Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of Something

[Ubiquitous]

Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of Something

Are all Trump supporters working with the Kremlin against Mueller and the
justice system? Are they all criminals?


Trump Uses Social Media to Announce Attack on Syria, Confess to
Obstruction of Justice
By
Jonathan Chait



The president. Photo: Alexander Shcherbak/TASS
In what is almost certainly a global first for any world leader, early
this morning, President Trump used his Twitter feed to announce he is
launching missile attacks in Syria. So much for the element of surprise:


Donald J. Trump
?
@realDonaldTrump
Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready
Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You
shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and
enjoys it!
6:57 AM - Apr 11, 2018
149K
122K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Ten minutes later, Trump fired off another pair of tweets, in which he
casually confessed to obstruction of justice:


Donald J. Trump
?
@realDonaldTrump
So much Fake News about what is going on in the White House. Very calm
and calculated with a big focus on open and fair trade with China, the
coming North Korea meeting and, of course, the vicious gas attack in
Syria. Feels great to have Bolton & Larry K on board. I (we) are
6:38 AM - Apr 11, 2018
59.3K
24.1K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Donald J. Trump
?
@realDonaldTrump
....doing things that nobody thought possible, despite the never ending
and corrupt Russia Investigation, which takes tremendous time and focus.
No Collusion or Obstruction (other than I fight back), so now they do the
Unthinkable, and RAID a lawyers office for information! BAD!
6:47 AM - Apr 11, 2018
64.7K
35.2K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
The key phrase here is “No Collusion or Obstruction (other than I fight
back).” When you say “other than,” you are conceding it fits into the
larger category, while identifying it as an exception: I didn’t eat the
cookies you left out, other than the one that already had a bite out of
it. In this case, however, “fight back” is an exception large enough to
encompass all Trump’s efforts to impede the investigation into Russian
interference on behalf of his campaign. Everything from demanding James
Comey let Michael Flynn go free to firing Comey to dangling pardons for
Paul Manafort is fighting back against the investigation. He is rebranding
obstruction of justice as Trump fighting back. Of course, Trump already
admitted a year ago, on camera, he fired Comey to stop the Russia
investigation, so it’s hardly a Tom Cruise–Jack Nicholson moment.

The confession came as a kind of side thought to his larger point, which
is that his presidency is “very calm and calculated.” Because obviously.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of Something

What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?

There was never even a crime. At least Hillary had an illegal server
that sparked an investigation, but TRUMP has no crime for Mueller to
investigate. Mueller is looking for a crime so he can then investigate
something. SO far Mueller has investigated everything but collusion with
Russia, he has Money laundering and IRS issues and some lying about
something other than Russia. Now he hot on the trail of someone having
legal sex. If Trump was gay the Democrats would be in real trouble, in
fact TRUMP should TWEET it out that he's gay. All the sex with women
was just experimentation to be sure he was gay, and as the first gay
President he would surely get re-elected in 2020.

Then poor Mueller would just have to go home.


--
That's Karma

Failure is NOT incompetence, incompetence is NOT knowing that you've failed.

[Mitchell Holman]

#BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote in news:5GzzC.10582$Pz2.7569
@fx10.iad:

> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of Something
>
> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?

What was Nixon guilty of when Watergate started?

What was Reagan guilty of when Iran/Contra started?

What was Clinton guilty of when Ken Starr started?

>
> There was never even a crime.

In that case why has Trump hired a team of
CRIMINAL DEFENSE lawyers?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <5GzzC.10582$Pz2....@fx10.iad>,

#BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:

> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> > Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of Something
>
> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?

Nothing. You're presumed innocent until convicted.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 04/11/2018 11:16 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <5GzzC.10582$Pz2....@fx10.iad>,
> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>
>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of Something
>>
>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
>
> Nothing. You're presumed innocent until convicted.
>

OK good we are on the same page, so what crime was there evidence that
TRUMP committed when Mueller started?

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 04/11/2018 11:11 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote in news:5GzzC.10582$Pz2.7569
> @fx10.iad:
>
>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of Something
>>
>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
>
> What was Nixon guilty of when Watergate started?
>
> What was Reagan guilty of when Iran/Contra started?
>
> What was Clinton guilty of when Ken Starr started?

I don't recall that Ken Star even had any evidence of a crime.... but
then I don't think Clinton needed to be impeached. He's a slim-ball but
what Democrat isn't? Clinton should have resigned.


Nixon was caught by the Watergate burglary which *was a crime* that led
to NIXON and then NIXON erased 8 or 12 minutes of the tape that recorded
his conversations and that nailed the lid on the coffin..... Nixon was
the one that needed to be impeached.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <65BzC.26857$FZ2....@fx33.iad>,

#BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:

> On 04/11/2018 11:16 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > In article <5GzzC.10582$Pz2....@fx10.iad>,
> > #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> >>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of Something
> >>
> >> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
> >
> > Nothing. You're presumed innocent until convicted.
> >
> OK good we are on the same page, so what crime was there evidence that
> TRUMP committed when Mueller started?

An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's reasonable to believe
a crime could've been committed. The FBI had been investigating odd happennings
that might have been crimes since the year before Mueller. Mueller was appointed
after Drumpf tried to squelch the investigations: it was reasonable for the DoJ
to think that was an obstruction of justice. Presumably Meuller has looked for
evidence of obstruction, but he does not currently have enough evidence for
prosecution. Whether he will is for him and the future to know.

[Ubiquitous]

In article <XnsA8C1E15FCE...@46.165.242.91>,

Uh-oh! Looks like someone is upset about losing a debate with me again!

And you posted this off-topic article here because?

[Tom Sr.]

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 8:06:33 AM UTC-4, Yak wrote:
> Trump would have been far better off had he deleted emails, removed
> sim-cards from phones, bleachbit them and took hammers to all his
> devices. Then, no one would have said a word.


Then you think Trump should have Tampered With Evidence and Obstructed Justice along with I am fairly certain a number of other crimes.

It's good to know, Yakkie, your ethical principles are in a shit hole.

. . .

[Salty Stan]

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 8:34:54 AM UTC-4, Yak wrote:

> I see the meaning of my post went straight over your pointy head. See if you can figure out why.

If you need any hints, Tom, please just ask.

[Mitchell Holman]

#BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote in
news:cfBzC.12496$aX2....@fx23.iad:

> On 04/11/2018 11:11 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote in
>> news:5GzzC.10582$Pz2.7569 @fx10.iad:
>>
>>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of
>>>> Something
>>>
>>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
>>
>> What was Nixon guilty of when Watergate started?
>>
>> What was Reagan guilty of when Iran/Contra started?
>>
>> What was Clinton guilty of when Ken Starr started?
>
> I don't recall that Ken Star even had any evidence of a crime.... but
> then I don't think Clinton needed to be impeached. He's a slim-ball
> but what Democrat isn't? Clinton should have resigned.
>

So you agree criminal evidence has no
bearing on investigating a president.

>>
>> There was never even a crime.
>
> In that case why has Trump hired a team of
> CRIMINAL DEFENSE lawyers?

Well?

[Rudy Canoza]

When you're being investigated by prosecutors, you hire lawyers, whether
or not you're guilty.

[Bret Cahill]

On 4/11/2018 8:16 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <5GzzC.10582$Pz2....@fx10.iad>,
> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>
>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of Something
>>
>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
>
> Nothing. You're presumed innocent until convicted.

Wrong. You may be factually culpable for the crime(s) with which you're
charged.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 4/12/2018 5:27 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>
> On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 8:06:33 AM UTC-4, Yak wrote:
>> Trump would have been far better off had he deleted emails, removed
>> sim-cards from phones, bleachbit them and took hammers to all his
>> devices. Then, no one would have said a word.
>
>
> Then you think Trump should have Tampered With Evidence and Obstructed Justice along with

Every instance of capitalization except for the 'T' in Trump is wrong.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

>> Then you think Trump should have Tampered With Evidence and Obstructed Justice along with

> Every instance of capitalization except for the 'T' in Trump is wrong.

So you saying that instance, the one showing the first word of the
sentence "Then", should NOT have been capitalized?

[max headroom]

In news:65BzC.26857$FZ2....@fx33.iad,
#BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> typed:

> On 04/11/2018 11:16 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article <5GzzC.10582$Pz2....@fx10.iad>,
>> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:

>>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of
>>>> Something

>>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?

>> Nothing. You're presumed innocent until convicted.

> OK good we are on the same page, so what crime was there evidence that
> TRUMP committed when Mueller started?

He obstructed the rightful coronation of Mrs BJ and led to the downfall of the Clinton Cartel
Foundation.

[OrigInfoJunkie]

Let me "jump in" before you get your panties-in-a-wad:

(Re-typed)
So you're saying that instance, the one showing the first word

of the sentence "Then", should NOT have been capitalized?

NOW you can answer my question as asked without trying to use
my typographical errors as your distractive excuse (if you respond).

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's reasonable to believe
> a crime could've been committed.

You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think there
was a crime.... that violates the RIGHT to privacy and is called
something like profiling or abuse of power....

Id Mueller abusing the Special Council's office and abusing the power by
chasing a NON crime and targeting a political enemy? Comey seems to have
been as were the FBI Agents that Mueller dismissed to get them out of
the spotlight... was that so Mueller could hide it and keep undermining
TRUMP?

This is looking like a pretty clear case of abuse of power and we see it
by Mueller targeting TRUMP and he has no evidence or testimony that
TRUMP violated any law.

It's NOT illegal to be near a bank when it's robbed..... and you won't
catch the bank robbers by getting a warrant to search the houses of the
people near the bank when it was robbed and it's NOT legal to violate
those person's rights just to narrow the suspect pool to the other 6
Billion people on the planet.

So far Mueller has yet to find any crime related to "Russian Collusion"
so he's stumbling around in the dark trying to grab his own ass with
both hands and he can't seem to do it.

This is McCarthyism at it's most pure state.... Mueller might as well be
chasing Communists in the 1950's

[Harlan Banks]

On 4/12/2018 8:24 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:

> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's reasonable to believe
>> a crime could've been committed.
>
> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think there
> was a crime....

No one has done that.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <zHJzC.15760$ez2....@fx36.iad>, Bret Cahill <bretcahill@aöl.con>
wrote:

But you don't have to be proven guilty before being investigated.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 04/12/2018 12:03 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <zHJzC.15760$ez2....@fx36.iad>, Bret Cahill <bretcahill@aöl.con>

> wrote:
>
>> On 4/11/2018 8:16 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <5GzzC.10582$Pz2....@fx10.iad>,
>>> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of Something
>>>>
>>>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
>>>
>>> Nothing. You're presumed innocent until convicted.
>>
>> Wrong. You may be factually culpable for the crime(s) with which you're
>> charged.
>
> But you don't have to be proven guilty before being investigated.
>

When do they find you FACTUALLY CULPABLE of a crime and what is the
sentence for being FACTUALLY CULPABLE? Is it the same sentence when
you're being found guilty?

No you don't have to be found guilty before you're investigated, but how
do you investigate with no evidence? Do you investigate all non crimes
like they are a crime or just the non crimes with no evidence where the
person you investigate is someone you don't like?

You see where investigating a non crime is abuse of power because you
didn't apply that equally to all "NON crimes" and we all know how
Democrats like to harp about equal and fair.


--
That's Karma


*Rumination*
62 - Government stealing from the people is the ultimate crime.

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 02:09:43 +0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns
Ubiquitous <weber...@polaris.net> wrote:

>Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of Something

"If he *weren't*..." subjunctive!!! Expresses doubt or possibility.

I don't buy it.

Jones

--
Quod si verum est, non dicere.

[max headroom]

In news:qbLzC.55205$Kz2....@fx35.iad,
Harlan Banks <a.terr...@dummies.con> typed:

Tell Michael Cohen that, Rudy.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <gTKzC.15764$ez2....@fx36.iad>,

#BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:

> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's reasonable to
> > believe
> > a crime could've been committed.
>
> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think there
> was a crime.... that violates the RIGHT to privacy and is called
> something like profiling or abuse of power....

That's why subpeonas and seach warrants are issued by a judge who has to be
convinced there is a reasonable suspicion. Mueller cannot force anyone to talk
to investigators nor enter private property, search, or seize without a judge's
permission.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <pao1o2$ltg$2...@dont-email.me>,

Tell that to the judge who allowed the searches.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

There was that!




--
That's Karma

[Bret Cahill]

On 4/12/2018 9:03 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <zHJzC.15760$ez2....@fx36.iad>, Bret Cahill <bretcahill@aöl.con>

> wrote:
>
>> On 4/11/2018 8:16 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <5GzzC.10582$Pz2....@fx10.iad>,
>>> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of Something
>>>>
>>>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
>>>
>>> Nothing. You're presumed innocent until convicted.
>>
>> Wrong. You may be factually culpable for the crime(s) with which you're
>> charged.
>
> But you don't have to be proven guilty before being investigated.

No one said that was necessary.

[Tristan Mauger]

On 4/12/2018 8:24 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:

> [snip bullshit]

Your subject line is a stupid lie that only a brain-damaged fucktard
could believe.

[max headroom]

In news:chine.bleu-FA94C...@reader.eternal-september.org,
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> typed:

> In article <pao1o2$ltg$2...@dont-email.me>, "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> In news:qbLzC.55205$Kz2....@fx35.iad, Harlan Banks <a.terr...@dummies.con> typed:
>>> On 4/12/2018 8:24 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:
>>>> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:

>>>>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's
>>>>> reasonable to believe a crime could've been committed.

>>>> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think
>>>> there was a crime....

>>> No one has done that.

>> Tell Michael Cohen that, Rudy.

> Tell that to the judge who allowed the searches.

You think it's turned the judge's life inside-out?

[Harlan Banks]

On 4/12/2018 9:30 AM, maxipad oozed:

No one has violated attorney-client privilege, maxipad. First, there is
a "dirty" team that is screening out all material that is covered by
attorney-client privilege. The "clean" team that will look into Trump's
and Cohen's criminal activities won't see it.

Secondly, attorney-client privilege does not cover the concerted efforts
of the client and the attorney to commit crimes.

[Don Shepler]

On 4/11/2018 9:17 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:

> On 04/11/2018 11:16 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article <5GzzC.10582$Pz2....@fx10.iad>,
>> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of Something
>>>
>>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
>>
>> Nothing. You're presumed innocent until convicted.
>>

> OK good we are on the same page, so what crime was there evidence that
> TRUMP committed when Mueller started?

Collusion with Russia to queer the election, of course.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 4/12/2018 6:17 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote in
> news:cfBzC.12496$aX2....@fx23.iad:
>
>> On 04/11/2018 11:11 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote in
>>> news:5GzzC.10582$Pz2.7569 @fx10.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of
>>>>> Something
>>>>
>>>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
>>>
>>> What was Nixon guilty of when Watergate started?
>>>
>>> What was Reagan guilty of when Iran/Contra started?
>>>
>>> What was Clinton guilty of when Ken Starr started?
>>
>> I don't recall that Ken Star even had any evidence of a crime.... but
>> then I don't think Clinton needed to be impeached. He's a slim-ball
>> but what Democrat isn't? Clinton should have resigned.
>>
>
> So you agree criminal evidence has no
> bearing on investigating a president.
>
>
>
>>>
>>> There was never even a crime.
>>
>> In that case why has Trump hired a team of
>> CRIMINAL DEFENSE lawyers?
>
>
> Well?

When you're being investigated by prosecutors, you hire lawyers, whether

or not you're guilty. Everyone knows that, Bitch Holeman.

[Mitchell Holman]

Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
news:7GJzC.15759$ez2....@fx36.iad:

Mueller's office said that Trump is NOT
a target of criminal investigation.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/04/mueller-reportedly-says-
trump-is-not-considered-criminal-target-in-russia-inquiry


http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/381593-when-will-the-media-accept-
that-trump-is-not-a-criminal-target

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 04/12/2018 01:06 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <gTKzC.15764$ez2....@fx36.iad>,
> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>
>> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's reasonable to
>>> believe
>>> a crime could've been committed.
>> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think there
>> was a crime.... that violates the RIGHT to privacy and is called
>> something like profiling or abuse of power....
> That's why subpeonas and seach warrants are issued by a judge who has to be
> convinced there is a reasonable suspicion.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, *but upon probable cause* ,
*supported by Oath or affirmation* , *and particularly describing* the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Yes they got a warrant but I wander what *Probable Cause* they used,
given the FISA warrant where the FBI lied in the face of God and the judge?

If I can't lie to the FBI, why can the FBI lie to a Judge? Isn't someone
supposed to get put in jail for lying? Well, maybe they told the truth
this time, we can only hope.

[Don Shepler]

On 4/12/2018 11:02 AM, Yak wrote:

> Collusion isn't a crime in this type of case.

You're incompetent to say. It depends on what was done and Trump's
degree of complicity in it. By "Trump's degree of complicity", I mean
his entire campaign organization.

That's how the investigation began. *Now*, it has expanded to cover
Trump's - and others' - obstruction of justice. That includes the
firing of James Comey with "the 'Russia thing'" on Trump's mind (corrupt
intent), his dictating of the phony alibi for Fredo Trump's collusive
meeting with the Russians, and his multiple attempts to fire the special
counsel.

[max headroom]

In news:q4NzC.15772$ez2....@fx36.iad,
Rudy Canoza <a.terr...@dummies.con> typed:

> On 4/12/2018 9:30 AM, maxipad oozed:
>> In news:qbLzC.55205$Kz2....@fx35.iad,

>>Rudy Canoza <a.terr...@dummies.con> typed:

>>> On 4/12/2018 8:24 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:
>>>> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:

>>>>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's
>>>>> reasonable to believe a crime could've been committed.

>>>> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think
>>>> there was a crime....

>>> No one has done that.

>> Tell Michael Cohen that, Rudy.

> No one has violated attorney-client privilege, maxipad....

How old are you again, Rudy? Eleven, twelve?

Michael Cohen's life has been turned inside-out. You agree.

[max headroom]

In news:N1NzC.15771$ez2....@fx36.iad,
Rudy Canoza <t...@tfaft.con> typed:

> On 4/12/2018 8:24 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:
>> [snip bullshit]

> Your subject line is a stupid lie that only a brain-damaged fucktard could believe.

Your 'nym is a stupid lie that only a brain-damaged fucktard could conceive.

[max headroom]

In news:D5NzC.15773$ez2....@fx36.iad,
Rudy Canoza <wieber.a...@shitbags.united> typed:

C'mon, Rudy, you know collusion isn't a federal crime.

[max headroom]

In news:bYMzC.15769$ez2....@fx36.iad,
Rudy Canoza <bretcahill@aöl.con> typed:

> On 4/12/2018 9:03 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article <zHJzC.15760$ez2....@fx36.iad>, Bret Cahill

>> <bretcahill@aöl.con> wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2018 8:16 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> In article <5GzzC.10582$Pz2....@fx10.iad>,
>>>> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>>>>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:

>>>>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of
>>>>>> Something

>>>>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?

>>>> Nothing. You're presumed innocent until convicted.

>>> Wrong. You may be factually culpable for the crime(s) with which
>>> you're charged.

>> But you don't have to be proven guilty before being investigated.

> No one said that was necessary.

Cap'n Rudy, Master of the Obvious.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 4/12/2018 11:03 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
> news:7GJzC.15759$ez2....@fx36.iad:
>
>> On 4/11/2018 8:11 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote in
>>> news:5GzzC.10582$Pz2.7569 @fx10.iad:
>>>
>>>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of
>>>>> Something
>>>>
>>>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
>>>
>>> What was Nixon guilty of when Watergate started?
>>>
>>> What was Reagan guilty of when Iran/Contra started?
>>>
>>> What was Clinton guilty of when Ken Starr started?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was never even a crime.
>>>
>>> In that case why has Trump hired a team of
>>> CRIMINAL DEFENSE lawyers?
>>
>> When you're being investigated by prosecutors, you hire lawyers,
>> whether or not you're guilty.
>>
>
>
> Mueller's office said that Trump is NOT
> a target of criminal investigation.

He is still a subject of investigation, and Mueller's /apparent/
confirmation to Trump that he is not *now* under criminal investigation
could change. Trump has been under investigation for over a year, and
for almost a year by the special counsel. When one is under
investigation by a prosecutor, Bitch Holeman, one hires lawyers - period.

Fuck, you're stupid.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 04/12/2018 02:02 PM, Yak wrote:
> On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 1:56:52 PM UTC-4, Don Shepler wrote:

> Collusion isn't a crime in this type of case. Try again.
>
And there was no "evidence" which is what is required for probable
cause. That means a cop can't stop you and a Federal prosecutor can't
prosecute or investigate you without it.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Hillary paid Russians to lie.... about Trump.

That's all the actual collusion I see.

[Don Shepler]

On 4/12/2018 12:07 PM, Yak wrote:

> Okay, you prove your competence.

Sorry, I didn't claim any. Collusion is possibly synonymous with
criminal conspiracy. It all depends on what Mueller finds or has
already found.

[Don Shepler]

On 4/12/2018 12:29 PM, Yak wrote:

> Now it's 'possibly'?

We know that Russia undertook efforts to queer the election, we know
that Trump family and campaign staff met with Russians many times - and
didn't report it when required - and we know that Fredo Trump met with
Russian agents in Trump Tower specifically to try to get "dirt" on
Hillary Clinton. That's enough to warrant an investigation.

[Don Shepler]

On 4/12/2018 12:51 PM, Yak wrote:

> I never suggested an investigation wasn't warranted. I am simply saying there is no crime of 'collusion.'

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

[Don Shepler]

On 4/12/2018 1:04 PM, Yak wrote:

> Thanks, "Don," you saved me the trouble of finding sources that say 'collusion' is not a crime in this type of investigation.

You obviously didn't read the whole article, so obviously you missed
John Dean's perceptive comment:

Collusion is the descriptive word the news media has settled on to
cover many potential illegal actions by the Trump campaign, which
could range from aiding and abetting (18 USC 2) to conspiracy per se
(18 USC 371) to conspiring to violate several potentially applicable
laws like: 18 USC 1030—fraud and related activity in connection with
computers; 18 USC 1343—wire fraud; or 52 USC 30121—contributions and
donations by foreign nationals. Also, 18 USC 2381—for, contrary to a
widespread belief that there must be a declared war, the Justice
Department as recently as 2006 indicted for “aid and comfort” to our
enemies, the form of collusion better known as treason. Collusion is
the perfect word to cover such crimes, pejorative and inclusive.

So, even if there is no federal crime of "collusion", it is a
descriptive term or a shorthand - and a very excellent one - used by the
media and others to describe a whole range of criminal activities in
which Trump and his people engaged.

We will stick with it. Mueller isn't investigating a crime of collusion
- he is investigating likely Trump participation in a variety of
criminal activities that, taken together, are usefully described by the
term collusion.

[Don Shepler]

On 4/12/2018 1:22 PM, Yak wrote:

> Words mean things.

They sure do, and collusion is an excellent descriptive term for the
wide array of criminal actions in which the Trump campaign likely
engaged. It was more than enough to start an investigation.

Now that the investigation is underway, it has also had to investigate
Trump's blatant attempts at obstructing it.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

And we know that Mueller is STALKING TRUMP because he has no evidence of
a TRUMP crime, and Federal stalking is no more legal than is a private
person stalking TRUMP. NO charges no crime and no Federal power to
stalk anyone to look for crimes or to look for their sexual habits or to
peep in their windows or steal their underwear...

This is worse than Internet stalking or a fan stalking a celebrity...
this is hateful and threatening.

[Don Shepler]

On 4/12/2018 1:38 PM, Yak wrote:

> Why not,just call it what it is...conspiracy?

That probably isn't the only crime in which they engaged.

>> Now that the investigation is underway, it has also had to investigate
>> Trump's blatant attempts at obstructing it.
>

> Perhaps. What we do know is we are 14+ months into this and so far we got ‘trump is not the subject of the investigation.’

Nope. That's not what we have at all. We have an alleged statement
attributed to the Mueller staff that Trump isn't the subject of a
"criminal" investigation. He is closely tied to people who *are*
subjects of criminal investigation, and Trump might well - likely will -
become the subject of criminal investigation. The obstruction of
justice was major. Mueller might not be pursuing it at this time, but
probably will.

[Mr. B1ack]

OK ... practical question ...... how exactly were McCarthys'
nuts cut off way back when ? We need to find out and then
repeat the procedure with Mueller and cohorts.

[The Starmaker]

Muller is insane.

I'm surprised nobody has brought it up...

Muller has 'insane eyes', you know...he looks insane.


Maybe Muller is trying to get the Mob Boss angry.


Muller is going to be swimming with the fishes if he doesn't watch out.



Trump will take Muller for a ride...a one way ride to palookaville.


I mean, really...

would you get a Mob Boss angry at you????


That's suicide.



Muller is insane.


He is fuckin wit the wrong guy...


It's very simple...

if they find Muller in his car with a bullet in this head, it's because
he was fukin around wit the mob.

bada bing, bada boom.


Trump knows where all the bodies are buried...



Pretty soon they'll say..."Where's Muller?"

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 04/12/2018 06:10 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Muller is insane.
>
> I'm surprised nobody has brought it up...
>
> Muller has 'insane eyes', you know...he looks insane.
>
>
> Maybe Muller is trying to get the Mob Boss angry.
>
>
> Muller is going to be swimming with the fishes if he doesn't watch out.
>
>
>
> Trump will take Muller for a ride...a one way ride to palookaville.
>
>
> I mean, really...
>
> would you get a Mob Boss angry at you????
>
>
> That's suicide.
>
>
>
> Muller is insane.
>
>
> He is fuckin wit the wrong guy...
>
>
> It's very simple...
>
> if they find Muller in his car with a bullet in this head, it's because
> he was fukin around wit the mob.
>
> bada bing, bada boom.
>
>

Maybe Mueller will be car pooling with Vince Foster.....

> Trump knows where all the bodies are buried...
>
>
>
> Pretty soon they'll say..."Where's Muller?"
>

--
That's Karma

The Liberal goal is always to force you to only have the choices they
give you and then stigmatize any choice that isn't what they wanted in
the first place.

A kinder gentler Fascism....

[Don Shepler]

On 4/12/2018 2:10 PM, Yak wrote:

> You can count on this...'collusion' won't be one of them.

I have already satisfactorily explained the use of the word collusion.
It's descriptive, not legal. It describes, as a shorthand, the totality
of the various crimes the Trump campaign likely committed.

>>>> Now that the investigation is underway, it has also had to investigate
>>>> Trump's blatant attempts at obstructing it.
>>>
>>> Perhaps. What we do know is we are 14+ months into this and so far we got ‘trump is not the subject of the investigation.’
>>
>> Nope. That's not what we have at all. We have an alleged statement
>> attributed to the Mueller staff that Trump isn't the subject of a
>> "criminal" investigation. He is closely tied to people who *are*
>> subjects of criminal investigation, and Trump might well - likely will -
>> become the subject of criminal investigation. The obstruction of
>> justice was major. Mueller might not be pursuing it at this time, but
>> probably will.
>

> So, now, it's 'Trump might well - likely will - become the subject of criminal investigation'

It's probable. As I have already instructed you, Trump is closely
connected to people who *are* subjects of criminal investigation, and
those people are being investigated precisely because of their
connection to, and work for, Trump. He is not off the hook.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 04/12/2018 01:06 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <gTKzC.15764$ez2....@fx36.iad>,

> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>
>> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's reasonable to
>>> believe
>>> a crime could've been committed.
>>
>> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think there

>> was a crime.... that violates the RIGHT to privacy and is called
>> something like profiling or abuse of power....
>
> That's why subpeonas and seach warrants are issued by a judge who has to be
> convinced there is a reasonable suspicion. Mueller cannot force anyone to talk
> to investigators nor enter private property, search, or seize without a judge's
> permission.
>

What evidence did the Judge say met the probable cause "CLAUSE" in the
4th Amendment.

And why is the judge allowing Mueller to go on a fishing trip into a
lawyers files?

[FPP]

Alert! Scotty has chewed through his straps again!

--
On Speaker Ryan's retirement: "The guy who spent his entire career
trying to steal your retirement is retiring at the age of 48." -Richard
Allen Smith

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 04/12/2018 01:23 PM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:chine.bleu-FA94C...@reader.eternal-september.org,
> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> typed:
>
>> In article <pao1o2$ltg$2...@dont-email.me>, "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> In news:qbLzC.55205$Kz2....@fx35.iad, Harlan Banks <a.terr...@dummies.con> typed:

>>>> On 4/12/2018 8:24 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:

>>>>> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>
>>>>>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's
>>>>>> reasonable to believe a crime could've been committed.
>
>>>>> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think
>>>>> there was a crime....
>

>>>> No one has done that.
>
>>> Tell Michael Cohen that, Rudy.
>

>> Tell that to the judge who allowed the searches.
>
> You think it's turned the judge's life inside-out?
>
>
Maybe it should and the judge needs to be impeached... violating the
RIGHTS of citizens or being part of the corrupt FBI collusion could and
should bring that judge a world of pain.

[Don Shepler]

On 4/12/2018 1:28 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:

Bullshit. He has evidence of crimes committed by the Trump campaign.

We know that you are a brain-damaged fuckwit who rode your scooter into
a tree while not wearing a helmet, and you're now an idiot.

[benj]

On 4/12/2018 7:39 PM, Don Shepler commie Lib drooled:

That's right Beamer! CNN and Huffington post said so and that should be
enough proof for any "progressive" (means former commie)

> We know that you are a brain-damaged fuckwit who rode your scooter into
> a tree while not wearing a helmet, and you're now an idiot.

And here is the leftist version of a "political debate" on the issues.
Calling someone an idiot (especially with a cute slam) means the
anti-American socialist crowd has won the "debate" again! You lose Beamer!

And Oh if anyone has ANY doubt that Trump is guilty and not fit for
office you can find further "proof" here:

https://www.ranker.com/list/liberal-blogs/blog-loblaw

[Frank Tomaszewski]

On 4/12/2018 4:30 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:

> On 04/12/2018 01:23 PM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:chine.bleu-FA94C...@reader.eternal-september.org,
>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> typed:
>>
>>> In article <pao1o2$ltg$2...@dont-email.me>, "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>> In news:qbLzC.55205$Kz2....@fx35.iad, Harlan Banks <a.terr...@dummies.con> typed:
>>>>> On 4/12/2018 8:24 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:
>>>>>> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's
>>>>>>> reasonable to believe a crime could've been committed.
>>
>>>>>> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think
>>>>>> there was a crime....
>>
>>>>> No one has done that.
>>
>>>> Tell Michael Cohen that, Rudy.
>>
>>> Tell that to the judge who allowed the searches.
>>
>> You think it's turned the judge's life inside-out?
>>
>>
> Maybe it should and the judge needs to be impeached...

The judge and the U.S. attorney and the FBI all followed the law.

> violating the RIGHTS of citizens

None of Cohen's rights were violated.

> or being part of the corrupt FBI collusion

Bullshit.

You are a cautionary tale about riding a scooter without a helmet and
crashing into a tree. You are permanently mentally disabled.

[Scout]

"Harlan Banks" <a.terr...@dummies.con> wrote in message
news:qbLzC.55205$Kz2....@fx35.iad...

> On 4/12/2018 8:24 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:
>> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's reasonable to
>>> believe
>>> a crime could've been committed.
>>
>> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think there
>> was a crime....
>
> No one has done that.

Really?

The FBI just violated attorney/client privilege despite having ZERO evidence
that a crime was even likely much less that the attorney would have any
evidence of it.

This investigation has been going on for well over a year....and to date
ZERO evidence showing any reasonable probability that he committed any
crime.

Anyone else would be in court right now suing the FBI for millions for
harassment, and they would almost certainly win their case.

So tell us, with over a YEAR of investigation....when exists to show us
there is any need for continued investigation?

What's interesting is they are uncovering, and ignoring, evidence of
Hillary's collusion with Russia in the Uranium One deal. In potentially
making classified information accessible to the Russian, and then actively
engaging in obstruction and a cover-up in the whole matter.

Yet, we don't see Mueller going after Hillary despite the evidence that
keeps coming to light about her involvement with Russia.

Instead he keeps looking for what doesn't seem to exist.

But tell us, WHEN exactly do we reach the point in which to end the
investigation?

Clearly you must have some objective standard when an investigation is no
longer warranted or justifiable.

So what is it?

[Scout]

"Harlan Banks" <a.terr...@dummies.con> wrote in message

news:q4NzC.15772$ez2....@fx36.iad...

> On 4/12/2018 9:30 AM, maxipad oozed:

>> In news:qbLzC.55205$Kz2....@fx35.iad,
>> Harlan Banks <a.terr...@dummies.con> typed:
>>

>>> On 4/12/2018 8:24 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:
>>>> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>
>>>>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's
>>>>> reasonable to believe a crime could've been committed.
>>
>>>> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think there
>>>> was a crime....
>>
>>> No one has done that.
>>

>> Tell Michael Cohen that
>
> No one has violated attorney-client privilege, maxipad. First, there is a
> "dirty" team that is screening out all material that is covered by
> attorney-client privilege. The "clean" team that will look into Trump's
> and Cohen's criminal activities won't see it.
>
> Secondly, attorney-client privilege does not cover the concerted efforts
> of the client and the attorney to commit crimes.

Excuse me, but are the "dirty team" working for law enforcement?

Do you think they magically will forget anything they find which isn't up to
the standard to turn over to the "clean team"?

It would be like someone screwing your ass, and then saying it's ok because
that guy's dick over there is clean.

Attorney-client privilege has been breeched and as such all records of any
attorney's are now subject to such search and seizure at any time for any
reason and without cause.

[Scout]

"Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-961F6...@reader.eternal-september.org...
> In article <65BzC.26857$FZ2....@fx33.iad>,

> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>
>> On 04/11/2018 11:16 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> > In article <5GzzC.10582$Pz2....@fx10.iad>,
>> > #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> >>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of
>> >>> Something
>> >>
>> >> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
>> >
>> > Nothing. You're presumed innocent until convicted.
>> >
>> OK good we are on the same page, so what crime was there evidence that
>> TRUMP committed when Mueller started?
>

> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's reasonable to
> believe
> a crime could've been committed.

Ok, and EXACTLY what crime was it reasonable to believe that Trump committed
given the information at hand?

Be sure to cite the specific legal language making whatever it is a crime.

[Scout]

"Don Shepler" <wieber.a...@shitbags.united> wrote in message
news:OdOzC.26206$LZ2....@fx40.iad...

> On 4/12/2018 12:07 PM, Yak wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 3:00:57 PM UTC-4, Don Shepler wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2018 11:02 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 1:56:52 PM UTC-4, Don Shepler wrote:
>>>>> On 4/11/2018 9:17 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:

>>>>>> On 04/11/2018 11:16 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <5GzzC.10582$Pz2....@fx10.iad>,
>>>>>>> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of
>>>>>>>>> Something
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing. You're presumed innocent until convicted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK good we are on the same page, so what crime was there evidence
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> TRUMP committed when Mueller started?
>>>>>

>>>>> Collusion with Russia to queer the election, of course.
>>>>
>>>> Collusion isn't a crime in this type of case.
>>>
>>> You're incompetent to say. It depends on what was done and Trump's
>>> degree of complicity in it. By "Trump's degree of complicity", I mean
>>> his entire campaign organization.
>>>
>>> That's how the investigation began. *Now*, it has expanded to cover
>>> Trump's - and others' - obstruction of justice. That includes the
>>> firing of James Comey with "the 'Russia thing'" on Trump's mind (corrupt
>>> intent), his dictating of the phony alibi for Fredo Trump's collusive
>>> meeting with the Russians, and his multiple attempts to fire the special
>>> counsel.
>>
>> Okay, you prove your competence.
>
> Sorry, I didn't claim any. Collusion is possibly synonymous with criminal
> conspiracy. It all depends on what Mueller finds or has already found.

With over a year of investigation and zero evidence showing evidence of any
crimes.....what makes you think there is anything to find?

[Scout]

"Siri Cruise" <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:chine.bleu-9AA2D...@reader.eternal-september.org...
> In article <gTKzC.15764$ez2....@fx36.iad>,

> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>
>> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:

>> > An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's reasonable
>> > to
>> > believe
>> > a crime could've been committed.
>>

>> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think there

>> was a crime.... that violates the RIGHT to privacy and is called
>> something like profiling or abuse of power....
>
> That's why subpeonas and seach warrants are issued by a judge who has to
> be
> convinced there is a reasonable suspicion.

Is that why the FISA court is up in arms about the subpeonas and search
warrants they issued because they were lied to about the evidence?

Seems to me if you're willing to lie you can get a judge to sign off on
anything.

Further, there seems to be little to no accountability when they do so, nor
can the law stop the illegal leaking of any information uncovered during
such an illegal search.

After all, look at what happened as a result of the FISA warrant the judges
were lied to about.

All kinds of information ended up in the media.

How do you put that egg back together?

[Scout]

"Don Shepler" <wieber.a...@shitbags.united> wrote in message

news:D5NzC.15773$ez2....@fx36.iad...

> On 4/11/2018 9:17 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:
>> On 04/11/2018 11:16 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:

>>> In article <5GzzC.10582$Pz2....@fx10.iad>,

>>> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of
>>>>> Something
>>>>
>>>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
>>>
>>> Nothing. You're presumed innocent until convicted.
>>>
>> OK good we are on the same page, so what crime was there evidence that
>> TRUMP committed when Mueller started?
>
> Collusion with Russia to queer the election, of course.

Except that Hillary had already done so.

But we'll ignore the evidence of that.

[Don Shepler]

No, she had not.

[Don Shepler]

Sorry, you don't know that. You know the opposite. Three people have
pleaded guilty to crimes already. The *FOUR* FISA warrants - one
original based on probable cause, three renewals based on *evidence*
discovered from each preceding warrant - indicate evidence has been found.

[Harlan Banks]

On 4/12/2018 6:45 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Harlan Banks" <a.terr...@dummies.con> wrote in message
> news:q4NzC.15772$ez2....@fx36.iad...
>> On 4/12/2018 9:30 AM, maxipad oozed:
>>> In news:qbLzC.55205$Kz2....@fx35.iad,
>>> Harlan Banks <a.terr...@dummies.con> typed:
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2018 8:24 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:
>>>>> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's
>>>>>> reasonable to believe a crime could've been committed.
>>>
>>>>> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think there
>>>>> was a crime....
>>>
>>>> No one has done that.
>>>
>>> Tell Michael Cohen that
>>
>> No one has violated attorney-client privilege, maxipad.  First, there
>> is a "dirty" team that is screening out all material that is covered
>> by attorney-client privilege.  The "clean" team that will look into
>> Trump's and Cohen's criminal activities won't see it.
>>
>> Secondly, attorney-client privilege does not cover the concerted
>> efforts of the client and the attorney to commit crimes.
>
> Excuse me, but are the "dirty team" working for law enforcement?

Irrelevant. Any legitimately privileged information is being weeded out
and not shown to the "clean" team.

Never forget: evidence of criminal activity undertaken by the lawyer
and the client together is never privileged.

[Harlan Banks]

On 4/12/2018 6:41 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Harlan Banks" <a.terr...@dummies.con> wrote in message
> news:qbLzC.55205$Kz2....@fx35.iad...
>> On 4/12/2018 8:24 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:
>>> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's
>>>> reasonable to believe
>>>> a crime could've been committed.
>>>
>>> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think there
>>> was a crime....
>>
>> No one has done that.
>
> Really?

Yes.

> The FBI just violated attorney/client privilege

No.

> despite having ZERO
> evidence that a crime was even likely much less that the attorney would
> have any evidence of it.

You clowns keep mouthing this "ZERO evidence" baloney, but you -
especially you - have no idea what evidence there was. That evidence
would not be shared with you.

There is evidence. There is evidence seen by the U.S. attorney for the
southern district of New York, evidence seen by the FBI, evidence seen
by Rod Rosenstein, and evidence seen by the magistrate who authorized
the warrant.

There is evidence. You have to accommodate yourself to that fact - the
fact will not accommodate you.

[Harlan Banks]

You'll have to wait for Mr. Mueller's report before you can learn that.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <bYMzC.15769$ez2....@fx36.iad>, Bret Cahill <bretcahill@aöl.con>
wrote:

> On 4/12/2018 9:03 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > In article <zHJzC.15760$ez2....@fx36.iad>, Bret Cahill
> > <bretcahill@aöl.con>
> > wrote:

> >
> >> On 4/11/2018 8:16 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> >>> In article <5GzzC.10582$Pz2....@fx10.iad>,
> >>> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> >>>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty of
> >>>>> Something
> >>>>
> >>>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
> >>>
> >>> Nothing. You're presumed innocent until convicted.
> >>

> >> Wrong. You may be factually culpable for the crime(s) with which you're
> >> charged.
> >
> > But you don't have to be proven guilty before being investigated.
>
> No one said that was necessary.

Scotty does. Though I'm not sure he qualifies as an anyone.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed

[Siri Cruise]

In article <pao6g7$mg7$2...@dont-email.me>,

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:

> In news:chine.bleu-FA94C...@reader.eternal-september.org,
> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> typed:
>
> > In article <pao1o2$ltg$2...@dont-email.me>, "max headroom"
> > <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:

> >> In news:qbLzC.55205$Kz2....@fx35.iad, Harlan Banks
> >> <a.terr...@dummies.con> typed:

> >>> On 4/12/2018 8:24 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:
> >>>> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>

> >>>>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's
> >>>>> reasonable to believe a crime could've been committed.
>

> >>>> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think
> >>>> there was a crime....
>
> >>> No one has done that.
>

> >> Tell Michael Cohen that, Rudy.
>
> > Tell that to the judge who allowed the searches.
>
> You think it's turned the judge's life inside-out?

Oh, no! An innocent judge is turning a possible felon's life inside-out! How can
this be allowed!

So what about those 97 arrested by ICE?

[max headroom]

In news:chine.bleu-A4533...@reader.eternal-september.org,

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> typed:

> In article <pao6g7$mg7$2...@dont-email.me>,
> "max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:
>> In news:chine.bleu-FA94C...@reader.eternal-september.org,
>> Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> typed:
>>> In article <pao1o2$ltg$2...@dont-email.me>, "max headroom"
>>> <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>> In news:qbLzC.55205$Kz2....@fx35.iad, Harlan Banks
>>>> <a.terr...@dummies.con> typed:
>>>>> On 4/12/2018 8:24 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:
>>>>>> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:

>>>>>>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's
>>>>>>> reasonable to believe a crime could've been committed.

>>>>>> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think
>>>>>> there was a crime....

>>>>> No one has done that.

>>>> Tell Michael Cohen that, Rudy.

>>> Tell that to the judge who allowed the searches.

>> You think it's turned the judge's life inside-out?

> Oh, no! An innocent judge is turning a possible felon's life
> inside-out! How can this be allowed!

In news:chine.bleu-30B7F...@reader.eternal-september.org,
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> typed:

> ... You're presumed innocent until convicted.

[max headroom]

In news:gxTzC.27907$FZ2....@fx33.iad,
Rudy Canoza <i.kick.wi...@taft.con> typed:

Yeah, Rudy, like the guy who needs to switch 'nyms with each post?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <pap34j$62g$3...@dont-email.me>,

"Scout" <me4...@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote:

> Excuse me, but are the "dirty team" working for law enforcement?
>
> Do you think they magically will forget anything they find which isn't up to
> the standard to turn over to the "clean team"?

They're not expected to be able to forget. That's why they will no further
business with the investigation. I understand that as a worshipper of your
Donald and Saviour you can't understand how and why professionals avoid
compromising themselves, but it actually can be done.

> It would be like someone screwing your ass, and then saying it's ok because
> that guy's dick over there is clean.

Despite hating gays you sure do obsess over them.

> Attorney-client privilege has been breeched and as such all records of any
> attorney's are now subject to such search and seizure at any time for any
> reason and without cause.

According to you it's impossible to ever criminally investigate any lawyer.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <pap34j$62g$2...@dont-email.me>,

"Scout" <me4...@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote:

> >>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's reasonable to
> >>> believe
> >>> a crime could've been committed.
> >>
> >> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think there
> >> was a crime....
> >
> > No one has done that.
>
> Really?

Of course they've turned his life inside out. That's what happens during a
criminal investigation. The Constitution allows this to be done. The
Constitution also puts in safeguards so that it's hard to do.

> The FBI just violated attorney/client privilege despite having ZERO evidence
> that a crime was even likely much less that the attorney would have any
> evidence of it.

It's up to a court to decide. The judge will exclude any evidence that might
come from violating the privilege. Not just the communications, but any further
evidence based on the communication. Or perhaps based on the communications. A
prosecution that violates this can watch vast parts of their case evaporate; and
the burden will be on the prosecution to justify the evidence.

And, idiot, a search doesn't happen because they already have evidence. It
happens to get the evidence after convincing a judge there's reason to believe
evidence of a crime will be found.

> This investigation has been going on for well over a year....and to date

The New York prosecutor has been looking at this for over a year?

> ZERO evidence showing any reasonable probability that he committed any
> crime.

The purpose of a search is to collect evidence they don't already have. They
have presented other probable cause to a judge.

> Anyone else would be in court right now suing the FBI for millions for
> harassment, and they would almost certainly win their case.

Like Gotti did?

> So tell us, with over a YEAR of investigation....when exists to show us

A YEAR? More like a WEEK.

> there is any need for continued investigation?

Ask Berman.

> What's interesting is they are uncovering, and ignoring, evidence of
> Hillary's collusion with Russia in the Uranium One deal. In potentially

Oh, no! The federal government allowed Russia to invest in an Canadian company
at a time without sanctions! The HUMANITY!

> Yet, we don't see Mueller going after Hillary despite the evidence that
> keeps coming to light about her involvement with Russia.

You whine the Mueller is exceeding mandate and then whine he isn't exceeding his
mandate.

> Instead he keeps looking for what doesn't seem to exist.

Well excuuuuusssse him for looking to until he knows whether it actually exist.

> But tell us, WHEN exactly do we reach the point in which to end the
> investigation?

Ask Rosenstein.

> Clearly you must have some objective standard when an investigation is no
> longer warranted or justifiable.

California police departments still investigate some cases after decades. And
even get the occasional conviction.

They have been looking at people like Kevin Spacey over past conduct. Are you
equally incensed over that?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <pap34f$62g$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Scout" <me4...@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote:

> Ok, and EXACTLY what crime was it reasonable to believe that Trump committed
> given the information at hand?
>
> Be sure to cite the specific legal language making whatever it is a crime.

I've already cited some of the US Code that might have been violated, and I
don't even play a lawyer on television. Have you asked the DoJ and Rosenstein's
office?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <F_RzC.55932$4S1....@fx43.iad>,

#BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:

> Maybe it should and the judge needs to be impeached... violating the

Well, sic Congress on them. They're the ones who do that.

Not the president.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <gxTzC.27907$FZ2....@fx33.iad>,

Frank Tomaszewski <i.kick.wi...@taft.con> wrote:

> > violating the RIGHTS of citizens
>
> None of Cohen's rights were violated.

They might've been, but there's no reason to believe so. The lawyer and the
lawyer's lawyer are arguing with courts. I can wait for the judges to tell Cohen
to bugger off.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <lYRzC.55931$4S1....@fx43.iad>,
#BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:

> What evidence did the Judge say met the probable cause "CLAUSE" in the
> 4th Amendment.

Decisions are usually part of the public record. Ask the judge's clerk, or
whatever is the federal equivalent of a court clerk, for more information.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <pap34k$62g$6...@dont-email.me>,

"Scout" <me4...@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote:

> With over a year of investigation and zero evidence showing evidence of any
> crimes.....what makes you think there is anything to find?

So Mueller has confided in you? We know what evidence he has when prosecuting
people, but until them he doesn't talk.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <D6TzC.20112$8Y2....@fx28.iad>, benj <be...@nobody.net> wrote:

> (means former commie)

> And here is the leftist version of a "political debate" on the issues.
> Calling someone an idiot (especially with a cute slam) means the

Umm, sure.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <paoq2s$j48$4...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Speaker Ryan's retirement: "The guy who spent his entire career
> trying to steal your retirement is retiring at the age of 48." -Richard
> Allen Smith

How can he eke out a living on a congressional pension?

[Matt]

On 4/12/2018 4:28 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty, brain-damaged fucktard
(admitted), stupidly bawled:

> On 04/12/2018 01:06 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article <gTKzC.15764$ez2....@fx36.iad>,
>> #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>>

>>> On 04/12/2018 01:02 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> An investigation develops evidence. It's started when it's reasonable to
>>>> believe
>>>> a crime could've been committed.
>>>
>>> You can't just turn a persons life inside out because you think there

>>> was a crime.... that violates the RIGHT to privacy and is called
>>> something like profiling or abuse of power....
>>
>> That's why subpeonas and seach warrants are issued by a judge who has to be

>> convinced there is a reasonable suspicion. Mueller cannot force anyone to talk
>> to investigators nor enter private property, search, or seize without a judge's
>> permission.

>>
>
> What evidence did the Judge say met the probable cause "CLAUSE"

He didn't say, and there is no legal or philosophical or legal
obligation for him to say.

Go ride your scooter into a tree again - be sure *not* to wear a helmet
- and then describe the experience t us.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <e24b6656-692e-4659...@googlegroups.com>,
Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:

> > They sure do, and collusion is an excellent descriptive term for the
> > wide array of criminal actions in which the Trump campaign likely
> > engaged. It was more than enough to start an investigation.
>
> Why not,just call it what it is...conspiracy?

Because journalists aren't lawyers. They want a short way to convey the variety
of possible crimes. Try looking up court papers from Mueller that are public
knowledge: does he say 'collusion' or does he give US Code references?

> Perhaps. What we do know is we are 14+ months into this and so far we got
> ‘trump is not the subject of the investigation.’ 14 months. Think about that,
> “Don.”

Mueller wasn't hired to convict Drumpf. He was hired to fully and independently
investigate the matter.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <papdrn$m5f$2...@dont-email.me>,

And Cohen is presumed innocent. Even the presumed innocent can be searched
without their permission. It's an imperfect world.

[trotsky]

On 4/12/18 6:28 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 4/12/18 4:28 PM, #BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 04/12/2018 03:39 PM, Don Shepler wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2018 12:29 PM, Yak wrote:

>>>> On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 3:13:52 PM UTC-4, Don Shepler wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/2018 12:07 PM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 3:00:57 PM UTC-4, Don Shepler wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/12/2018 11:02 AM, Yak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 1:56:52 PM UTC-4, Don Shepler wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2018 9:17 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/11/2018 11:16 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <5GzzC.10582$Pz2....@fx10.iad>,

>>>>>>>>>>>      #BeamMeUpScotty <Not-...@ideocracy.gov> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/11/2018 10:09 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mueller Wouldn't Be Investigating Trump If He Wasn't Guilty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Something
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What was TRUMP guilty of when Mueller started?
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing. You're presumed innocent until convicted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK good we are on the same page, so what crime was there
>>>>>>>>>> evidence that
>>>>>>>>>> TRUMP committed when Mueller started?
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Collusion with Russia to queer the election, of course.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Collusion isn't a crime in this type of case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're incompetent to say.  It depends on what was done and Trump's
>>>>>>> degree of complicity in it.  By "Trump's degree of complicity", I
>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>> his entire campaign organization.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's how the investigation began.  *Now*, it has expanded to cover
>>>>>>> Trump's - and others' - obstruction of justice.  That includes the
>>>>>>> firing of James Comey with "the 'Russia thing'" on Trump's mind
>>>>>>> (corrupt
>>>>>>> intent), his dictating of the phony alibi for Fredo Trump's
>>>>>>> collusive
>>>>>>> meeting with the Russians, and his multiple attempts to fire the
>>>>>>> special
>>>>>>> counsel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, you prove your competence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I didn't claim any.  Collusion is possibly synonymous with
>>>>> criminal conspiracy.  It all depends on what Mueller finds or has
>>>>> already found.
>>>>

>>>> Now it's 'possibly'?
>>>
>>> We know that Russia undertook efforts to queer the election, we know
>>> that Trump family and campaign staff met with Russians many times - and
>>> didn't report it when required - and we know that Fredo Trump met with
>>> Russian agents in Trump Tower specifically to try to get "dirt" on
>>> Hillary Clinton.  That's enough to warrant an investigation.
>>
>> And we know that Mueller is STALKING TRUMP because he has no evidence of
>> a TRUMP crime, and Federal stalking is no more legal than is a private
>> person stalking TRUMP.  NO charges no crime and no Federal power to
>> stalk anyone to look for crimes or to look for their sexual habits or to
>> peep in their windows or steal their underwear...
>>
>> This is worse than Internet stalking or a fan stalking a celebrity...
>> this is hateful and threatening.
>
> Alert!  Scotty has chewed through his straps again!


That's because the chick whipping left after he forgot his safe word.

[Rudy Canoza]

LOL!

[Don Shepler]

On 4/13/2018 4:10 AM, Yak wrote:

> On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 2:29:54 AM UTC-4, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article <e24b6656-692e-4659...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> They sure do, and collusion is an excellent descriptive term for the
>>>> wide array of criminal actions in which the Trump campaign likely
>>>> engaged. It was more than enough to start an investigation.
>>>
>>> Why not,just call it what it is...conspiracy?
>>
>> Because journalists aren't lawyers.
>

> Then talk with lawyers to get it right.

The descriptive-not-legal term collusion is just right.

>
>> They want a short way to convey the variety of possible crimes.
>

> Conspiracy has one more letter in it than collusion.

I've instructed you on this already. Conspiracy is only one of the
crimes Trump likely committed.

>> Try looking up court papers from Mueller that are public
>> knowledge: does he say 'collusion' or does he give US Code references?
>

> My guess is Mueller hasn't once used the word collusion in the context of bringing charges against anyone.

>
>>> Perhaps. What we do know is we are 14+ months into this and so far we got
>>> ‘trump is not the subject of the investigation.’ 14 months. Think about that,
>>> “Don.”
>>
>> Mueller wasn't hired to convict Drumpf. He was hired to fully and independently
>> investigate the matter.
>

> Uh huh.....

It's a correct statement. He was appointed by a Republican deputy AG
who was hand-picked by Trump. Mueller is finding a *LOT* of evidence of
malfeasance, both before and subsequent to the election.