Trump Jr.'s 2017 Testimony Conflicts With Cohen's Account Of Russian Talks

Actually, it was the only crying point. Which has now been reduced to "PROTECT MUELLER!" It's actually kind of embarrassing. I certainly hope at the very least Trump doesn't run in 2020. He did his job to show the whole system the farce for what it is.

 

Well, a tiny more broader than that, with one exception. In one sense his directive is broader than any other special/independent prosecutor in that he was not directed to investigate any crime.

Even if it were accurate, is there some/any illegal act buried deep somewhere in your arm waving statement?

 

Cohen is supposed to be Mueller's star witness is the criminal indictment of Trump by Mueller, but, Mueller by impeaching his own witness as a perjurer has exposed that he isn't even trying to build a criminal case, he is trying to build a report.

No prosecutor builds a case the way Mueller is going about it. What prosecutor says, “Here’s our witness line-up: Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen. And what is it that they have in common, ladies and gentlemen of the jury? Bingo! They’re all convicted liars.”?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...n-trump-russia-investigation-report-not-case/

 

Isn't it sad what has become of the "news". Even sadder is how many people blindly trust them.

 

It's a truism that most police work involves snitching, not sleuthing. Criminals are convicted because other criminal lowlifes testify against them. Trump's situation will be no different.

 

So Mueller's big plan is to build a criminal case based on the sworn testimony of those he has already pled out for lying under oath? Don't think so. The way prosecutors build criminal cases through guilty pleas is by having these kinds of folks pled guilty to the underlying crime, then their testimony is used to tie the principle to the crime established by the guilty plea.

Since Mueller has no underlying crime, he is only getting these process crimes.

Press aims at Trump, hits own foot

Phil Ewing, "national security editor with NPR," had an exclusive on Friday. His headline was, "Trump Jr.'s 2017 Testimony Conflicts With Cohen's Account Of Russian Talks."

Matt Drudge linked it. There was plenty of hooting and hollering on press row. Mueller might not be able to get The Donald but they think Mueller could get The Junior.

But Ewing lied. Junior and Cohen were talking about two different things.

 

And bingo. They all worked for Individual 1.

 

It most certainly will be different. Mueller can't build a criminal case, first he has no crime and second he has impeached all his witnesses as under oath liars.

As a prosecutor, you build a case by having your cooperating accomplice witnesses plead guilty to the big scheme you are trying to pin on the main culprit. After all, what makes these witnesses accomplices, literally, is that they were participants in the main culprit’s crime. That’s the scheme you’re trying to prove. So, on guilty-plea day, the cooperator comes into court and admits guilt to the same conspiracy on which you are trying to nail the lead defendant.

That gets you 90 percent of the way home. “Yes, I am guilty of the conspiracy charged in Count One. I was a member of the drug cartel. A was the boss. B and C were the distributors. D organized the couriers and kept an arsenal to protect the drugs and the money, and to make sure we got paid. My job was to keep the books and supervise the money-laundering operation.”

This kind of guilty plea signals to the world, including to all the other suspects, that the accomplice is ready to testify that the criminal scheme existed — it is not a figment of the prosecutor’s fevered imagination. The accomplice is ready to describe what he did and what everybody else did. Virtually every appellate opinion reviewing conspiracy convictions notes the principle that once a conspiracy is shown to exist, only slight evidence is needed to tie a conspirator to it.

In short, you build a case by first establishing the foundational criminal offense.

In Mueller's farce he has no crime, even though in our system we do not loose prosecutors on people until we have probable cause that at crime has been committed and that those to be investigated, likely committed it. We don't have criminal investigations in search of process crimes, though this is what Mueller is doing.

He's building a report that he hopes will be political damaging to the President, causing political explosion that hides the real crimes and conspiracies, committed by the FBI/DOJ/CIA/Hillary Campaign/Obama Administration, and by himself when he personally was the Nuclear Mule carrying nuclear materials to Russian on behalf of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

He is impeaching his own witnesses, because he knows there will be no trial and they will never be cross examined, so they will never deliver contradictory false testimony, because their story will be told by the skilled prosecutors who write Dirty Mueller's political report.

 

Maybe so if thats what mueller told him to do

They have cohen on unrelated charges but the Deep State is really after trump

They dont even want trump jr but will use him if thry can to bring down the president

 

Nonsense

The public was told trump cheated to win the white house and that was the moral authority for the mueller witchhunt

Otherwise the mueller probe is revealed as the soft coup that it is

 

Exactly, Dirty Mueller doesn't mind indicting his own witnesses because he is building a political report not a criminal indictment against Trump. Dirty Bob has never had a crime. In our system, prosecutors are involved AFTER it has been established that a crime was probably committed, warranting use of their awesome, intimidating investigative powers. Our main interest is in the crime we authorize prosecutors to investigate; we are not looking to have prosecutors manufacture crimes through the process of investigating.

With respect to the president and “collusion,” Mueller does not have a crime he is investigating. He is investigating in hopes of finding a crime, which is a day-and-night different thing.

The lack of a crime means the “accomplices” are not really accomplices. To take a couple of stark examples, collusion pours off every page of the narrative statements Mueller submitted to the courts in the cases of Papadopoulos and Cohen. They consult with Russian operatives, plan meetings for themselves and Trump with Russian officials, and — in Papadopoulos’s case — discuss the possibility of obtaining campaign dirt against Hillary Clinton from Russians. Yet, though these activities are the laser focus of his investigation, Mueller did not charge them as crimes because they are not crimes. Papadopoulos, Cohen, and the rest got jammed up, not for what they did, but for lying about what they did.

That brings us to the “where there’s smoke, there must be fire” talking-point Mueller fans have been trying out: If all these people are lying to cover something up, that something must involve some egregious criminality. That’s ridiculous. We know from our own daily lives that crimes account for only a very small percentage of the things people lie about. Indeed, throughout the 1990s, Democrats insisted that prosecutors should leave Bill Clinton alone because everybody lies about sex. People lie about things that they are embarrassed or ashamed about.

 

This is what we call "confirmation bias." Give me a short bit of time and I will gladly find you some examples if you wish.

 

Did you miss the word "perjury" or did you think it did not qualify as a crime in the same way that you appear to think that mueller's directive to investigate Russian hacking was not a directive to investigate a crime, the way you appear to think that mueller's directive to investigate collusion between the trump campaign and Russia was not a directive to investigate a crime, and the way you appear to think that mueller's directive to investigate trump for obstruction of justice was not a directive to investigate a crime.

 

You took this article to heart and claimed you wanted Trump and his family to fight treason charges ( death penalty).. You basically called for his and his families death.. Shall i quote your OP?

This over a FALSE article.

Learn

Quick.

"Icing on the cake would be him getting impeached and his kids either ending up in prison or fighting financial crimes/treason charges in courts for the rest of their lives. If this is not a literal illustration of 'opening a can of worms' I don't know what is."

 

No of course that alone isn’t proof.

 

One can be convicted of perjury for oral or written acts committed only in a court of law, not in any other setting or venue.

Mueller's directive was to investigate "...links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;"
NO CRIME WAS LISTED. He was not directed to investigate Russian hacking; collusion is not a crime; obstruction of justice has no evidence as it relates to his directive, so therefore he is not authorized to investigate it. Now, Rosenstein probably gave him such permission, but Rosenstein does not have that authority either. Not that anyone is counting the sheer lawlessness of the entire Mueller operation.

Mueller is the first and only special/independent prosecutor to not be assigned a crime to investigate. This means it was either a counter-intelligence operation; or a directive to investigate a person (Trump) to see what he can find -- otherwise officially known as a Stalinist witch hunt.

 

"Individual 1." My, my, my, you got to laugh at these silly bastards and their goofy practices.

 

We've watched the rubber hit the proverbial road for two years. Spare me.

 

Like Starr was supposed to be looking into the Whitewater land deal?

Investigations go where investigations go.

Always have. Always will.

 

As the preponderance of the evidence continues to pike up, you just go on believing that.

 

As I recall the left did not approve of the way Clinton was treated

And I dont think trump approved of it either

Just because the lib media can fool large portions of the public does not make it in the best interests of the nation

The Deep State has severely undermined the rule of law and the election process

 

And I would counter that just because Trump can fool large portions of the public does not make it in the best interest of the nation either.

 

Trump played by the rules and beat the washington establishment at its own game

Its the Deep State that is trashing the rule of law

 

Ok that would be interesting. I'm anxious to read your examples.

 

If the Deep State had decided to trash the rule of law, Trump would already have been taken to a small Carribean Island (Rhymes with Tuba) for a nice long vacation at Gitmo.....