BREAKING: Robert Mueller is speaking right now, for the first time since the report was released

did you hear him speak, he very much said that

 

The issue is that you have already convicted him. You just don't yet know what for.

Just like Kavanaugh, Covington kids, Duke lacrosse team. Richard Jewell...

There are probably thousands of people that your sense of justice would unjustly convict. That is exactly why you must be opposed.

 

deleted

 

You forgot Jussie Smollett.

 

Joseph, your not serious with this post right ?

There isn’t one fact about this case in that entire post. It’s all made up from “could be”. NOTHING in any of this is proof of anything. Her ideal that “well the could have done this..” or. “They could have done that”......and all from “i heard from a guy who said that this could be possible”.

Seriously ?

 

If he thought he had enough evidence that Trump committed a crime, he could have said so instead of that word sandwich. Instead, he gives the Russians the right of innocent until proved guilty and then does the opposite with Trump claiming he isn't able to prove a negative, in other words, couldn't prove his innocence. So he gives Russians more rights than the president, almost as if he's working with the Russians much like Hillary.

 

Run if you like but the interview clearly spells out how surveillance by proxy works.

 

"Obstruction of justice does not require obstruction of justice".

Translation: Orange man bad.

Question: Was it illegal for Trump to look into firing Mueller?

 

he told you why he did not say so, cause he was not allowed to indict him and Trump would not have his day in court... he also said if he believed he was innocent he woudl of said so

 

Yet Mueller told Barr three times that DOJ rules against indicting a sitting POTUS had nothing to do with his not indicting or making criminal referrals.

 

Fun from what ?

She said nothing but "it could be"....t"they can do this', they can do that". and not one thing she said tied it to ANYTHING related to government surveillance of Carter Page. NOTHING.

Prove me wrong. I'm willing to admit it, so show me.

 

Connect the dots. The FBI got a warrant to listen to all Manafort calls. Manafort was trumps campaign manager. Who would many of his phone calls be conducted with? You're welcome.

 

The warrant you referring to was from 2014 when he was being investigated for his lobbying work in the Ukraine. And as a FISA warrant, they could not listen in on all of his calls. ONLY those with foreign nationals on the calls. Your literally making things up.

And Manafort is actually sitting in jail right now guilty of money laundering and bank fraud, and also foreign lobbying violations. Pretty sure the FBI had this one right. You sure this is the one you want to hang your hat on ?

 

Different warrant than ones issued for Trump associates after he started his run for office. That warrant ended and another was issued after a lag period and after Trump became president. That's the warrant in question here.

"We know that the FBI had one FISA surveillance order on Manafort on or about 2014. This was in relation to his consulting work on behalf of the pro-Russia ruling party in Ukraine at the time. We also know that the surveillance ceased at some point before Manafort joined President Trump’s campaign in 2016. It then recommenced at some point after that, based on his connections with Russian intelligence and evidence suggesting that he was encouraging them to interfere in the presidential election. That surveillance continued into at least early 2017. The “gap” covered the period of time when Manafort, Donald Trump Jr., and Jared Kushner met with Russians at Trump Tower to discuss – depending on whose version you believe – “adoptions” or incriminating information the Russians claimed to have on Hillary Clinton. Following along so far? Good.

Let’s look at the “gap.” According to reporting, the initial FISA surveillance ceased after a court found that the FBI was no longer collecting foreign intelligence based on that order. This likely would have occurred at one of the 90-day renewal points after the surveillance began. Now, one conclusion might be that there was no foreign intelligence activity actually happening – or perhaps that the basis for this order itself was somewhat flimsy. However, if the order had been renewed at least once since it commenced, which would be likely even if it began in late 2014 or early 2015, that was probably not the case: After all, in order to renew the order at any point prior to it ceasing, the FBI would have had to produce ongoing foreign intelligence collection."

https://www.justsecurity.org/45255/fisa-warrants-paul-manafort-muellers-investigation/

 

No it didn't.

its right their in your cut/paste

the entirety of what he's "reporting" is based on other "reporting". He's saying "well someone said something, so it must be true". FISA is one of the most secretive process in our entire government, and yet this guys is telling us that he knows ? But then their is this:

This is just like i said....its all just conjecture, yet in the article it actually says that to get renewed they must have been gathering data. Knowing that, and knowing that one person in the conversation MUST be foreigner, are you sure you still want to hang your hat on this one ?

 

What it proves is your assertion that the warrant used to spy in Trump was issued before he ran for president. That warrant had long been expired and there was a long lag period of no investigation untill Mueller went to work for Trump and a new warrant was issued. The investigation into the investigation will shed light on that and will tell us if that warrant was issued for any other reason other than a back door to listen in on Trump's calls.

 

No. You cannot prove that it was dormant, or not actively being used. JW, these warrants are so secretive that many in congress dont know anything about them. Yet were supposed to believe that a reporter, who clearly states that he is making assumptions, is in the know on everything FISA. Now what he also cannot say is wether or not the government was justified in their surveillance, or were they, as you claim just spying on Trump. And your hanging your hat on “spying”, when in reality, the fact that Manafort is sitting in prison multiple crimes including conspiracy to defraud the United States pretty much proves your wrong.

 

As I previously stated the investigation into the investigation will decisively answer these questions and that's why democrats are trying so hard to stop it and why Mueller himself begged Congress to start impeachment proceedings in hopes that such an event could derail the investigation into his investigation. He sounded nervous as hell and it's pretty obvious he is scared of what will be found when we look behind the curtain.

 

It will find nothing of the sort. The “investigation into the investigation” is purely political. It’s being run by politicians. You cannot be serious that you honestly believe that any investigation into the FBI, or the Special Counsels office will be anything but selective in its findings based on those who are running it.

The core ideal driving this is that those like Peter Strzok, being democrats must have skewed the investigation, therefore it must have been tainted. Thats beyond ridiculous in that the counterpoint to that is, based on that standard, any republican must have tainted the investigation for Trump. Their is absolutely no proof of any kind that Strzok skewed the investigation. But if we use your standard, then since Trump was “exonerated”, then the republicans must have skewed it in his favor right ?

You cant have your cake and eat it too. If one side does it because they are democrats, then the other side must also do it because they are republicans.

And lastly, if the investigation found nothing on Trump, why would you. “Investigate the investigators” ? Simple answer: Because they can play politics now. Trump needs that to win in 2020. Nothing more, nothing less

 

"The core ideal driving this is that those like Peter Strzok, being democrats must have skewed the investigation, therefore it must have been tainted. Thats beyond ridiculous in that the counterpoint to that is, based on that standard, any republican must have tainted the investigation for Trump. Their is absolutely no proof of any kind that Strzok skewed the investigation. But if we use your standard, then since Trump was “exonerated”, then the republicans must have skewed it in his favor right ?"

Being Democrat or Republican has nothing to do with it. The text messages prove that there was an anti-Trump agenda at play.

 

Thats the claim with nothing to back it up TC. I’ve asked it in many threads, can ANYONE show where that skewed the investigation ? He was a dem, and nobody debates that. But NOBODY, including the FBI review boards could show where he in any way skewed, or changed the investigation.

And to say him being a dem had nothing to do with it, then why has everyone on the right since the inception of the investigation said it was “18 angry democrats”. Now thats not directly solely at YOU TC, but thats been the mantra from the right since the appointment of Mueller.

 

Remember the Central Park 5? Even after it had been proved by DNA that none of them were guilty, Trump took out a 5 page ad in the New York time urging that they all be executed anyway just for the hell of it.

 

Trump isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Trump is, essentially, an IMBECILE who got lucky.

 

The FBI routinely wiretaps crooks like Manafort. Perhaps Trump should have checked the guy out before hiring him as campaign chairman....Ya think?

 

They all knew that THE RUSSIANS! have been trolling our elections, for decades.

They all knew that THE RUSSIANS! have been connecting with various campaign representatives, of various campaigns, for decades.

Nothing new or unusual happened this time.

The only thing that is different, this time, is that the seditionists decided to weaponize what has always been happening.