info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
(OT) Mueller transcript
30 views
Skip to first unread message
Pelle Svanslös
May 29, 2019, 3:59:10 PM5/29/19
to
Q: A Witch Hunt or not a Witch Hunt?
"Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is
interference in the 2016 presidential election.
As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence
officers who are part of the Russian military, launched a concerted
attack on our political system. They stole private information and then
released that information through fake online identities and through the
organization WikiLeaks.
The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and
to damage a presidential candidate.
The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe,
efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be
investigated and understood. And that is among the reasons why the
Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we
investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation."
A: Not a Witch Hunt.
Q: Why no charges against El D?
"The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate
actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that
investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general
apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report,
after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president
clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not,
however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a
crime.
The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision.
It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president
cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is
unconstitutional. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not
an option we could consider."
A: Because of a DoJ policy. Nothing else.
Q: So, what then?
"And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process
other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting
president of wrongdoing."
A: The process "other than criminal justice" is of course impeachment.
The report is a blueprint of that.
Q: Why say "Trump is not not guilty"?
"And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness.
It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially
accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the
actual charge."
A: The "unfairness" is due to the aforementioned DoJ policy again. Not
because going beyond "not not guilty" (of obstruction) would have been
unfounded. The most important point Mueller makes and what he leaves unsaid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html
This completes what the report says: "If we had found Trump not guilty
of obstruction, we would have said that".
Mueller thinks the obstruction charges are grounded and points towards
impeachment.
--
“I know how to play it and we will get this done. Buddy our boy can
become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of
Putin’s team to buy in on this”.
-- Felix Sater
"Let me begin where the appointment order begins, and that is
interference in the 2016 presidential election.
As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence
officers who are part of the Russian military, launched a concerted
attack on our political system. They stole private information and then
released that information through fake online identities and through the
organization WikiLeaks.
The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and
to damage a presidential candidate.
The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe,
efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be
investigated and understood. And that is among the reasons why the
Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we
investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation."
A: Not a Witch Hunt.
Q: Why no charges against El D?
"The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate
actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that
investigation, and we kept the office of the acting attorney general
apprised of the progress of our work. And as set forth in the report,
after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president
clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not,
however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a
crime.
The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision.
It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president
cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is
unconstitutional. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not
an option we could consider."
A: Because of a DoJ policy. Nothing else.
Q: So, what then?
"And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process
other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting
president of wrongdoing."
A: The process "other than criminal justice" is of course impeachment.
The report is a blueprint of that.
Q: Why say "Trump is not not guilty"?
"And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness.
It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially
accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the
actual charge."
A: The "unfairness" is due to the aforementioned DoJ policy again. Not
because going beyond "not not guilty" (of obstruction) would have been
unfounded. The most important point Mueller makes and what he leaves unsaid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html
This completes what the report says: "If we had found Trump not guilty
of obstruction, we would have said that".
Mueller thinks the obstruction charges are grounded and points towards
impeachment.
--
“I know how to play it and we will get this done. Buddy our boy can
become President of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of
Putin’s team to buy in on this”.
-- Felix Sater
Pelle Svanslös
May 29, 2019, 4:03:21 PM5/29/19
to
soccerfan777
May 29, 2019, 4:05:01 PM5/29/19
to
Pelle Svanslös
May 29, 2019, 4:10:58 PM5/29/19
to
could not have been indicted, accusing him would have been "unfair".
Mueller could not have been clearer than that. Impeachment should follow.
soccerfan777
May 29, 2019, 4:12:27 PM5/29/19
to
Pelle Svanslös
May 29, 2019, 4:16:58 PM5/29/19
to
just roll over when justice is obstructed in broad daylight.
Trump is, besides being an allround doofus, a menace to the checks and
balances.
Calimero
May 29, 2019, 4:18:37 PM5/29/19
to
Max
—
„For all its flaws, the Communist revolution taught Chinese women to dream big.“ (New York Times, September 25th, 2017)
Calimero
May 29, 2019, 4:19:43 PM5/29/19
to
Max
—
“Democrats fear Barr, you can smell it.“
(Washington Post, May 2nd, 2019)
Calimero
May 29, 2019, 4:21:59 PM5/29/19
to
"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."
Did you resolve those difficult issues, Schwanzlos?
Pelle Svanslös
May 29, 2019, 4:24:24 PM5/29/19
to
soccerfan777
May 29, 2019, 4:28:17 PM5/29/19
to
Calimero
May 29, 2019, 4:54:03 PM5/29/19
to
But when I realized how the Obama administration and his DOJ/FBI/CIA goons tried to thwart the voters' will with a unprecedented coup I changed sides.
What those traitors did is an attack on democracy and the rule of law. It is treason. Democracy dies in darkness.
soccerfan777
May 29, 2019, 5:10:23 PM5/29/19
to
Calimero
May 29, 2019, 5:25:54 PM5/29/19
to
The Iceberg
May 29, 2019, 8:01:58 PM5/29/19
to
Pelle just wants to waste even more tax payers money on this utter nonsense, quit doing that. Pelle and Raja you have utterly utterly LOST, get over it.
bob
May 30, 2019, 2:46:30 PM5/30/19
to
down willingly." and surely, they haven't. but they ARE going down.
drop by drop. at this point, as i said ad nauseum, it's the people vs
the swamp. gloves are off.
bob
Pelle Svanslös
May 30, 2019, 3:32:34 PM5/30/19
to
On 30/05/2019 21.46, bob wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 13:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Calimero
>>
> On Wed, 29 May 2019 13:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Calimero
>>
>> You may well remember how I criticized and attacked the orange clown during the 2016 campaign.
>> But when I realized how the Obama administration and his DOJ/FBI/CIA goons tried to thwart the voters' will with a unprecedented coup I changed sides.
>> What those traitors did is an attack on democracy and the rule of law. It is treason. Democracy dies in darkness.
>
> in a simple phrase that i used dozens of times: "the swamp will not go
> down willingly." and surely, they haven't. but they ARE going down.
> drop by drop. at this point, as i said ad nauseum, it's the people vs
> the swamp. gloves are off.
>
Goons ... coup ... traitors ... attack on democracy ... democracy dies
>> But when I realized how the Obama administration and his DOJ/FBI/CIA goons tried to thwart the voters' will with a unprecedented coup I changed sides.
>> What those traitors did is an attack on democracy and the rule of law. It is treason. Democracy dies in darkness.
>
> in a simple phrase that i used dozens of times: "the swamp will not go
> down willingly." and surely, they haven't. but they ARE going down.
> drop by drop. at this point, as i said ad nauseum, it's the people vs
> the swamp. gloves are off.
>
in darkness ... swamp ... will.go.down ... people v. the swamp ...
gloves are off ...
HA HA HA HA HA HA.
OMG.
The Iceberg
May 30, 2019, 7:07:59 PM5/30/19
to
On Thursday, 30 May 2019 20:32:34 UTC+1, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 30/05/2019 21.46, bob wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 May 2019 13:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Calimero
> >>
> >> You may well remember how I criticized and attacked the orange clown during the 2016 campaign.
> >> But when I realized how the Obama administration and his DOJ/FBI/CIA goons tried to thwart the voters' will with a unprecedented coup I changed sides.
> >> What those traitors did is an attack on democracy and the rule of law. It is treason. Democracy dies in darkness.
> >
> > in a simple phrase that i used dozens of times: "the swamp will not go
> > down willingly." and surely, they haven't. but they ARE going down.
> > drop by drop. at this point, as i said ad nauseum, it's the people vs
> > the swamp. gloves are off.
> >
>
> Goons ... coup ... traitors ... attack on democracy ... democracy dies
> in darkness ... swamp ... will.go.down ... people v. the swamp ...
> gloves are off ...
>
> HA HA HA HA HA HA.
>
> OMG.
he going to nuke the world, Hillary was robbed by white supremacists, only white people voted for him, NK won't listen, China are better than the USA, Kavanaugh is guilty, Trump Russia possible collusion, Mueller was obstructed LOL
> On 30/05/2019 21.46, bob wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 May 2019 13:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Calimero
> >>
> >> You may well remember how I criticized and attacked the orange clown during the 2016 campaign.
> >> But when I realized how the Obama administration and his DOJ/FBI/CIA goons tried to thwart the voters' will with a unprecedented coup I changed sides.
> >> What those traitors did is an attack on democracy and the rule of law. It is treason. Democracy dies in darkness.
> >
> > in a simple phrase that i used dozens of times: "the swamp will not go
> > down willingly." and surely, they haven't. but they ARE going down.
> > drop by drop. at this point, as i said ad nauseum, it's the people vs
> > the swamp. gloves are off.
> >
>
> Goons ... coup ... traitors ... attack on democracy ... democracy dies
> in darkness ... swamp ... will.go.down ... people v. the swamp ...
> gloves are off ...
>
> HA HA HA HA HA HA.
>
> OMG.
bob
May 31, 2019, 12:21:50 PM5/31/19
to
On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:32:32 +0300, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los>
wrote:
>On 30/05/2019 21.46, bob wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 May 2019 13:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Calimero
>>>
>>> You may well remember how I criticized and attacked the orange clown during the 2016 campaign.
>>> But when I realized how the Obama administration and his DOJ/FBI/CIA goons tried to thwart the voters' will with a unprecedented coup I changed sides.
>>> What those traitors did is an attack on democracy and the rule of law. It is treason. Democracy dies in darkness.
>>
>> in a simple phrase that i used dozens of times: "the swamp will not go
>> down willingly." and surely, they haven't. but they ARE going down.
>> drop by drop. at this point, as i said ad nauseum, it's the people vs
>> the swamp. gloves are off.
>>
>
>Goons ... coup ... traitors ... attack on democracy ... democracy dies
>in darkness ... swamp ... will.go.down ... people v. the swamp ...
>gloves are off ...
>HA HA HA HA HA HA.
>OMG.
why OMG? it's a pretty simple siutation.
how are things in the baltic sea going - can you see any russian ships
3mi off of stockholm?
bob
wrote:
>On 30/05/2019 21.46, bob wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 May 2019 13:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Calimero
>>>
>>> You may well remember how I criticized and attacked the orange clown during the 2016 campaign.
>>> But when I realized how the Obama administration and his DOJ/FBI/CIA goons tried to thwart the voters' will with a unprecedented coup I changed sides.
>>> What those traitors did is an attack on democracy and the rule of law. It is treason. Democracy dies in darkness.
>>
>> in a simple phrase that i used dozens of times: "the swamp will not go
>> down willingly." and surely, they haven't. but they ARE going down.
>> drop by drop. at this point, as i said ad nauseum, it's the people vs
>> the swamp. gloves are off.
>>
>
>Goons ... coup ... traitors ... attack on democracy ... democracy dies
>in darkness ... swamp ... will.go.down ... people v. the swamp ...
>gloves are off ...
>HA HA HA HA HA HA.
>OMG.
how are things in the baltic sea going - can you see any russian ships
3mi off of stockholm?
bob
TT
Jun 3, 2019, 1:25:46 AM6/3/19
to
Mueller was a softcock.
Mueller is playing with different rules than Trump & republicans.
Gentleman rules vs Mob rules. That doesn't work.
TT
Jun 3, 2019, 1:41:45 AM6/3/19
to
Calimero kirjoitti 29.5.2019 klo 23:21:
> "The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."
>
> Did you resolve those difficult issues, Schwanzlos?
"traditional prosecutorial judgement" = Making a judgement whether the
> "The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."
>
> Did you resolve those difficult issues, Schwanzlos?
president is guilty or not and charging accordingly.
"The evidence presents difficult issues" = Mueller is telling that
evidence points to the conclusion that Trump is guilty.
"Difficult issues" = The president can't defend himself in court
...So Mueller is saying that he can not say whether Trump is guilty or
not because Trump can't be charged and thus can't defend himself in court.
Pelle Svanslös
Jun 3, 2019, 2:01:00 AM6/3/19
to
obstructed".
Calimero
Jun 3, 2019, 2:55:31 AM6/3/19
to
He didn‘t (because no evidence for that) but instead smeared Trump with this „not exonerate“ thingy. As if the DOJ were in the exoneration business!
Typical Marxist/Demmie legal principles. We saw the same during the Kavanaugh hearings.
Mueller knows why he won’t testify. GOP congressmen would shred him to pieces, this tool of 18 angry DemocRats!
Max
TT
Jun 3, 2019, 3:03:09 AM6/3/19
to
> He didn‘t (because no evidence for that)
> but instead smeared Trump with this „not exonerate“ thingy.
have said so.
*skriptis
Jun 3, 2019, 4:34:05 AM6/3/19
to
TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:
Hahaha
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
The Iceberg
Jun 3, 2019, 4:49:23 AM6/3/19
to
0 new messages