“Also, I was unable to find satisfactory evidence to charge Ned with drinking Zima”.
“In fact, after talking to legal counsel, it is not even legal to charge an active uhnd board member with drinking Zima, so I’m wondering what the point of my 2 1/2 year investigation into this was all about in the first place”
“I have thus decided to call this high profile press conference while my boss is in Alaska to give you exactly the same information already available in my report. I also refuse to take your many questions, but this should at least get everyone talking about Ned and his Zima even more because deep down, I just know that if I had a few more years, I might have turned up a can or two”.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Mueller obviously thinks that Trump is guilty.
But that's just because he IS guilty.
I suppose you will say "you're rules!" and come up with some time when some Democrat obstructed justice, because that makes everything A-O-K in your mind.
I can promise you that if a Democratic president does stuff like this in the future, I will not cite Trump's precedent as an excuse, as if prior bad behavior justifies all future action. I can promise I will not lose my code of ethics.
and he will go down in the history books as a failure. That's his motive.
Today’s presser.
The coward wouldn’t render what he was supposed to since it cleared Trump of charges, and now won’t take questions either. I told you so. “Professionals” indeed. “Political hack” is a more accurate term.
The guy actually flipped justice on its ear today and put the burden of proof on Trump to prove his innocence. In the meantime, he shall assume his guilt like any good TDS’er.
Turns out the truth is bad for Trump lots of times. Therefore, the truth has inherent bias.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
press conferences with no questions taken and when their boss is 4,000 miles away.
He does not get to pick and choose what he tells to Congress. No one does.
Will you defend your Dem President then?
I know, I know...you will just point out that you are right and we are wrong...that's the difference here. You get to define reality. There is, apparently, no objective reality in the political arena. There is just the competition. Your post, and conor's posts are good examples of this. Wrapping yourself in morality (and authority and expertise) is how the competitors arm themselves in this competition.
You think the president is acting like an innocent man?
Of course you do. Why am I asking.
So, my point stands. if Trump makes up a bunch of shit, and uses that to launch an official investigation (which we now know is not "spying" and therefore it is ok), you would not try to stop that? BS.
As it is, I originally feared the Dems doing that (making shit up) might help them. Gradually, I started to think you guys were committing suicide over Hillary's loss...suicide through public self-flagellation in the form of crazy investigations that expose your derangement. We'll see. You still could harm the duly elected president through a soft coup attempt centered around made up bullshit. Hard to say. Will be interesting to watch, though. That much I know.
From a review of the Report, Vol. I, Footnote 465
This footnote addresses a question that has been raised time and again, and which was echoed by Attorney General William Barr in his testimony to Congress on April 10: What was the basis, or predicate, for the Russia investigation?
The White House has claimed that the investigation was based on the “Steele Dossier,” an intelligence report compiled by a former British spy and financed by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which alleged that there were ties between Trump and the Kremlin. But in this footnote, Mueller explains the sequence and timing of events that gave rise to a credible threat to national security, warranting an investigation. First, Mueller notes earlier in the report that in July 2016, Wikileaks began disseminating emails stolen from the DNC. A few days later, the U.S. intelligence community assessed with “high confidence” that the Russian government had orchestrated the hack of these emails. Within a week of that release, a foreign government informed the FBI that George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, told a representative of their government that Russia had offered to “assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.” Mueller states that this information “is contained in the case-opening document and related materials.” This means that it was these facts, not the Steele Dossier, which raised an open question on whether Russia had attempted or was trying to attempt to coordinate with members of the Trump campaign to influence the 2016 presidential campaign and led to the official opening of an investigation.
If the GOP makes a bunch of shit up, and abuses our justice system (e.g., to get warrants, etc.) as an insurance policy against the Democrats, will you be ok with that? Of course not. You would fight it. My point stands.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
...not to be confused with ZZ Top.
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644237/robert-mueller-remarks-transcript