The Mueller Report. BREAKING NEWS: AG’s Summary Report Released. NO COLLUSION!

[Doc]

I think that Don Jr. taking the meeting with Veselnitskaya is the only point in favor of collusion (depending on how she sold herself, i.e. as a representative of the Russian government or just someone with dirt on Hillary who happened to be Russian).  But learning that she was working with Fusion GPS and met with Simpson before and after her meeting with DTJ makes it look far worse for the Dems.

[GaryPinC]

16 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

My example was going to be if I decide to shoot my neighbor and climb up on the roof of the building across the street from his work.  when he comes out I put my AR15 to my shoulder and aim in and pull the trigger, but <click>, dang, I left my bullets at home.  Then I blow off the whole thing and instead decide to challenge him to a bake off.  Did I commit a crime?

 

This is why I don't there was collusion with Russia.  They didn't need Trump's help and they knew he was too stupid so they knew they would get caught.

Sounds like attempted murder to me.  Not sure attempted obstruction is on the same legal footing.

[row_33]

A lot of people need a little lesson on what constitutes evidence that would hold up under oath and cross-examination

 

there is nothing here that is worthy of chasing at all

 

but keep hating and letting your life slip away in DTS, that is your freedom for which many people died

 

 

[DC Tom]

38 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

My example was going to be if I decide to shoot my neighbor and climb up on the roof of the building across the street from his work.  when he comes out I put my AR15 to my shoulder and aim in and pull the trigger, but <click>, dang, I left my bullets at home.  Then I blow off the whole thing and instead decide to challenge him to a bake off.  Did I commit a crime?

 

Neither is a particularly good example.

 

In fact, they're both atrocious examples.  

[3rdnlng]

1 hour ago, Magox said:

 

Yes, I think much of that happened and a lack of insistence plays into that.  But with Lewandowski episode, he left that conversation believing that Lewandowski would speak to Sessions to walk back his recusal.   But, asking Sessions to walk back his recusal isn't dispositive of obstructing justice but certainly could be seen as attempting to control the investigation.  Again, intent is hard to establish.  

I heard a correlation to the extent of Trump's obstruction was the equivalent of the first base coach getting between the manager and the umpire to diffuse a situation. No big deal, eh?

[Magox]

17 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I heard a correlation to the extent of Trump's obstruction was the equivalent of the first base coach getting between the manager and the umpire to diffuse a situation. No big deal, eh?

From a legal standpoint that seems reasonable.  From a political one, I just don't see this report swaying opinions one way or the other.

[BeginnersMind]

48 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Neither is a particularly good example.

 

In fact, they're both atrocious examples.  

 

You could have just thumbs-upped my post T-money. I’m feeling the love today am I right? Now we are building community. 

[GG]

1 hour ago, reddogblitz said:

 

It's Yackety Sax by Boots Randolph. Give the man a little cred.

 

 

 

Thanks.  Never heard the great bass line in the song !

 

And now you sent me on a fishing expedition that took me to Chet Atkins' Yakety Axe,

 

 

 

and another version especially for long lost @OGTEleven

 

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2019 by GG

[SoCal Deek]

Wow! Many of you have bought into the lefts misguided, pretzel logic, way of thinking. Does the President has the right to fire the Special Counsel?  If so, then he can! It doesn’t mean he’s trying to obstruct justice. Now that we know he’s innocent of collusion, it just means he believes that the investigation and those leading are actually trying to harm the country that he’s sworn an oath to protect against enemies BOTH foreign and domestic!  What do you people think the domestic part is referring to?

[Deranged Rhino]

I'm going to be doing a larger write up / deep dive into what the report says now that I've read it in full. Going to take me a bit of time this weekend to do it properly, but the report ties off some of the more nagging loose ends, while opening up some new rabbit holes. 

 

Big take aways which I'll expound on in more detail: 

 

* We finally learned what the secret second scope memo was about - and, as expected, it was about the dossier and Carter Page and three other Trump team members. This is a major blow to the legitimacy of the SCO as we know, and the SCO confirmed, the dossier was indeed bunk. 

 

* The question of collusion/conspiracy have been definitively answered: it never happened. Ever. It was fiction from the start. This is made more clear by the understanding of what the Mueller report omitted (Mifsud's true allegiance is to western intel, not Russian as Weissman claims for example). Which makes these examples of the media hysteria all the more damning: 

 

* The question of the DNC hack was left unresolved - which was different from what Barr's 4 page summary laid out. This is significant and will be expanded upon in my write up.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

This is bubbling up now. There's a problem with the date Mueller uses for the P-Dop / Downer meeting. 

 

 

 

Trying to riddle this one out.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

You could have just thumbs-upped my post T-money. I’m feeling the love today am I right? Now we are building community. 

 

That would require me taking you seriously, which begs the question: What part of "weaponizing not ignoring you" do you not understand?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

[4merper4mer]

7 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

I love how having insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of innocence somehow means you're still guilty.

 

These liberals are living in bizzaro world.

Bizarro world turns into Venezuela every time they get control.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Mark Levin on Volume II
 

 

[/dev/null]

8 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

I love how having insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of innocence somehow means you're still guilty.

 

These liberals are living in bizzaro world.

The presumption of innocence is a right afforded only to those predetermined to be free of guilt

Everyone else must prove their innocence

 

All animals are equal.  Some are more equal than others

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[3rdnlng]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And I thought the 80's wanted their foreign policy back?

[Doc]

Have these morons been in a coma for the past 2-1/2 years?  ?

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, Doc said:

Have these morons been in a coma for the past 2-1/2 years?  ?

 

it's all about making sure everyone has to hear about and suffer under their unjustified resentment, it is a way of life