldn’t give up your ranting here for ONE full day.
I never said merely criticizing someone’s policies is racist–it’s not .Have you actually read the definition of racism–doesn’t seem like it.
Where’s Red Team?
@elkusna’68: Welcome aboard—Did you know Jim Webb at Annapolis?–Believe he would have clobbered ol bone spurs.
Middies my second favorite team–Go Irish.
Re Pence—thought DT would be wise to replace him with Haley–though she slammed him today.
Nikki vs Tulsi very possible in 2024 or 2028–love to see it.
Why are so many Repub reps stepping down from Congress—including their female recruiter?
Salty Vet
@Richard Wheeler:
If you are calling Trump racist for criticizing Cummings, Tlaib, AOC and Omar you are. So, not only do you denounce what a third of Democrats say but you also denounce the assertion that Trump’s remarks about Cumming’s failure as a representative of Baltimore is NOT racist? Just trying to clarify since the things you Democrats declare are ALL OVER THE SPECTRUM and you rarely submit answers to questions on your positions.
So, to summarize, you disagree that what Trump said about “the squad”, Cummings and Baltimore is racist because you disagree with the 32% of Democrats that believe merely criticizing the policies and positions of “someone of color” is racist. Would that be correct? (no answer will be considered as agreement).
@Deplorable Me: I’ve said before—I don’t know what’s inside DT’S mind and heart.
But he sure walks and quacks like a duck.
Salty Vet
@Richard Wheeler:
You don’t have to know what is “inside his heart”. The QUESTION is, is racism inside his statement? If the definition of racism is the Webster definition you keep referring to, where is it in Trump’s statement?
Seems Lefties have some skewed ideas about how a person becomes “racist.”
On CNN just using the words “infested with rats” is racist.
???
CNN’s Victor Blackwell lashed out at Trump for suggesting Baltimore was “infested” with rats, claiming the infestation language from Trump was some racist code for black and brown people.
Odd.
The Leftist PBS special on Baltimore’s rat infestation problem didn’t elicit the charge of racism from Leftist commentators.
In olden days you used to have to actually DO something to be racist.
Like wear a white hood, turn away black customers with a club, burn a cross into someone’s yard.
But now it’s just being for, tax cuts, for example.
Former U.S. House of Representatives member Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., denouncing the Republicans’ tax cuts plan before a Manhattan audience as a form of modern-day racism.
Or it is because of saying something that suddenly and recently got redefined as a microaggressive phrase, like: “There is only one race, the human race.”
Then there’s enforcing the law.
Yes, that makes you a “racist.”
See, illegals cross into the USA and get separated from their children temporarily just like drunk drivers do.
Racist.
But how else can we save those children sold or rented to criminal men who think a child with them will guarantee entrance into the USA?
By redefining how a person becomes a racist, Dems can be safe from the charge while others MUST be racists by their very existence.
@Nan G: Well written with some good points
Dep—I’ll side with the 67% of Dems and give him the benefit of the doubt on that specific statement
How bout providing Greg’s request issued again in #49—
How bout Agee’s KISS statement below
Radcliff didn’t last long—what was wrong with Coates?
Trump is number one with racists. Now why do you suppose that is?
@Deplorable Me, #40:
Such direct quotes of Robert Mueller HAVE NOT been provided, because Robert Mueller never made any such statements, either in the official report or in his oral testimony. You will not be able to provide the direct quotes or any links to original source documents or video clips containing them, because there are none to be found.
Please feel free to demonstrate that this observation is incorrect by posting such evidence.
This distortion began with William Barr’s deliberate misrepresentation of the Mueller investigative team’s conclusions, followed by the two weeks he gave Trump and his media tools to hammer the distortion home before the report was made available for anyone else to see.
That worked quite well on Trump’s target audience. For everyone else it served as evidence that Trump finally got the sort of tool he wanted placed at the head of the DoJ.
@Mitch Agee:
Really? When did Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan come out for Trump?