I've Now Read 100% of the Redacted Report | My Final Word

Dear @RodB and @Derideo_Te

Is this argument about Rosenstein appointment of Mueller being "unconstitutional" and "unauthorized/unchecked" from the start,
based on what Mark Levin and certain other Constitutional legal scholars have argued:
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-...nt-violates-constitutions-appointments-clause

If nothing is being done about this,
it seems on the same level as nothing being done about
the "Federal Reserve and/or IRS" long argued as unconstitutional or extra-constitutional,
or ACA passage through Congress and ruling through the Supreme Court
argued as both violating Constitutional process, principles and/or beliefs in these laws.

If people don't believe in applying, interpreting or enforcing Constitutional laws the same way,
maybe we need to split off into separate denominations and run our own programs separately by party.
Similar to Protestants running their own church programs independent of Catholics.

And keep all private programs a free choice for members to fund, follow or mandate for themselves.

Then only where all these agree, THOSE policies can be treated as public if they truly represent everyone equally and inclusively.
But everything else that differs by belief, keep that separate so groups can elect whatever policies they agree to be governed under.
And keep that to themselves, so other groups can do the same for their own beliefs equally!

 

\
I mostly agree with one, maybe a few caveats.

One, He will be and MUST be impeached. With his current "total obstruction" path, it wil become unavoidable; particularly so, if after losing his fight against the subpeopnas (he will,on ALL Of them, including the taxes), he still doesn't comply (we have no reason to think he will). Even if he eventually does comply, and even if conviction in the senate is unlikely, his behavior leaves Democrats no choice. He's poking the hornets nest with further blatant obstruction and it's possible even GOP senators will cave or come around, especially as this goes on in full public view. It may be best to wait and make it a just prior to the 2020 general, but as things stand, and if they continue on this path, impeachment is a foregone conclusion, for the sake of the rule of law, it MUST BE.

People are not remembering that Watergate took a LOT of time and public exposure before the GOP came around, and public opinion turned. IN these days of the cut of Trump, I fear it might not come round, I think many do, but deep down I still hope America isn't that far gone.

So IDK if that's "moving on": or not, Trump has moved on with open nake obstruction. Congress has PLENTY of reasons to continue to investigate and Trump's stonewalling is political suicide.

Moving on does NOT Mean taking what Fox news (or the others, but moreso Fox) tells ya for good, I suggest READING the report. It's damning, period.

 

[/QUOTE]
I've only managed to get through three pages of skimming this most excellent OP's thread, and it is CRYSTAL clear who has read and who has not read the report. It's impossible to read the report and come out of it going "yeah Trump is innocent". It's just not true. It's arguable how serious or criminal whay he and his campaign did was, but it's just not arguable they aren't at fault, or that this was noithing but a witch hunt.

I find it infuriating to the nines, folks who take the spind from Fox, say Orange man GREAT! Get the spy Obummillary! And refuse to even skim the actual report.

I think you are largely right about the overall media effect, but I think you point fingers a little harshly. I'm not a fan of CNN or Fox, but CNN on the news shows, most were thourough as they could be, but too much bias showed.

I think MSNBC coverage was best. I am biased that way perhaps, but most everyting I got from them stil jives. It was hard to not think at times Trump had to be directly under Putin's control. Some of the opinion shows may have made that narrative seem more likely than it was, but in the end, I don't think they blew it as badly as the other two networks. FWIW, I also believe they started beating Fox in reating s around the time of Mueller's wind down, maybe rightly so as their coverage, of the"big three" was most accurate.

All of them are ratings games, and it's their failing, but it's also an American cultural failing. We can't blame a product we happily buy up for adoing what best serves its needs wholly if we ourselves to get taken in by it with no fight.

Some of it is just on the viewer making too much of things too.

 

Well you're wrong because.....!



I mean personally I think you might be on to something, but , well American's, yeah, that's logic worlds beyond the capacity of most of us lot, sorry!

 

Pence is a charmless hypocrite and a coward, so he would carry all of the baggage of a rigid right-wing religious extremist without being able to bullshit the rubes like trump.

 

Lol...Now you're getting a clue why Europe is being invaded by those refugees that you hate so much from their former colonies and the US is reaping the results of stealing half of Mexico to feed their fantasies about Manifest Destiny.

 

Mueller cannot make any conclusions on whether Trump obstructed justice, while he has referred possible criminal conduct involving both Trump and his family, to the Southern District of Manhattan for further investigation. We don't know what 'underlying crime' exists, that he may have intended to keep hidden by firing Comey and threatening retaliation etc, until the rest of the investigation is completed. So all Mueller can do is describe the actions and the statements that are consistent with an obstruction charge, and leave the Southern District to define an underlying crime which might explain them. Mueller provided the map and laid the foundation for Congress to act prior to Trump's leave of office, or the Southern District to act thereafter.

 

Not to disagree with Mark Levin, but Mueller was no different than anyone under the Attorney General and they don't need approval.

 

Exactly what in mueller report lays a foundation? No collusion, no obstruction.

 

100+ instances of meetings between the Russians and members of the BLOTUS's campaign were laid out in the report and then 10 instances of attempts to obstruct justice which Mueller EXPLICITLY states that your BLOTUS was NOT exonerated.

But don't let DOCUMENTED FACTUAL REALITY stand in the way of your fantasies.

 

Agreed.

There is no way anyone can convince me that spying and FISA surveillance of people working for a Republican presidential campaign was occurring, with people in the highest levels of the FBI, CIA and NSA involved, and the sitting Democrat president was ignorant of it, and had not authorized it.

How many times can Obama use that excuse, every time the people running his Executive Branch agencies are caught doing something unethical? "I found out about it the same time y'all did, when I watched the TV news."

 

If it makes Trump look complicit because he benefited from something that took place, then Hilary should be suspected of being complicit with Obama's DOJ, and their refusal to indict and prosecute her for multiple counts of mishandling classified material.

 

I'd like the people accusing Trump of obstruction to cite one example where Trump used executive privilege to block documents or witnesses that Mueller requested. Trump went above and beyond to comply with this bogus investigation.

 

Only complete idiots take a report compiled exclusively by democrats and Clintons supporters seriously.80% of Moellera's team were political hacks,not investigators.Yet they abysmally failed in their attempt to prove Russian collusion.Which was the purpose of the investigation in the first place.Moving goalposts all the time in order to justify your abysmal failures will get lliberals, pundits and their media lackeys nowhere.You never learn.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/15/robert-mueller-trump-organization-russia-documents

Mueller requested documented pertaining to your BLOTUS's dealings with Moscow that he refused to hand over. Your BLOTUS then LIED by alleging that he had no dealings with Russia at all in 2016.

Then your BLOTUS coerced Cohen to LIE to CONGRESS about the Moscow deal.

The TRUTH subsequently came out your BLOTUS not only LIED but he also obstructed the handing over the relevant documents AND he tampered with a witness.

 

Also from the law: (a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General [or the deputy Attorney General if the AG is unavailable]. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation,

Rosenstein's appointment letter says:
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;

"What was discussed at some congressional meeting" is not a specific matter. "Any links and or coordination between......." is not a specific crime -- in fact not a crime at all. Manafort's prosecution did not arise "in the course of and with the intent to interfere with" Mueller's assigned jurisdiction.

Also from the law: (b)Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.

Rosenstein's appointment letter says: (c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

Per the law, Rosenstein did not have the authority to assign additional jurisdiction a priori. In fact, since Sessions recused himself only for Russian interference, Mueller would have had to go to Sessions, not to Rosenstein, to get approval for such additional authority.

 

Wrong again!

Sessions had recused himself from EVERYTHING to do with the Russian investigation so it would have been a VIOLATION of his RECUSAL to have been INVOLVED in ANYTHING that arose from that investigation since there would be the probability of Conflict of Interest or Prejudice.

Basic logic 101.

 

Mueller is different from other appointees, in that he is appointed under different statutes with different authorities. Secondly, Mueller in the law is given authority equal to a US Attorney, and every nominated US Attorney needs to be confirmed by the Senate.

 

In reality, Basic ignorance 101, or, to be charitable, Basic unable-to-read-law 101.

 

Ironic PROJECTION duly noted and ignored for derogatory reasons.

 

Two long years ago
the probe began and many thought
that someday it would make them smile.
And those who said it had no chance
were scowled upon and seen askance
so desperate was the hope to see a trial.

But February made them shiver
as it came clear he’d not deliver.
The news that they desired
was not to be acquired.

I know that many people cried
when they read the news, it hurt their pride,
so deeply in the pipe dream mired
the day collusion died.

So bye, bye to the collusion lie,
Russian Agents, Putin’s Puppet and a plot to deny.
From each new event how the conjecture would fly.
Can they let it go and just let it die?
Let it go and just let it die.

The Day Collusion Died

Chord it to "Bye Bye Miss American Pie"

 

Mark Levin?

You're getting your "legal analysis" from a right wing talk radio host! One with a reputation for carefully constructed lies, bellowing and general nonsense?

 

You righties have a strange definition for investigation. Investigation go in search of the truth, they do not confirm known crimes.

The one you brought up was Manafort. If you check, Mueller ask for and got approval from Rosenstein to pursue him.

Really? A federal investigator should ignore crimes in the course of his investigation?
I'll need a link for that one.

 

Not correct. Prosecutors and Special Counsels investigate only crimes. They are not a think tank research organization. No prosecutor in the country ever says, "I think I'll go snoop around X and see if I can find a crime."

For the umpteenth time Rosenstein did not have the legal authority to give Mueller that approval.

Your reading comprehension is slipping badly. A Special Counsel -- not a "federal investigator" -- appointed under 28 CFR 600 CANNOT investigate other crimes he comes across without the express authorization from the Attorney General (not the Deputy AG.)

 

Agreed.

If you get dozens of certified Trump-haters, who were also donors for Obama and Hilary, and some even working for them, and they could not pronounce Trump guilty of collusion and obstruction, then there is no there, there. So close that book and move on.