Donald Trump. The most Exonerated citizen in US History

@Condor060

1. Muller didn't make any criminal recommendations to the AG. If he had evidence of criminal conduct then it was his job to provide it. He provided nothing.
[He did provide evidence in the report, but did not submit specific recommendation for the reasons I stated above. Did you read what sleazy Barr did in return? Go back and read why Mueller didn't make any clear recommendations to Barr. It had nothing to do with Trump's innocence, but about several issues stemming from Trump being a sitting president. Specifically, (1) there would be "substantial delay" despite having "sufficient evidence" & being able prove Trump's intent without an interview, (2) the OLC policy, and (3) it would be unfair to reach a conclusion that Trump could not rebut in court, and that if he had reached a conclusion that Trump obstructed justice Trump could not go to court to obtain a “speedy and public trial” Unlike Trump, Mueller as Special Counsel was acting as he should by being honorable & fair.]

2. Nothing Muller produced was used by Pelosi or Schiff to make a charge in their impeachments.
[The impeachment had nothing to do with Mueller's investigation. It was about Trump pressuring Ukraine's leader to dig up dirt on his political rival.]

3. Mueller had every right and opportunity that Ken Starr did with Clinton. So there goes your theory out the window
[Go back and read the reasoning behind Mueller's decisions --- in his own words. Besides, Ken Starr and Mueller are two completely different animals. Starr was a partisan sleazebag who was on a crusade to impeach Clinton. Mueller remained impartial and fair.]

4. All 12 witnesses that testified folded under questioning by Republicans when they had to admit that ALL of their testimony was something told to them and they didn't witness any of it first hand. Nothing but hearsay babble. But we did see that Dumbocrats will convict anyone on hearsay evidence. Even made up evidence when its proved to them.
[Hmm...I don't recall any of the witnesses "folding". In fact, every witness testimony was so sound that they corroborated one another. Name one witness that contradicted or failed to add to the weight of the evidence of what Trump was accused of. Name one witness that was even suspect or in doubt. All were professional and had solid testimonies. You probably believe that they all colluded to give the same story, eh? If Trump was innocent he wouldn't have felt so threatened by the whistleblower that he would imply they should be executed for treason. Nor would Trump have tried to block the release of the call transcript, which was later released but blatantly incomplete. The list goes on and on. How the MAGA mob can be so gullible to believe he was innocent is beyond me. LOL.]

5. And to this day, 7 years later, what do you have to show for it. A big fat zero. Not one single indictment. So either all these thousands of felony criminal claims are fake, or Democrats are the dumbest lot on the planet.
[It's called "American politics". The US system is designed to benefit white collar crime & greed. President after president got away with crimes/violations with only a slap on the wrist, if even that. Congressmen have got away with their share of crimes as well. It's the American capitalist way --- promote & protect corruption. The people are just cattle to feed off of while the nation burns.]

6. And we also found out that Mueller didn't even write his own report as under questioning about his own report, he couldn't answer over 200 questions from his own report. So he's either that dumb or he's lying about writing the report.
[Sounds like you've been watching/reading too much right-wing sensationalist propaganda. Why would Mueller personally write the entire report? He has aids, investigators and secretaries to do that (recall it was a two-year investigation & an almost 500-page report). Mueller would certainly have final say in the important points of the report, just as an editor of a newspaper/magazine has. And what evidence do you have that he couldn't answer the questions? (More right-wing propaganda? Who exactly is saying this?) How do you know he wasn't simply exercising restraint? No one can deny that he exercised great restraint throughout his testimony, apparently because he didn't want to present a biased view or expose his personal feelings on the matter.]

And every one of those are undisputed. Which makes your entire post nothing but mind reading guesswork.
[Yeah, undisputed. Like the "stolen election" narrative. LOL]

 

This entire thread is nothing but disgusting pettifoggery and unending defense of the indefensible. After giving us such exemplary leaders as Eisenhower and Reagan the Republican leadership decided to revive the Nazis and give us the most corrupt and truly unAmerican ideology I can recall being promulgated by any political entity in all of American history. With only a few exceptions the entirety of the Republican Congress have been enablers of the traitorous criminal Trump and should share his well-deserved long incarceration.

 

WOW, You can tell when someone gets sold a bag of goods from the media then runs here to post it. You have no clue what you're talking about.
Muellers job wasn't to indict anyone. His job was to investigate and make any criminal claims to the AG. Thats what special councils are for. If Mueller couldn't make any criminal recommendations then why would you waste you time? lol
If Starr can make criminal recommendations then so can Mueller. Learn what special counsels do before you expose yourself for media regurgitations again.

RIght, Now you're claiming Neither Pelosi or Schiff would dare make another criminal claim against Trump? How desperate can you possibly get with these answers
Laughable

They both have the same power to make criminals recommendations to the AG. If Pelosi and Schiff and Starr can make criminal recommendations for an impeachment, please tell us all why Mueller can't

Oh, So you are admitting you didn't watch any of the impeachment hearings and all you have done here, is prove you blindly slurp up these ignorant impeachment claims with no knowledge of anything because you watched NOTHINGt. Thats what I thought as I watched every minute.
Heres just one video of Democrats witnesses folding under questioning ADMITTING they were not testifying to what they know, but testifying to what they were told

So you can start at the 3 minute mark to see how I know you haven't a clue about any of this nor did you watch any of the hearings. You are regurgitating leftist media and post you read.


And EVERY witness testified to the same thing under Republican questioning.

Bill Clinton had to surrender his law license his last day in office for an agreement not to prosecute him.
FAIL

So the report that is called the Mueller report, and claims in its preamble of being Muellers report, wasn't written by Mueller. He just let some other person write it.
That would explain why over 200 times he couldn't answer questions about his own report now. wouldn't it. lol

Nope, undisputed because you couldn't dispute it if your life depended on it which is why you had to post such an obvious deflection.

 

Bottom line
1. No defense attorney can stop and indictment against their clients. They have no power to do so.
2. You haven't provided a single indictment after 7 years and thousands of felony criminal claims.
3. After 50 forensic FBI agents, two dozen CIA officials, 17 intelligence agencies, 14 top Democrat lawyers, 2500 witnesses, millions of subpoenaed documents, 7 years of ongoing investigations, the NY DA investigations, how many indictments do you have
A BIG FAT ZERO

 

Fake News. It merely delay it.

Wait, I Thought the Democrats Already Did That: Iran Threatens to Turn New York City Into ‘Hellish Ruins.’

​

 

The special counsel has the power to bring criminal charges. These are not criminal "claims", as you word it, but actual criminal charges. Hence the reason why Mueller affirmed that the president can be charged for obstruction if he left office. Unfortunately he felt it prudent to follow the OLC "assertion". Besides, Barr had the power to request an explanation for "any investigative or prosecutorial step" and then decide whether or not to proceed --- which he capitalized on when he addressed Congress on his intent NOT proceed in his redacted & misleading summary. Such would be expected from "General Cover-Up Bill Barr."

The special counsel can also prosecute anyone who interferes in his investigation through crimes including perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.

Nonetheless, Mueller and his team of prosecutors did indict 34 individuals from Trump's circle and three Russian businesses, which led to seven guilty pleas and five people sentenced to prison. Why Trump, being the central figure, could not have been forced to testify shows how impractical & illogical our system is (ie, it's rigged).

However, Bill Clinton wasn't spared presidential immunity because...

In Clinton v. Jones, the Court declined to extend the immunity recognized in [Nixon vs.] Fitzgerald to civil suits challenging the legality of a President's unofficial conduct. In that case, the plaintiff sought to recover compensatory and punitive damages for alleged misconduct by President Clinton occurring before he took federal office. The district court denied the President's motion to dismiss based on a constitutional claim of temporary immunity and held that discovery should go forward, but granted a stay of the trial until after the President left office. The court of appeals vacated the order staying the trial, while affirming the denial of the immunity-based motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, permitting the civil proceedings to go forward against the President while he still held office. [SOURCE]

The reasons why Pelosi & Schiff decided against proceeding with impeachment hearings from Mueller's investigation, as well as against the implementation of the vast material in Mueller's report into the Ukraine impeachment trial, were purely practical.

In essence, Pelosi felt they had a much better chance at success in impeaching Trump over the Ukraine scandal than on the Mueller investigation, and based this on several reasons. It had nothing to do with capitulating to Barr's bogus summary.

Rather than cut/paste, you can read the reasoning behind Pelosi's decision HERE.

The article does, however, mention that... House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York made the case for an obstruction of justice impeachment article based on the Mueller report. Backing him up were Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the second- and third-ranking House Democrats, according to multiple sources. So there were members who clearly wanted to take the next (Congressional) step on Mueller's investigation.

Does the right-wing media ever educate its followers on what Mueller actually said???

* Mueller stated, Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.

* After he released the report, Mueller, in no uncertain terms, stated, If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.

What part of Mueller's statements don't you understand?

Also, if Trump was innocent, why did he try to get Mueller fired?
McGahn was seen as the star witness in special counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. He told Mueller's investigators that Trump had ordered him to fire Mueller. McGahn told investigators that a day after the revelation broke in the press, Trump asked him to write a letter denying that the president had wanted Mueller fired. Each time he was approached, McGahn responded that he would not refute the press accounts because they were accurate in reporting on the President's effort to have the Special Counsel removed," according to Mueller's findings. McGahn said he would rather quit than fire Mueller. McGahn stepped down as White House counsel in October 2018.

lol...You talk like the witnesses were just a bunch of shady Joe Blows off the street who claim they were told something by other Joe Blows. No doubt the right-wing media has portrayed them as such.

If we look at the witnesses, they were hardly the type that would lie about this (with the exception of Trumper, Gordan Sondland). And they were witnesses (though not KEY witness) in positions that could contribute (along with key documents) something meaningful to the narrative to produce a preponderance of evidence. And we know the testimonies are accurate for three reasons:

(1) The call transcript, OMB documents & other records, and text messages sealed the accuracy of witness testimonies (particularly Vindman's testimony).
(2) Witness testimonies corroborated the whistleblower's claims.
(3) The testimonies did not contradict one another.

Also, I suppose it means nothing to you that an innocent person would not try to block the release of the call transcript (as well as numerous other subpoenaed documents), let alone delete portions of it. You're either in denial or you haven't a clue about Trump's character.

Yep, you successfully picked out the ONLY non-credible witness that testified --- Sondland, a MAGA Trumper who Republicans had warned the House Democrats would "smear" in the hearing, but which Republicans later turned on. See "The GOP warned Ambassador Sondland that he'd be 'smeared' by Democrats in the impeachment hearing before turning around and smearing him themselves" [ARTICLE LINK]

To understand what's going on with Sondland, you have to put your thinking cap on.

If I were to submit an opinion on Sondland's agenda, I'd state that his testimony reveals a person who is trying to avoid being entangled as a witting participant in Trump's scandal. Why? Because of the following facts:

(1) Text messages given to Congress show Sondland and another diplomat explicitly tying Zelenskiy’s willingness to announce an investigation to whether he would be granted a coveted White House visit.
(2) A dozen House Democrats had called for Sondland to resign in the wake of revelations about his key role in the unfolding Ukraine scandal. The calls for his ouster came as Sondland prepared to be deposed by House committees as part of their impeachment inquiry into the president. NBC News surveyed all 235 House Democratics about whether they believe Sondland must resign. Many of the lawmakers said they were withholding judgment until Sondland testifies and urged him to fully cooperate with the committees, warning that failure to do so would amount to obstruction.
(3) Sondland was named by Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, as one of two senior U.S. diplomats Giuliani coordinated with on his efforts in Ukraine. The other diplomat, former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker, resigned amid the chaos.
(4) Sondland’s name appears in the whistleblower report, which says that the day after Trump’s July call with Zelenskiy, Sondland and Volker met with Zelenskiy in the Ukrainian capital. The whistleblower describes Sondland as working to help the Ukrainians navigate Trump’s request for an investigation and trying to mitigate damage Giuliani was inflicting on U.S. national security.
(5) In text messages that Volker ultimately turned over to Congress, Sondland appears to not only be actively facilitating Trump’s goal but also shutting down a top diplomat who raised concerns.
(6) On Sept. 9, according to the messages, acting Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor tells Sondland that “as I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Sondland pushes back, telling Taylor that he’s “incorrect” about Trump’s intentions and that the president has made clear “no quid pro quos of any kind.” He then advises Taylor to stop discussing the issue via text.
(7) Sondland was a Trump loyalist, a $1 million donor to Trump's campaign, and benefactor to being appointed a seat as a US ambassador despite having no qualifications or experience. (Despite his meager background, Sondland was still confirmed by the GOP-run Senate to become an ambassador.)

Hence, I concur with VOX where it reads, note the vagueness of Sondland’s claim that he simply “presumed” this. The other witnesses say he was claiming that he talked to Trump about it several times. Again, it seems Sondland may be trying to minimize Trump’s role in a way that’s at odds with other testimony. [SOURCE]

Still, Sondland's alleged "presumption" that aid was tied to investigations was dead-on correct. We also have the OMB records & Mark Sandy's testimony.

White House official ordered aid to Ukraine be withheld 91 minutes after Trump call with Ukraine president, documents show
The first announcement that the White House had decided to withhold the aid, which Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said was at the direction of the president, came at a July 18 meeting between OMB and other officials. The meeting immediately sparked confusion and concerns from National Security Council officials and diplomats. This prompted a series of NSC-led inter-agency meetings, during which officials came to a unanimous conclusion that the security assistance should be resumed, according to several witnesses' testimony in the House impeachment inquiry. [SOURCE]

Mark Sandy broke rank and agreed to testify despite the following (note the name "Pat Cipollone"):

White House counsel Pat Cipollone informed Congress in September that the White House would not cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, and the Office of Management and Budget has declined to participate. Russ Vought, the acting director of the OMB, tweeted in October that he and Mike Duffey, another top OMB official, would not comply with congressional requests for depositions. "As the WH letter made clear two weeks ago, OMB officials - myself and Mike Duffey - will not be complying with deposition requests this week. #shamprocess," Vought wrote on Twitter on October 21. [SOURCE]

Now why such resistance if there was no wrong-doing?

 

Your reactionary assumptions are funny. Not everyone sides with one party or another. I adhere to logic and facts, as well as common sense & reason. You should try it some time rather than sounding like a January-Sixer.

The witnesses were administration officials who solidified the narrative, however they were not the key witnesses that the House sought in vain to subpoena, and so, had to work with what they had. In fact, many key witnesses they didn't even bother trying to subpoena because of the time it would take to get the courts to force them to testify.

For example...

(1) All key witnesses subpoenaed by the House were told by the White House to not cooperate.
(2) The House withdrew Kupperman's subpoena in order to cancel his lawsuit against testifying, which would've dragged out for months.
(3) McGahn was finally forced to testify by a court order after a lengthy EIGHT months of court deliberations!

You see how stupid our justice system is? Had the justice system worked as it should, all key witnesses (including Trump) would've been forced, without delay, to testify.

Keep in mind: Trump was impeached, which means he was found guilty of abuse of office. His only punishment would be removal from office, but only if the GOP-controlled Senate would capitulate. As expected, the do-nothing GOP again chose to support corruption. The point, however, is that Trump was found guilty.

Interesting side note: It was former U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson who ruled that McGahn must testify before the House. The Trump administration expressed frustration with the order, saying it "contradicts longstanding legal precedent established by administrations of both parties," according to a statement from White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham. But Jackson said there is no legal basis of the so-called "legal precedent" the White House has been citing that presidential aides are immune from subpoenas.

lol...He stopped practicing law after becoming governor of Arkansas at age 32 (the youngest governor in the country). Then he became president and is now set for life. You think he cares about his law license? Like I said before: All they get is a slap on the wrist, if even that.

Mueller oversaw & coordinated the investigation. He's neither able, nor has the time to write such a lengthy & detailed report. Although he would have to review & approve the final draft, his staff would write the bulk of the report.

If he didn't know what was in the report he wouldn't have said, "It's in the report." (Duh)
You actually believe someone with the caliber & impeccable background of Mueller wouldn't know what's in his own report?

Sorry to tell you, but it's been disputed by the mountain of evidence against Trump. But, because of our stupid justice system, it doesn't mean the guilty will be found guilty. Trump was protected for 4 years while in office. This time, without immunity, he's facing charge after charge. Whether he goes to prison or not, the remainder of his life will surely be spent in litigation. No one works harder than Trump's lawyers...lol

 

You're absolutely right, although I'd disagree about Reagan, and Eisenhower was also not a saint --- but certainly head & shoulders above Trump.

 

Deflection and blah blah blah
Every witness testified that they did not hear Trump make a quid pro quo. They just heard about it. I gave you the video to see for yourself and nothing you posted disputes that video. Just excuses.

WRONG, If you are charged with a crime it doesn't mean your guilty of the crime.
Where do you 15%ers get this ignorant stuff from? In fact, the judge claimed he was not guilty and EXONERATED of any claims.

He was disbarred. And nothing you can post disputes it. All you posted are excuses

Mueller didn't and couldn't answer questions about his own report over 200 times during testimony and again you can't dispute it. Just excuses.

Fine, show me. Dispute one. lol
Are are you all talk?
1. No defense attorney can stop and indictment against their clients. They have no power to do so.
2. You haven't provided a single indictment after 7 years and thousands of felony criminal claims.
3. After 50 forensic FBI agents, two dozen CIA officials, 17 intelligence agencies, 14 top Democrat lawyers, 2500 witnesses, millions of subpoenaed documents, 7 years of ongoing investigations, the NY DA investigations, how many indictments do you have? NONE

 

What is historically hysterical is that someone like Trump was ever taken seriously in any nation of any intelligence.
Then again, allowing the duopoly's coup d'état ranks right up there as well.

 

Not against the president

FALSE

That wouldn't be Mueller charging anyone.
And he wasn't charged. lol

He wasn't tasked to indict Trump so the OLC has nothing to do with it.

False

Not the president

All process crimes that have nothing to do with Trump
FAIL

FALSE

That would mean if they had evidence that he did commit a crime, they would have said so. And you bought that line. lol

He didn't/ More fake leftist media hype

Food for idiots. McGahn couldn't fire Mueller if he wanted too. Mueller works for AG Barr and the only two people on the planet that could fire him is Trump or Barr.

No doubt the video portrayed EXACTLY what they said. Every one of them claimed they were told the information and had no direct evidence of anything.
Sorry bout your luck

I don't care what you think of Sondland. He testified to what every other witness testified too. They were all hearsay witnesses.

 

I think Mitch, or somebody with a functioning brain pan, must have laid down the law over the weekend, because the EXACT same bill passed today, 86-11....

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/senate-finally-passes-bill-boosting-235102082.html

Is it truly possible to have more egg on your face that the GQP these days??

 

I think the veterans were threatening not to support the GOP in the midterms if this bill was not passed. My guess.

But I'm glad the bill passed. The arguments the GOP used, such as there was unwanted spending in the bill, was completely hogwash. The issue was an accounting one, mandatory vs discretionary. With discretionary, the GOP would have reduced this spending in the future, which would make it harder for veterans to get the help they need.

 

I think any veteran that supports the GQP, bill or not, has clearly been a little too close to those burn pits... The GQP is the party that SENDS Americans to various, unwinnable, wars....

 

A Federal Grand Jury just issued a subpoena for Cipollone

 

Schiff, as a privileged White Male should do the honorable thing and resign.

‘Drag is what I do, trans is who I am’: Transgender non-binary drag queen Maebe A. Girl runs against US Rep. Adam Schiff in California.