ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Trump Says Mueller "Totally Exonerated" Him of Collusion and Obstruction. Is That True??

Updated on March 28, 2019
My Esoteric profile image

ME has spent most of his retirement from service to the United States studying, thinking, and writing about the country he served.

Robert Mueller

Source

The Mueller Report Has Been Submitted

But you get only a 4-page summary.

At least so far. And what does the summary say about the conclusions from the Special Counsel's 4-part probe titled "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election."

Did Russia Interfere with the 2016 Presidential Election?

The answer is unequivocally YES. The report determined that the Russians used two primary modes of attack. One was hacking the DNC and Clinton campaign emails and releasing them in such a manner as to have the most impact. The other was to mastermind a massive, social media disinformation campaign to split Americans into two warring factions.

Did the Russians Intend the Interference to Help One Candidate?

Again, the answer is YES; and the person they wanted to win was Donald Trump. Clearly, the release of damaging emails was intended to hurt Secretary Hillary Clinton. While not part of the Summary (but probably the Report), the American Intelligence Agencies have concluded the Russian effort was on behalf of Donald Trump.

Did Donald Trump or Anyone from His Campaign Conspire With Russia in Their Interference?

Here, the answer is "Not to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt". The term of art used in the Report was "did not establish". The whole sentence is "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."1 It is interesting to note that in legal terms "did not establish" means there is greater than 0% but less than 100% chance that conspiracy or coordination did occur beyond a reasonable doubt - the threshold needed to go to trial.

This is what Donald Trump calls Total Exoneration - Part 1

1 The [T] means there where words before this that A.G. Barr did not include in the quote.

Did Donald Trump Obstruct Justice?

Maybe? Robert Mueller apparently punted this one - many think to Congress since Barr's position is already known (presidents can't obstruct justice). I must give Barr credit however because, even though Mueller didn't appear to be asking him to yet he nevertheless restated his anti-obstruction of justice position, Barr DID include the following important Mueller quote,

"while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."2

Whoa - "it also does not exonerate him". What does that mean? To me it means Mueller had hard evidence on Trump for obstruction of justice (Barr says as much a sentence or so earlier) but, for whatever reason (and there are many possibilities, which only the Report will tell us) Mueller decided not to draw a conclusion.

This, of course, leaves us with another Trump lie and what he calls "Total Exoneration - Part 2"

2 There should have been eclipses before the word "while" to indicate words were left out.

Conspiracy vs Collusion

Collusion

Black's Law Dictionary defines collusion as "a deceitful agreement or compact between two or more persons, for the one party to bring an action against the other for some evil purpose, as to defraud a third party..."

Conspiracy

Black's Law Dictionary defines conspiracy, on the other hand, as "a combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purposes of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators."

What does that mean? You can have collusion without having a criminal conspiracy, BUT you can't have a criminal conspiracy without some sort of collusion.

Coordinate

The Barr memo also mentions "Coordinate" in conjunction with "Conspiracy" and it means: "the process of organizing people or groups so that they work together properly and well"

Was Donald Trump and His Administration Cleared of Collusion?

No they weren't, far from it. Instead, nobody was charged with the crime of "conspiracy". Because Mueller used the term of art "did not establish", it implies there was some evidence of conspiracy, but not enough to go to trial.

But was there collusion? Clearly! Consider the following publicly known events:

  • Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn colluded with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak about removing sanctions on December 29, 2016 - before Trump was sworn in as president. That was potentially illegal.
  • Donald Trump Jr., on June 9, 2016, met with Russians intending on receiving "dirt" on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government (or so he thought). That is collusion. With him were Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort, both expecting the same information.
  • Jared Kushner, besides meeting with Russians for dirt on Clinton, he also met with numerous foreign officials, including Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak as well as Sergey Gorkov, the head of the Russian state-owned bank Vnesheconombank; Russian banker Sergey N. Gorkov, "whose financial institution was deeply intertwined with Russian intelligence" and is "under sanction by the United States" and "it may have been part of an effort by Mr. Kushner to establish a direct line to Mr. Putin outside established diplomatic channels".
  • Paul Manafort, besides meeting with Russians for dirt on Clinton, Konstantin Kilimnik, who is believed to be linked to Russian intelligence and gave him polling data related to the 2016 campaign (illegal) and discussed a Ukrainian peace plan with him.
  • Carter Page first lied about and then "did not deny" meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the 2016 Republican National Convention
  • Attorney General Jeff Sessions first lied about and then admitted to meeting with Russian ambassador Kislyak twice outside his duties as Senator.
  • George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents relating to contacts he had with agents of the Russian government while working for the Trump campaign.
  • Roger Stone has been indicted in connection with coordinating with Julian Assuage as well as Russian intelligence about the hacking of the DNC and Clinton campaign emails.

There are others as well.

Why No Obstruction of Justice Recommendation?

Only Robert Mueller knows. It is unknown to all except Rod Rosenstein and Bill Barr if Mueller states why in his report; maybe the public will find out in time. Clearly, Mueller's team had collected evidence of it - he said as much with his cryptic partial comment

"... while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

While we do not know yet what came before the eclipses, it is obvious Mueller thought Trump might be guilty of Obstruction of Justice.

My guess is this. The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opined years ago that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Ostensibly the reason is, although America’s constitution is silent on the question, a president subjected to an indictment would trigger “a traumatic event” both “politically and constitutionally”. It would “interfere with the president's unique official duties”, too. The OLC argued that Congress’s impeachment power was the sole legitimate way to discipline presidents for bad behaviour. To indict a president via “an unelected grand jury and prosecutor” is “inconsistent” with the framers’ “carefully considered judgment” that it is impeachment or bust.

There is no question the first line of reasoning is correct, but is that enough to turn the President into an inflatable Pope? The second line, however, flies in the face of what was said in the Constitutional Convention on a couple of points. One is most of the framers were very fearful of an unaccountable Executive. The other is that nowhere in their deliberations did they ever hint at "impeachment or bust". While they did make that avenue available for political "crimes", they were never considered that a president could not be held accountable for his or her actions.

Robert Mueller is nothing if not a stickler for the rules. I could easily see him reasoning this way.

"OK, I have enough evidence to indict Donald Trump (not exonerated) but I can't indict him according to the OLC. If I can't indict him, then why would I conclude that he should be indicted. There, I will not conclude such and leave it to the politicos, the AG or Congress, to decide once they have considered my evidence."

Was that his rational?? Who knows. Maybe some day we will find out.

Are the Legal Troubles Over for Donald Trump?

I seriously doubt it and here is why.

The Roger Stone Indictment

Roger Stone was part of Donald Trump's election campaign until sometime in 2015. After that, he was an outside adviser in constant contact with the campaign as well as Donald Trump directly.

Stone is being charged with:

  1. Obstruction of Proceedings by lying to Congress, not providing requested documents, causing others to obstruct the proceedings, and providing false or misleading documents
  2. Lying to Congress (5 counts) where he said he did not have communications (colluding) with Russian intelligence and Wikileaks about the stolen DNC and Clinton campaign emails.
  3. Witness tampering by influencing, delaying, and preventing another from testifying.

Compounding this is testimony by Donald Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen that he was in the oval office when Stone called Trump to tell him about the soon to be released emails. Trump denies this took place so one or the other is lying about it. My bet is on Cohen being the one telling the truth.

In any case, much damaging testimony to Trump may come out of the November 2019 trial.

Investigation into the Trump Inaugural Committee

The FBI, the Southern District of New York (SDNY), is said to be interested in the inaugural committee’s spending, its donations, whether any donations came from illegal foreign sources, and potential corruption involving favors for donors, many of whom were foreign. Rick Gates, who ran the effort, and Michael Cohen, who fund raised, are cooperating.

The Eastern District of New York (EDNY) is also investigating whether foreign donations to the committee made their way into the Trump campaign.

Investigation into The Trump Foundation

The New York Attorney General is investigating whether the Trump Foundation, now dissolved, broke the law by coordinating with Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and whether it was truly functioning as a charitable organization or functioning was little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump's business and political interests.

Investigation into the Trump Organization

The New York Attorney General is investigating several aspects of the Trump Organization.

  • Fraudulent real estate deals
  • Fraudulent bank loans with the only banks who still lend to Trump, Deutsche Bank and Investors Bank
  • Insurance fraud
  • The SDNY is looking into the organizations role in the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels

Hush Money Payments

In August of 2018, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations and other financial crimes, admitting he made payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels to keep them quiet in the run up the 2016 election. In December, he was sentenced to three years in prison. Donald Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator. That is still being investigated by the SDNY.

Investigation into Pro-Trump Super PAC, Rebuilding America

The Southern District of New York is looking into potential wrongdoing to see if Paul Manafort illegally coordinated with the group while he was running Trump’s campaign, and whether the super PAC had taken in donations from people in Qatar or other Middle Eastern countries.

Investigation into Donald Trump's Taxes

The New York state tax department is looking into allegations brought up in a New York Times investigation into decades of Trump’s “tax schemes.” New York City officials have also said they are examining Trump’s tax history.

Investigation into Trump's Golf Clubs

The FBI and the New Jersey attorney general’s office are examining allegations that the Trump golf club hired workers using fraudulent papers. Democrats in Congress also called for the FBI to fully investigate the situation which developed after two undocumented immigrants lodged a complaint.

Emolument's Lawsuit

The Attorney's General of Maryland and Washington D.C. are suing Donald Trump on the grounds that he violated the Emoluments Clause in the United States Constitution by profiting from his D.C. Trump hotel because of excess sales generated because he is president.

Summer Zorvos Defamation Lawsuit

Zervos was a contestant on the Apprentice and said in 2016 that Trump had sexually assaulted her in 2007. After Trump called her a liar on the campaign trial Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit against him.

These are just the more famous ones.

© 2019 Scott Belford

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Robert Mueller is nothing if not a stickler for the rules. I could easily see him reasoning this way.

      "OK, I have enough evidence to indict Donald Trump (not exonerated) but I can't indict him according to the OLC.

      B: Scott you got this from the Washington Post.

      ------------------------------------

      If I can't indict him, then why would I conclude that he should be indicted. There, I will not conclude such and leave it to the politicos, the AG or Congress, to decide once they have considered my evidence."

      B:

      The Office of Legal Counsel's memo on sitting presidents existed even before Mueller got himself appointed as special counsel. If you and the Washington Post think that is why Mueller didn't indict Trump, then if it wasn't as stated by Barr and Rosenstein in the AG memo that Mueller didn't have evidence the would prove obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt, then Mueller should have wrapped up his investigation way before the 2018 midterm election. By keeping the investigation open, Mueller wasn't going to find more information that he couldn't use for obstruction, but it would be a political advantage for the democrats to influence the midterm election.

      That makes more sense then what the Washington Post said was the reason. In fact, once again based on the results of no indictment Mueller should be investigated to determine why exactly he kept the investigation open. We don't need the Russians when we have people like Mueller influencing our elections.

      Mueller not only held the investigation open up to and through the mid term election, he kept it open for another four and a half months. This continuance of the Mueller investigation is now adversely affecting president Trump for the 2020 election. Not because president Trump was indicted for a crime, but because Mueller engineered the results of his investigation to create a cloud about the president. This is the same cloud you are doing here. Just like there was no Trump collusion, conspiracy of any criminal action all, neither is there any obstruction. The obstruction resides in Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein for creating this investigation when four other investigations clear Trump.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Yes, and then he’ll say “ why didn’t you answer my 1,294 questions”!

      But it’s ok. I actually am also mad at how Dumplestiltskin conned so many people who needed someone to believe in.

      As Joe Scarborough says, cause he was there, on the night after win, at Mar A Lago, he told his oh so rich friends:

      “I just made you a lot of money”

      He did tell China to keep the fentanyl out of here, and it has happened, so for that I salute him.

      My daughter likes that he’s allowing alternative meds....like cannabis oil.

      I also like his prison reform.....if they would actually fund the programs to go with it.

      And it was a nice gesture to grant clemency to that woman who got to come home out of prison.

      I also get sick of the insulting memes on twitter.......but that he brings on himself. King of Mean that he is.

      Who knows, maybe he can grow into a good prez. Pelosi, of all people seems to think so.

      I will just say this, don’t get your hopes up. Because each and every time I start to soften on him, he comes back with a zinger, like democrats execute babies after they’re born.....how can you forgive him for that? I’m still working on the Birther racistcrap.

      Watch and see. Today is a new day. Who does he malign and demonize?

      As long as it’s not his base, they will never care about the rest of us.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      March 14, 2019

      In a statement, Trump's attorney Marc Kasowitz laid out his plan to appeal the latest decision.

      "We believe that the well-reasoned dissenting opinion by two of the five justices, citing the US Supreme Court decision in the Clinton v. Jones case, is correct in concluding that the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution bars state courts from hearing cases against the President while he or she is in office," Kasowitz said. "We will seek to appeal the majority decision to New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, which we expect will agree with the dissent."

      B:

      This is another political attack against president Trump. This was a decade old event, just like Ford against Kavanaugh. The chance of her winning the suit is slim to none, so who is financing this trip to

      The New York Court of Appeals is the highest court in the U.S. state of New York. The Court of Appeals consists of seven judges: the Chief Judge and six Associate Judges who are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate to 14-year terms

      B:

      The last ny governor

      George Pataki Jan 1, 1995

      Dec 31, 2006 Republican

      Current democrat governor Andrew Cuomo

      - appointed the 6 current Associate Judges.

      "As a Supreme Court Justice, Chief Judge DiFiore On December 1, 2015, Governor Andrew Cuomo nominated her to the position of Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and the State of New York. On January 21, 2016, her nomination was confirmed by the New York State Senate. "

      The reason that NY is going after president Trump is simple

      "After the 2018 election cycle, Democrats established trifecta control of New York state government. Prior to that, control of state government was divided beginning in 2011.

      Trifectas

      Trifectas influence how hard a party must work to advance its agenda.

      When one party controls the three vital centers of state political power—the office of the governor, the state House, and the state Senate —Ballotpedia considers that party to control a "trifecta." Trifectas make it easier for the dominant party to pursue its agenda, and more difficult for opposition parties to challenge it.

      New York is one of the 14 state governments under Democratic control.

      Trifectas in New York

      In New York, Democrats held trifecta control of state government from 2009 to 2010. In all other years from 1992 to 2017, control of state government was divided.

      Current leadership of key offices"

      And what do you think democrat loaded state government and Court of Appeals are doing with Trump, they are resisting Trump and these law suits and investigations are just their way of doing that. The democrats gave judge Kavanaugh a hard time but it wasn't warranted, and neither are these law suits in NY. When judges play politics like the ninth circuit in CA, it is because they control the power, and they can abuse the power.

      The question of a state suing a sitting president is not a matter that has any significant precedent, so I think the fun in NY will wind up in SCOTUS.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Emolument's Lawsuit

      The Attorney's General of Maryland and Washington D.C. are suing Donald Trump on the grounds that he violated the Emoluments Clause in the United States Constitution by profiting from his D.C. Trump hotel because of excess sales generated because he is president.

      B:

      Judge dismisses suits claiming Trump violated emoluments clause

      A federal court says challengers lack standing, but also declares the issue is best left to Congress.

      By JOSH GERSTEIN

      12/21/2017 05:07 PM EST

      Updated 12/21/2017 06:50 PM EST

      ----------------

      A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a pair of lawsuits claiming that President Donald Trump’s failure to divest himself of his real estate empire and other business holdings violated the Constitution’s provision banning receipt of foreign “emoluments” while in public office.

      U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels ruled that the two suits were fatally flawed because the plaintiffs failed to show injury directly related to the use of Trump’s properties by foreign officials and governments.

      -----------------------------------------

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Leslie, you notice how Brad keeps deflecting to try to point the finger at others while ignoring Trump's crimes?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      "Investigation into Trump's Golf Clubs

      The FBI and the New Jersey attorney general’s office are examining --allegations-- that the Trump golf club hired workers using fraudulent papers. Democrats in Congress also called for the FBI to fully investigate the situation which developed after two undocumented immigrants lodged a complaint."

      B:

      And Feinstein's chauffeur was a spy, and who is investigating that one?

      Democrats support Convicted Illegal Alien Felons from being deport!

      -----------------------

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      “Sen. Rand Paul blocked a resolution calling for special counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Russia probe be made public, marking the fifth time Republicans have blocked the House-passed measure.”

      Why?

      https://youtu.be/bcuB42e2eCM

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Here’s the Benghazi report. Took 954 days

      https://archives-benghazi-republicans-oversight.ho...

      And

      https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-hill...

      For a sec of state......you think Trump is special? He’s not a king.

      And who can forget emails?

      https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts...

      Stop the endless poor trumping. He and sanders didn’t even have to show tax returns, cause....why? Cause they’re special, nya nya nya

      And they haven’t yet! You got everything you wanted, and you all continuously rub it in our faces.

      Now, when it’s time to play by The rules you made, you want to cry victim.

      Remember, your boyz had charges and hearings all lined up for Hillary had she won. And still threaten to do it. So please just stfu.( not you personally) They dish it, they can take it.

      We need better rules. Vet ALL presidential candidates w a fine tooth comb. Or don’t have one.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      "Investigation into Donald Trump's Taxes

      The New York state tax department is looking into allegations brought up in a New York Times investigation into decades of Trump’s “tax schemes.” New York City officials have also said they are examining Trump’s tax history."

      B:

      The Clintons have their own kind of tax schemes including the Clinton Foundation, and NY is turning a blind eye on investigating them. And both Clintons have been in public office while their tax schemes lived on, while Trump hasn't been until now. It seems that once again NY political democrat dominance is calling politics as a search for justice.

      Democrats run everything NYC, and they weren't concerned about Trump and his businesses until he became a republican and won the presidency.

      -------------------------

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Trump is not being picked on. Deal w it like everybody else has to

      https://www.npr.org/2019/03/21/699982049/potent-bu...

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      "Investigation into Pro-Trump Super PAC, Rebuilding America

      The Southern District of New York is looking into potential wrongdoing to see if Paul Manafort illegally coordinated with the group while he was running Trump’s campaign, and whether the super PAC had taken in donations from people in Qatar or other Middle Eastern countries"

      B:

      Did anyone investigate the HRC super pac that gave her take tremendous lead again Bernie Sanders? And did we investigate why in 2016 that Bernie started winning state after state to the point that there should have been a contest at the DNC Primary, but unexpectedly Sanders dropped out. The same Sanders that says he is going to run for the presidency in 2020. That sounds kind of suspicious, was it that Sanders didn't think he could beat HRC, but now he thinks he can not only beat the field of democrats running in the primary, and then beat Trump who beat HRC?

      ------------------------

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      It would really be helpful, Brad, that you got your facts right. For example, the hush money payment to Daniels was in 2016, JUST BEFORE THE VOTE and not 2009, as you try to imply.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      "Hush Money Payments

      In August of 2018, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations

      B:

      Cohen was forced by Mueller who had done the same thing to defendants when he was FBI prosecutor. There really was no criminal finance violation. The act happened before Trump ran for the presidency. That act was alleged to be in 2009, The payment by Cohen was for that alleged act of 2009 to be resolved. That didn't mean that it was true, just that it was a nuisance, and that is how you usually get rid of them.

      ---------------------------------------------------

      and other financial crimes, admitting he made payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels to keep them quiet in the run up the 2016 election.

      B:

      Again, that is not a crime, and his real crimes that Mueller found out about didn't involve Trump, like his crime involving cabs. Mueller gave him a plea deal to rat on the president, and this is the best he could do?

      ---------------------------------------------------

      In December, he was sentenced to three years in prison. Donald Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator. That is still being investigated by the SDNY."

      B:

      Why "unindicted"? Mueller wanted president Trump so bad, and now he supposedly had him, and he lets him get away calling him unindicted co-conspirator of what/

      Mueller should be investigated on that among other of these cheap theatrics that are focused on politics, not justice.

      ---------------------------------------------------

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      "Investigation into The Trump Foundation"

      B:

      Isn't it interesting that no one is investigating the Clinton Foundation. And the difference is that it was active during Hillary Clinton term as "NY" senator and Secretary of State. There was a lot of big donations from people from other countries, and Bill Clinton's speaking fees were suspect. Especially the one for $500,000.

      The point here is that the Clinton Foundation warranted investigating, but the democrats didn't want it, so it didn't happen.

      -------------------------------------

      "The New York Attorney General is investigating whether the Trump Foundation, now dissolved, broke the law by coordinating with Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and whether it was truly functioning as a charitable organization or functioning was little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump's business and political interests.

      Investigation into the Trump Organization"

      B:

      NY is the core of the anti Trumper, I have lost too many friends that have become Anti Trumpers. This so called investigation is a clone of the federal investigation for political advantage. This is yet another example of how the democrats have used their power to influence the elections to keep false accusations about Trump alive to adversely affect Trump in 2020. We don't need the Russians, the democrats do a better job at it.

      ---------------------------------------

      The New York Attorney General is investigating several aspects of the Trump Organization.

      Fraudulent real estate deals

      Fraudulent bank loans with the only banks who still lend to Trump, Deutsche Bank and Investors Bank

      Insurance fraud

      B:

      This is more of the same as the fake investigations at the federal level. These deal with events that preceded Trump even running for president. And to drag it up now has only one reason is for the democrats to use their power in the government to try and influence the 2020 election. If they didn't find out anything by know, there is nothing to find.

      The same isn't true about HRC because no one is investigating her, and Comey did a sham FBI investigation of HRC which obstructed the justice of her being indicted.

      ----------------------------------------

      " The SDNY is looking into the organizations role in the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels'"

      B:

      Hush money could also be deemed as an attempted blackmail, or even extortion. The fact that she waited 5 years to bring the matter out, and it was the same time as Trump for winning the campaign for the presidency is circumstantial evidence of the extortion. And when after agreeing to the contract at a time which she knew would be to her advantage she reneged on a fully executed contract, to extort even more money. It should be her and Avenetti that should be investigated for criminal acts.

      BTW, it is very common for high profile people to handle these kinds of extortion and blackmail simply by paying them off. Who in their right mind would stop in the middle of running for the presidency to assert their legal rights, whether they were true or false?

      -----------------------------------------

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Pretend hillary was prez, and she gave Chelsea and her husband security clearances, over the objection of experts.

      Suppose Chelsea's husband tried to make a secret back channell to the Iranians?

      Suppose hillary had a summer estate, where she went every weekend, and met foreign dignitaries there?

      Suppose a Chinese spy talked her way in there, with 5 cell phones and a laptop with malware?

      Suppose Chelsea used a private email account for gvt biz, and her husband communicated with Iran on WhatsApp?

      I see a prison cell.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Substitute Hillary and her campaign for Trump and substitute Iran for Russia.....

      What do you suppose you would think, then?

      Would it be ok w you?

      How about if she fired the head of the fbi and laughed about it with members of the Iranian gvt? In a meeting at the white house, from which she kicked out the American press.

      Or suppose she met 5 times privately with Rouhani and u couldnt know about it.

      Say our intel said Iran hacked the RNC and hillary said, "i believe Rouhani, he says they didnt do it"

      .......u dont need to tell me what would be happening. She would already be in impeachment hearings.

      Different standards for your guys? Id say so. Starr report was released in full to the Republican house. Now we have a Dem house, and they cant get the Mueller report?

      To quote your prez, its bs.

      And i like a lot of the dem candidates, but im talking about the legit winner of 2016.

      Im not just dropping it, and moving on, ever.

      Its a huge injustice.

      Anyway, i like Swalwell. He's a great troll.

      You want someone who can fight back? Hes it.

      Now lets pretend we have a democracy, rather than the United States of Republicans.....2000-2008, redux.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      "But was there collusion? Clearly! Consider the following publicly known events:

      Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn colluded with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak about removing sanctions on December 29, 2016 - before Trump was sworn in as president. That was potentially illegal.

      B:

      This was a normal transition team activity. And the election was already over, so no collusion and no conspiracy. Flynn was indicted because he lied about having the conversation. And the real issue is how did the government find out about it?

      --------------------------------------

      Donald Trump Jr., on June 9, 2016, met with Russians intending on receiving "dirt" on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government (or so he thought). That is collusion. With him were Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort, both expecting the same information.

      B:

      That is not collusion, and the FBI never even interviewed the Russian lawyer. There is nothing illegal there, and nothing happened. If there was anything there Mueller would have indicted. What about the HRC opposition paper that actually came from Russians in Russia?

      --------------------------------------

      Jared Kushner, besides meeting with Russians for dirt on Clinton, he also met with numerous foreign officials, including Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak as well as Sergey Gorkov, the head of the Russian state-owned bank Vnesheconombank; Russian banker Sergey N. Gorkov, "whose financial institution was deeply intertwined with Russian intelligence" and is "under sanction by the United States" and "it may have been part of an effort by Mr. Kushner to establish a direct line to Mr. Putin outside established diplomatic channels".

      B:

      Then if there was anything to it, why didn't Mueller indict him?

      -------------------------------------

      Paul Manafort, besides meeting with Russians for dirt on Clinton, Konstantin Kilimnik, who is believed to be linked to Russian intelligence and gave him polling data related to the 2016 campaign (illegal) and discussed a Ukrainian peace plan with him.

      B:

      Again, the only thing that Mueller ( your legal expert ) only indicted Flynn for lying about the single phone call, and not about the contents of the call.

      ------------------------------------

      Carter Page first lied about and then "did not deny" meeting with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the 2016 Republican National Convention

      B:

      Carter Page was never charged with any crime even though he was spied on by the FBI for a year. Again, it is nothing except Carter Page had more association with the FBI.

      -----------------------------------

      Attorney General Jeff Sessions first lied about and then admitted to meeting with Russian ambassador Kislyak twice outside his duties as Senator.

      B:

      No indictment, no crime.

      ----------------------------------

      George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents relating to contacts he had with agents of the Russian government while working for the Trump campaign.

      B:

      Again, the lie was the only crime, and not the contact with Russia. Had it been a crime he was have been indicted for more than lying.

      ---------------------------------

      Roger Stone has been indicted in connection with coordinating with Julian Assuage as well as Russian intelligence about the hacking of the DNC and Clinton campaign emails.

      "

      B:

      I already explained this one in a previous comment.

      Any competent attorney would focus on the DNC hacking and go back to where no government agency ever verified their allegation of hacking, As stated in the Stone indictment, it was Company 1 that made the allegation about it being hacked.

      This would be the classic case of hearsay evidence. And as all 17 US agencies relied on company 1 instead of doing their independent investigation on the DNC server, it seems like a big hole can be driven into the Stone case. The fact that the 17 US agencies didn't do independent investigation on the DNC server is probably why the government really isn't going to convict Stone.

      ------------------------------------

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Leslie - While I am a huge Hillary fan and think she would have been one of the better presidents, she has shown she can't win. Against Obama, it was her simple inability to beat him. Against Trump, that inability set the stage for Comey and the Russians to push Trump over the top - barely.

      Now, I am putting my money on Biden. If he doesn't join the race, then Kamala Harris or Amy Klobuchar.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      @funder

      “AG Barr buried summaries written by Mueller’s team meant for public release. We need to see those immediately, in addition to the full report. We also need to see all communications between AG Barr and the White House around the time of Barr’s letter. This is a massive cover up.“

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      For your information Brad, Barr is not the be all and end all. He’s a Republican fixer. You can drool over him, no one with a serious mind does.

      I mean you all are so brainwashed, you can’t even accept a simple truth!

      If you are innocent, you don’t mind showing the report.

      If you are guilty, you attempt to cover it up.

      Simple as that.

      And right now, they are figuring out how to do this and salvage America....

      Easy answer for me.....put the rightful president there. Hillary Clinton.

      But that will never happen, because She’s a woman.

      So instead, we let a mafiya associate sit there with his criminal kids, ripping us off left and right.

      Lovely. USA USA USA.

      Disgusting.

      Imo

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      "Did Donald Trump Obstruct Justice?

      B:

      Since there were no indictments, and not even any charges, you don't even know anything about what you are calling Obstruction here. And you won't know unless the report is published for the public.

      ----------------------------------------------------

      Maybe? Robert Mueller apparently punted this one - many think to Congress since Barr's position is already known (presidents can't obstruct justice). I must give Barr credit however because, even though Mueller didn't appear to be asking him to yet he nevertheless restated his anti-obstruction of justice position, Barr DID include the following important Mueller quote,

      "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."2

      B:

      The reason that he said that is because in the memo he states that Mueller didn't offer an opinion. He cited both sides of his investigation and put it in the report for Barr to decide.

      They also talked about Mueller not having evidence to meet the beyond reasonable doubt, which is the hurdle all prosecutors have to hurdle. If he tried to indict he would have objectively failed and the trial would have exonerated Trump. Exoneration is a meaningless term when there is no indictment or arrest. And because of that, Mueller has really exonerated president Trump.

      --------------------------------

      Whoa - "it also does not exonerate him". What does that mean? To me it means Mueller had hard evidence on Trump for obstruction of justice

      B:

      As I explained, it is the opposite of that because he didn't have evidence to indict.

      -------------------------------

      (Barr says as much a sentence or so earlier)

      B:

      And as I said, that sentence without an indictment or arrest is meaningless. The fact is he ended his investigation without an indictment.

      ------------------------------

      but, for whatever reason (and there are many possibilities, which only the Report will tell us) Mueller decided not to draw a conclusion. "

      B:

      The memo also mentions that it had nothing to do with indicting a sitting president, and it had all to do with Mueller not having evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

      With all the money that Mueller was allowed to spend on the investigation, and the resources, and the warrants and the government spying on Trump since he was in the campaign, it is a failure on the part of Mueller to come up empty handed.

      And therefore, it is a total exoneration of Trump. To hold otherwise is just using it for political influencing of the 2020 election as it influenced the 2018 election. With the information he had, he should have concluded way before the 2018 election, and by not doing so, it was a flagrant act to give the democrats a political advantage. And Mueller and Comey along with Rosenstein should be investigated for starting this special counsel politics.

      ------------------------------

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      I would add far left extremism is un American, too.

      All for one and one for all.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      I would have to agree w that one.

      Bircher/Birther/Tea party/Trump

      Far right extremism =un American values.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      I would have to agree w that one.

      Bircher/Birther/Tea party/Trump

      Far right extremism =un American values.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott you got your definition of collusion and conspiracy from Andrew Cohen.

      Here is another discussion

      "Brad Micklin: I agree. I think he’s playing semantics with the American people and when it comes out it’s not gonna be well received, because collusion is just planning to defraud, where conspiracy is planning to do something unlawful. So it’s a word choice. So instead of using collusion we spell it as a conspiracy and we have a crime. So I don’t think it’s gonna really fall too well if that does later come out that there’s a conspiracy."

      That cuts the distinction to the point they are synonyms.

      Isn't that the same thing that Comey did to obstruct justice of indicting Hillary Clinton. The big difference is that Comey had evidence against HRC, but Mueller has no evidence against Trump.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      Talk is cheap and you still don't have 2 cents.

      Roger Stone, I commented on what you said in your article.

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      It seems to me, Leslie, that those who love and trust such an obviously deranged man like Trump (doesn't even know where his father was born, for God's sake) are, while Americans, are the worst of the bunch and terribly opposed to true American values.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Leslie

      I asked you what is in the constitution.

      What are you comparing with the 2nd, which uses the word shall?

      You are the gun control that doesn't want to follow the constitution.

      What?

      -----------------

      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/14/t...

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18

      Nothing debatable, like “regulated militia”.....straight up. Woman have the right to privacy in their personal lives.

      Don’t like the constitution? Move somewhere else.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      what is ?

      It’s protected under the constitution.

      Democrats are anti Trump, anti American, and Anti Family.

      They stand for nothing, they do nothing for the country, and they are out of control in the 21st century.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Cool. Force the man to take care of the child if it’s carried to term.

      Force the man to have birth control.

      But there is no way to make the man carry and deliver......so that’s where the equality dies.

      We have autonomy in our bodies......as much as you do in your homes. More so, if we are being honest. You and your views have no business telling women what they must do with their self.

      Period. It’s not rocket science. It’s protected under the constitution. Go preach abstinence or vasectomies to your fellow men.

      We are not your property anymore.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      If it takes two people to create something, then doesn't equality mean they both have an undivided interest in it. If two partners build a motorcycle should only one member decide what to do about it?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      don't you just hate it when you click on a link and get an advertisement!

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      “Barr did not meet the deadline set by Congress to release the full Mueller report and all underlying findings.”

      Anyone surprised?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      There has been a huge invasion of jelly fish in the channel island harbor.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      *sigh*

      “Note I say “Russians,” and not “Russia,” a key distinction. The Barr letter refers to failing to find collusion with the “Russian government,” a major clue in explaining why there was no indictment. Putin’s mafia structure is designed to give “Russia” deniability. It’s like going to war using mercenaries instead of conscripts in uniforms, another favorite Putin tactic. Putin uses his billionaire oligarchs as emissaries to corrupt, cultivate, and compromise foreign business people and politicians. But they aren’t officially state actors with government titles, and so aren’t deemed “state actors,” although that is exactly what they are.”

      https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-what-m...

      ********

      No requirement to be honest, act with integrity. It’s the law of the jungle: KGB

      Hopefully, our own kgb will be better at it.

      And really, stop worshipping this clown Trump. God almighty.

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Not having a president was under consideration by our founders, as was a multiple president (3, I think, and much more popular than none and was voted on)

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      This actually makes me sad. Feels to me like they (Barr, Mueller) are trying to find some way out.

      If they decide the presidency is more important than who sits in it, then truly why bother having a president?

      We could do without a president. Because it only ever causes strife. Half the country or the other is miserable for 4 to 8 years.

      It’s not working.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      "The Roger Stone Indictment

      Roger Stone was part of Donald Trump's election campaign until sometime in 2015. After that, he was an outside adviser in constant contact with the campaign as well as Donald Trump directly.

      B:

      So what. The indictment and the arrest is not a confession and the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable of all these charges.

      -------------------------

      Stone is being charged with:

      Obstruction of Proceedings by lying to Congress, not providing requested documents, causing others to obstruct the proceedings, and providing false or misleading documents

      B:

      Did you read the complaint, it contained the world, and it was drafted so that it would get something even if it had no connection.

      ------------------------------------

      Lying to Congress (5 counts) where he said he did not have communications (colluding) with Russian intelligence and Wikileaks about the stolen DNC and Clinton campaign emails.

      B:

      These are allegations by the prosecution and not proof.

      ---------------------------------------

      Witness tampering by influencing, delaying, and preventing another from testifying.

      B:

      That is a reach, good luck proving it.

      ------------------------------------

      Compounding this is testimony by Donald Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen that he was in the oval office when Stone called Trump to tell him about the soon to be released emails. Trump denies this took place so one or the other is lying about it. My bet is on Cohen being the one telling the truth.

      B:

      Your bet is worthless, and Michael Cohen looking for a plea deal is not the best witness.

      -------------------------------

      In any case, much damaging testimony to Trump may come out of the November 2019 trial."

      B:

      Why don't we just wait and see, instead of your bets?

      -----------------------------

      The fact that we do know is that none of this had to do with Trump and Russia influencing the election.

      And in the complaint against Roger Stone,

      "On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC—through Company 1—publicly announced that it

      had been hacked by Russian government actors."

      B: That is the only reference to Russians and it was a company retained by the DNC and the DNC servers were never investigated by the government. The government is going to have to do a lot of proving to make that allegation stick. And I don't think that the DNC or HRC are going to like the investigation into that allegation.

      Remember, who has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt.

      ---------------------------------------------

      The reason that Mueller picked the Grand Jury to indict Stone is because he didn't have to prove evidence he just orchestrated the Grand Jury picked by him.

      Going the arrest route, he would have had trouble in a prelim hearing to make his case.

      --------------------------------------

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Johsua - Don't you know Trump is like the weather in Florida, he changes his mind by the hour. You have yesterday's news. Today's decision is to suppress the report. But then, he is your guy.

    • Joshua Lewin profile image

      Joshua Lewin 

      6 months ago from Redding

      Leslie- Trump has said to release the full report. I do not understand your problem.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Ok. No trump is not exonerated. Its obvious since they wont release the report.

      And I dont know who im more mad at, trump, for running, or the agencies who knew he was organized crime, and let him do it.

      They took away something really special and life changing, and brought us back to 1955.

      We NEED women in charge. We have gone too far in the cruelty dpt. Macho man/ cave man/ priest.....they lost our way.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Leslie

      Nothing has been proven on Trump and he wasn't even accused of doing anything since he became president, while Bill Clinton used the oval office as a motel 6.

      You are just repeating rumors, no facts and you have decades during and since he was governor in Arkansas.

      I am sorry that you believe the lies and think they are facts.

      How about getting back to the current topic and say something about it.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Yes, because a woman being cheated on (Hillary) is more a problem than a man who cheats. (Trump)

      Her, you castigate. Him, you say eh so what. Unless it’s Bill Clinton, then it’s oh my gawddd, that awful man.

      Do you see yourself?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Leslie

      I hear that your spouse is cheating on you, mrs clinton.

      Let me know when you want to discuss the topic.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Well now, I’m married. And unlike Trump, I don’t cheat on my spouse. Do I get a double ticket to heaven?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Trumpian spin on what?

      Merry Go Round and so does Leslie

      A carnival ride for anti Trumpers

      The illusion is that you still want us to believe you are Americans.

      America will prevail but no thanks to you dead weights that do nothing but pollute the air with your gas.

      Let me know when your cabal has any facts to discuss. In the meantime, see if you two can get a room.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Yes, Scott. We have Limbaugh Logic, now Trumpian Spin.

      It’s like a merry-go-round.

      A carnival ride for the end time christians.

      Hang on tight.

      It’s a bumpy ride, but all an illusion.

      America will prevail.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      You have fact free comments that are also vague and ambiguous.

      Do you really think that your response is in any way a comment much less an argument?.

      It isn't.

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      They spin good, fact-free stories, don't they Leslie.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Leslie

      the democrats for the last three years have been adversely influencing the results of the 2016 election, and then the 2108 midterm election over the alleged Russian Trump investigation. And now they are using the Mueller report to continue the election influence toward the 2020 presidential election.

      Mueller could have finished his report well before the 2018 midterm election, but he didn't and the proof is that he found nothing to incriminate of indict president Trump, and that is a fact.

      Yet, continuing the Mueller investigation through the mid term election and four months later shows the intention to influence the 2020 election.

      Who needs the Russians when the democrats are so much more better at influencing the elections.

      The election was stolen is proof that the Mueller report is being used to influence the 2020 election.

      Whatever president Trump would have done, you and the democrat would have said it was wrong. I personally hope that we get to download a complete unredacted copy of the 400 page Mueller report.

      --------------------------------

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Lol. My political bias? No, it’s those who don’t care that Russia hacked, because it hurt the satanic demon Hillary.

      Sorry, exit polls cannot all be wrong. This election was stolen. And if Trump was innocent, he would be shouting that full report from the rooftops.

      I would say you should question your own bias. Just my opinion.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      Scott gives another serving of anti Trump crapola because once again he has no intelligent answers. He is Leslie with a beard.

      Like the rest of the anti Trumpers the truth is only when they speak, and when they can't answer questions about their truths, this is what you get.

      "Brad, when you start speaking the truth, I will answer you. Otherwise it is pointless since you will drown me in false statements again and again. Go bother somebody else with your nonsense"

      B:

      You first need to explain Truth?

      Then you need to show why my comment is not truth.

      Drown you, how childish.

      What false statements, and again, and again sounds like a 3 year old.

      You wrote this article and yet this is your answer to people asking you to support it.

      Nonsense.

      You will have to delete my future comments because you are rude and you don't have any answers to support the dribble in it.

      And how many times have you used this approach to report me to Hp. I didn't get a 30 for nothing.

      You can bother me on any one of my 175 hubs.

    • Joshua Lewin profile image

      Joshua Lewin 

      6 months ago from Redding

      Yea Leslie, Adam was lying very blatantly...... If he is really all you got I would check your own integrity in this situation, your political biased is clouding up possible self thought.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

    • Joshua Lewin profile image

      Joshua Lewin 

      6 months ago from Redding

      Leslie - If you saw it with your own eyes then other would have too, you did not hence No collusion

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Brad, when you start speaking the truth, I will answer you. Otherwise it is pointless since you will drown me in false statements again and again. Go bother somebody else with your nonsense.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      What a bunch of bunk you are dispensing.

      "Joshua, you are wrong on all counts. "Esotric~ he is exonerated from collusion, to commit obstruction of Justice there has to be a crime to obstruct, there was not. "

      B:

      Then what was Mueller investigating, there were no crimes committed by Trump or his people.

      -----------------------------------------------

      Exonerated means found "not guilty", first of all. All that Mueller admitted was he didn't have ENOUGH evidence to take him to trial for

      B: There wasn't any evidence to indict period.

      ----------------------------------------------

      CONSPIRACY (not collusion). It didn't say he had NO evidence. Further, he DID NOT say he had no evidence of COLLUSION. He, and we, have PLENTY of evidence of that non-crime.

      B: If collusion was a non crime, there is no evidence at all.

      ----------------------------------------------

      Read up on the Martha Stewart trial. She was found guilty of obstruction without being found guilty of the underlying crime. Obstruction is its OWN CRIME, independent of anything else."

      B: The same thing is true of conspiracy. But, Martha Stewart lied and got caught. What did Trump do?

      ----------------------------------------------

      You have a death of knowledge. Is that why you haven't answered my previous comment on Comey And Hillary

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Joshua, you are wrong on all counts. "Esotric~ he is exonerated from collusion, to commit obstruction of Justice there has to be a crime to obstruct, there was not. "

      Exonerated means found "not guilty", first of all. All that Mueller admitted was he didn't have ENOUGH evidence to take him to trial for CONSPIRACY (not collusion). It didn't say he had NO evidence. Further, he DID NOT say he had no evidence of COLLUSION. He, and we, have PLENTY of evidence of that non-crime.

      Read up on the Martha Stewart trial. She was found guilty of obstruction without being found guilty of the underlying crime. Obstruction is its OWN CRIME, independent of anything else.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Joshua

      (6)e only pertains to the grand jury release of information.

      And if there is anything more unconstitutional then the grand jury I don't know what.

      We didn't have to worry about 6(e) with the Comey Hillary Clinton investigation because Comey never called for one. He didn't record her interview, and she was not put under oath.

      And the left is whining because they didn't get anything on president Trump.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Sorry, i dont buy this coverup. I saw him ask Russia for help. We know Russia helped him. Putin admitted he wanted Trump to win. I saw the collusion with my own eyes. If that is now ok, so be it. Like i said, "Iran, if you're listening, we would love to see Trump's tax returns."

      And, as im leaving, and dont have time, can u just tell me if this 6(e) thing also applied to the Benghazi investigation, and/ or Ken Starrs special council report. Thank you!

    • Joshua Lewin profile image

      Joshua Lewin 

      6 months ago from Redding

      Esotric~ he is exonerated from collusion, to commit obstruction of Justice there has to be a crime to obstruct, there was not. CHRIS - Like I said there is a reason the whole report has not come out yet or as quickly as other reports it is due to 6(e) please read my article to better understand the law that is in the summary.

    • Joshua Lewin profile image

      Joshua Lewin 

      6 months ago from Redding

      Well there is no crime

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      I have the answer why Mueller didn't even try to decide about obstruction charges

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Alex Cole

      @acnewsitics

      Breaking: House Judiciary will authorize a subpoena on Wednesday for the full, unredacted Mueller report.

      ********

      Now we shall see.

      ( btw, this guys tweet was used on morning joe this am. Not this one, but he’s famous now!)

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Joshua - You do realize don't you that the only public records on the Mueller report is the 4-page letter from Barr. I am not privy to the actual report beyond the partial snippets that Barr included. So, effectively there isn't much to discuss other than summarizing the facts that are currently known.

      Remember, the question this article asks is if Trump is telling the truth that the Mueller report "Totally Exonerated Him" - It didn't.

      As to findings, I did summarize those. 1) the Russians did it, 2) Mueller didn't have enough to prove Conspiracy, and 3) Mueller did not exonerate Trump from obstruction (nor did he make a finding on it). Beyond that, I have to wait for as much of the full report as can be released to the public - which Barr said he would do by mid-April.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Sorry. Trump supporters can pontificate all they want. The rest of us are not brainwashed.

      1. They don’t want the report made public, because they have done some bad things.

      2. Barr was hired to make sure we don’t see the Mueller report.

      3. He’s stalling so Trump has time to get out there and convince people what a hoax it is.....turn the story favorable to him.....brainwash. If you believe perception is reality, it won’t take long before people will start to wonder if he’s telling the truth, BECAUSE they can’t see the report.

      4. When they do release it, they will have redacted everything they don’t want us to know.

      5. It’s a big sham.

      6. It’s disgusting that this is allowed, given that the House deserves to know what that equal branch is up to....as do WE.

      7. They released thousands of pages of documents on Benghazi, on emails.......not ONCE did Hillary call them names.

      8. All 455 pages of the Starr report was released to the public, and even became a best-selling book. Used to this day to denigrate the Democratic Party.

      And I’m sorry...it’s basic kindergarten stuff....you only hide things if it’s bad, and you dont want people to know.

      This executive privilege stuff is baloney. He did rotten things and wants to get away with it. Period.

      And, republicans will let him. I used to have faith in Mueller and Rosenstein, but no more. They are, after all, Republicans too.

      It would have been easy to get him like they got Clinton....just put him under oath. That, they didn’t do. Cover up and protection, because they protect their own, above and beyond the US Constitution and the majority of us who wanted nothing to do with him.

      They are happy to have Putin hack our gvt if it hurts Democrats.

      And there is no coming back from that.

    • Joshua Lewin profile image

      Joshua Lewin 

      6 months ago from Redding

      This is odd to me, Your points on legal stuff with trump are just single sentence sub articles that are common knowledge about other sham investigations. This article is supposed to be on the Mueller investigation but it seems you beat around the bush on actual policy and finding of the investigation. You also seem to miss the point of the last page of the Barr summary indicating why the full report is not being released due to 6(e). Any thought on that?

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Did the house exonerate Hillary?

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      No answer huh? Figures.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      I guess they will because you have not shown any knowledge of the law here. If I am wrong then please give me some examples.

      B: "James Comey told lawmakers that former FBI lawyer Lisa Page helped her lover, Peter Strzok draft Hillary Clinton's exoneration statement. Peter Strzok is the FBI agent who changed the wording from "grossly negligent," a term that would have brought potential Espionage Act charges against Hillary Clinton, to a softer, "extremely careless.""

      What is interesting is that this word change totally exonerated Hillary Clinton? Did it really, so those things Comey said didn't really happen. And how does "Extremely Careless" any different from "grossly negligent"? The acts themselves show "Grossly Negligent" actions on the part of HRC.

      Now, the anti Trumpers are balking at president Trump saying that he was completely Exonerated by the Mueller report. How does that differ from HRC being totally exonerated by Comey? If you believe that HRC was exonerated, then you have to believe that president Trump was also exonerated."

      --------------------------------------------

      B:

      Even a non judicial Article 15 requires

      "Article 15 Procedures

      All branches of the military follow similar procedures for imposing Article 15s. The standard of proof required before imposition of an Article 15 varies, however. The Marines and the Navy require “clear and convincing” proof before an Article 15 can issue, whereas the Air Force and Army require a much higher finding of proof “reasonable doubt."

      Normally, however, commanders aren’t aware of the meaning of these standards for legal proof when issuing Article 15s."

      --------------------------------------------------------------

      90% of all courts-martial result in convictions. After conviction comes “extenuation and mitigation.” This is an opportunity for the service member to advocate for themselves and seek a reduced sentence. Unlike in a civilian court, jurors hand out the sentence. Often the prosecutor will be low-key during this phase of the trial because a sentencing agreement may already have been reached. The defense attorney will try to get a lesser sentence than the one the prosecutor has previously agreed to.

      ---------------------------------------

      Do you think the civilian criminal courts have 90% conviction?

      B:UCMJ

      "851. ART. 51. VOTING AND RULINGS

      (c) Before a vote is taken of the findings, the military judge or the president of a court-martial without a military judge shall, in the presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the members of the court as to the elements of the offense and charge them--

      (1) that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt;

      (2) that in the case being considered, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused and he must be acquitted;

      (3) that, if there is reasonable doubt as to the degree of guilt, the finding must be in a lower degree as to which there is no reasonable doubt; and

      (4) that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt is upon the United States."

      Scott

      That is why Mueller failing reasonable doubt exonerated president Trump.

      Once again, compare Comey's exoneration of HRC with Mueller and Trump's total exoneration.

      Comey had evidence of HRCs crime, but dismissed and he didn't even use reasonable doubt. He just said no prosecutor would charge her. In the Mueller report there isn't any evidence given about Trump and obstruction, no indictments were issued, and he is done with the case. By what legal standard does Mueller have a right to say he Trump wasn't exonerated for obstruction? None! These statement that he made is just like all the excuses made by HRC why she didn't lose the election.

      Sounds like you did all you legals on Article 15s.

      ---------------------------------------------------------------

      ----------------------------------------

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      It’s not supposed to be a judge Brad. It’s supposed to be the House of Representives.

      Any idea why Trump and Barr are not following the Constitution?

      House has oversight duties, not the AG.

      Not the Special Council.

      Any idea why these republicans don’t care to follow our Constitution?

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "B: Shame on the democrats for believing that crapola. What I said was and is a facts." - ABSOLUTELY! Except for the very few, like Obama, I think, who didn't get suckered by the dishonest Republicans.

      "You don't have the basic understanding of the law and evidence. " - HMMMM, I guess the Army will have to vacate the 60 some odd convictions I got as a trial counsel for them over a year and a half of trying Special Courts Martial's because I didn't understand the law and evidence.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Leslie

      Tell it to the judge!

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Can we just keep it simple? If the report exonerated him, it would have been released.

      The fact that it hasnt, and that it must be redacted, tells you all you need to know!

      Its not hard....if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide.

      And also, good luck investigating any dems anymore....the hell with this crap.

      Apparently, they can appoint an AG that will protect them, too.

      Who knew?

      Bye donny. Enjoy your life knowing how it will end. And tell that alt right kid of yours to zip it.

      He will be in no position to run for prez.

      Nor will Ivanka.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      ------------------------------------------

      You didn't answer these

      I don't blame the intelligence people, I blame their upper management. They are the one that set the policies in motion, and made the decisions that ended poorly.

      NORAD failed, and so did all the rest of them on 911, The terrorists are proactive the US Intelligence is reactive. Guess which one wins?

      Back to the beginning, highly confident is not evidence and it is not fact. It is a consensus just like WMDs in Iraq. They said they were highly confident in October of 2016 before the election, Yet, they did nothing to stop it. Just like they had enough before 911 to have done something, but they didn't. I guess being highly confident is not a trigger to do something.

      What did they do to protect the election in 2106, when they were highly confident? Apparently nothing, and for the last two and a half years they were trying to find the evidence that made them feel highly confident, but none came forth.

      ---------------------------

      B: What about the anomaly between the USA and Politifact? I copied them verbatim.

      ------------------------------------------

      "How do you know Brad "If the FBI didn't actually get on the DNC servers, they don't have evidence, they just have hearsay. " - ARE you privy to their sources and methods? I bet not. Unlike you and Trump, I actually trust our intel agencies NOT TO LIE. You are calling the entire intel community a bunch of liars. Now, who should I believe - you and Trump or them?

      B:

      It is called the law. You don't have the basic understanding of the law and evidence. How can any of the intelligence agencies know about the hacking on the server without actually investigating the server. What evidence is there better than the drives on the server. What evidence is there at all to say that the DNC servers were hacked? Do we take Podesta's word. Why didn't the FBI actually investigate the server?

      ------------------------------------------------

      "I gave you serious instances where those experts were wrong." - YOU gave me instances where YOU say they were wrong (said something that wasn't true although they thought it was right) and I say they didn't say anything that was wrong. What specific words did they say that you think are wrong? No specific words, and I won't answer.

      B:

      Your denial is not enough. You don't have any answers.

      -----------------------------------------------

      Brad - "B:

      So you are saying that the congress including HRC and democrats invaded a country not on facts. " - YES, they believed the propaganda put out by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the right-wing. I knew, based on reading public sources, that the things those three put out was very weak."

      B:

      Shame on the democrats for believing that crapola. What I said was and is a facts.

      -----------------------------------------------

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      How do you know Brad "If the FBI didn't actually get on the DNC servers, they don't have evidence, they just have hearsay. " - ARE you privy to their sources and methods? I bet not. Unlike you and Trump, I actually trust our intel agencies NOT TO LIE. You are calling the entire intel community a bunch of liars. Now, who should I believe - you and Trump or them?

      "I gave you serious instances where those experts were wrong." - YOU gave me instances where YOU say they were wrong (said something that wasn't true although they thought it was right) and I say they didn't say anything that was wrong. What specific words did they say that you think are wrong? No specific words, and I won't answer.

      Leslie - While Daddy (who abandon Trump to a military school) worked with the American mob (at least) - the evidence is pointing to Trump working with the Russian mob.

      Brad - "B:

      So you are saying that the congress including HRC and democrats invaded a country not on facts. " - YES, they believed the propaganda put out by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the right-wing. I knew, based on reading public sources, that the things those three put out was very weak.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      This whole thing is just ridiculous. News flash: we all know trump is a criminal....has been since birth. His own father was dealing with the mob. In fact, it’s said you can’t be in New York real estate without dealing with them.

      Now it seem Mueller is helping Barr redact the report....and it’ll be out mid April.

      Whitewashing it, to protect Trump. Because, he is, after all president. And say what you will, it’s an institution we cannot allow to go down the tubes.

      The magas will have their white supremacy again for a brief stint.

      MCconnell, who took massive money from Russian oligarchs, will change the rules to get his far right judges strapped into every crevice of America.

      And they will celebrate as if they run the universe.

      But we the people will never be with them. Nor will we ever forgive them.

      Mayor Pete? Seeya. You dont get to trash us and think you can be part of us. Same goes for any of you.

      There are 19 states now in the compact. We will eventually do away with the slave state eiectoral college bs.

      And we will keep on keeping on.

      This whole fiasco has shown me what crooked media, criminal minds and people with hate in their hearts can do.

      But you forget to your detriment the majority vote.

      That went to Hillary.

      And all these phony people comin on here talking about crooked Hillary and foul Bill.....they are fairy angels compared to Trump.

      The willful blindness is expected.

      But, continuing to stand by a man with such a nasty, spoiled demeanor makes you look like the fools you are.

      Words of inspiration from the president of the USA:

      “Horseface”

      “Pencil neck”.....

      Your children must be proud.

      Mueller will let him off the hook for now......Southern District will bury him. And his criminal kids.

      IMO

    • Kathleen Cochran profile image

      Kathleen Cochran 

      6 months ago from Atlanta, Georgia

      If Trump said it, probably not.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      "I don't know Brad, that is not my expertise - but it is theirs. Now you can believe those whose job it is to determine those things or you can believe your own opinion about the subject. I choose the experts"

      B:

      I gave you serious instances where those experts were wrong. If the FBI didn't actually get on the DNC servers, they don't have evidence, they just have hearsay. That is why they just have feeling about it, and not evidence.

      -------------------------------------

      "Mueller said a lot of things but that was rhetoric not evidence." - Actually, Brad, he has said very little. But since you have read his report, do you mind sharing?

      B: No red herrings, what he did say is what we are talking about, and it is what you are talking about. His statement in the report that the AG and Deputy AG published about obstruction. That is what we are talking about. It has no legal weight, it is just rhetoric. He didn't issue any more indictments and there was nothing he had in the obstruction according to the four pages published that could pass the reasonable doubt legal test. In which case, it exonerates Trump on all counts. Rhetoric and feeling of Mueller is no relevant to his investigation. It is was he could prove and only that is relevant.

      -------------------------------------------

      Actually, Brad, the intel community NEVER said that Saddam still had WMD. It was people like you and Dick Cheney who took some possible outcomes based on sources and turned them into so-called facts.

      B:

      So you are saying that the congress including HRC and democrats invaded a country not on facts. What did the Intel community actually say to the president and congress that caused us to invade Iraq? It wasn't the vague answer you just gave here.

      -------------------------------------------

      I for one never believed Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or the Right when they swore up and down Saddam had nukes.

      B:

      Hillary and other democrats must have believed it.

      I thought it was ridiculous even if he had WMDs. Country before party.!

      ------------------------------------------

      I don't blame the intelligence people, I blame their upper management. They are the one that set the policies in motion, and made the decisions that ended poorly.

      NORAD failed, and so did all the rest of them on 911, The terrorists are proactive the US Intelligence is reactive. Guess which one wins?

      Back to the beginning, highly confident is not evidence and it is not fact. It is a consensus just like WMDs in Iraq. They said they were highly confident in October of 2016 before the election, Yet, they did nothing to stop it. Just like they had enough before 911 to have done something, but they didn't. I guess being highly confident is not a trigger to do something.

      What did they do to protect the election in 2106, when they were highly confident? Apparently nothing, and for the last two and a half years they were trying to find the evidence that made them feel highly confident, but none came forth.

      ---------------------------

      B: What about the anomaly between the USA and Politifact? I copied them verbatim.

      Anyway, off topic. Thanks for your opinions."

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I don't know Brad, that is not my expertise - but it is theirs. Now you can believe those whose job it is to determine those things or you can believe your own opinion about the subject. I choose the experts.

      "Mueller said a lot of things but that was rhetoric not evidence." - Actually, Brad, he has said very little. But since you have read his report, do you mind sharing?

      Actually, Brad, the intel community NEVER said that Saddam still had WMD. It was people like you and Dick Cheney who took some possible outcomes based on sources and turned them into so-called facts.

      I for one never believed Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or the Right when they swore up and down Saddam had nukes.

      Anyway, off topic. Thanks for your opinions.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      Without investigating the DNC servers how did they assess anything? The "I" in FBI is for Investigation, hearsay is not investigating, and without looking at the servers, all they have is hearsay.

      Save yourself some typing and stop this attacking.

      Answer the question. And you didn't comment on my two responses, Mueller said a lot of things but that was rhetoric not evidence.

      Scott, country before party!

      There is nothing in Politifact or the USA article that hasn't facts to support that highly confident opinion. What did they base their opinion on? Was it like when they said Iraq had WMD, and none were found.

      Was it like, when they said after 911, we didn't think they could do that, or something to that effect. The FBI has been wrong more times than it has been right. They totally failed in Parkland.

      The anomaly is between Politifact and the USA article. Scott you are lying.

      The proof on 911 is that the entire government was wrong, and 19 terrorists were more than highly confident, they were correct.

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Did I say they looked at the servers??? I said your claim that ""The government never verified the DNC hacking," - THAT is simply not true Brad and you know it"

      Both Mueller AND the intel agencies assessed that the Russians hacked the DNC server - they say it outright. Face it, you are wrong. Go look it up, I've shown it to you many times before.

      What anamolies? USA Today reporting is correct and Trump is lying again.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      When did the US government look at the DNC servers? You called me a liar, you prove it. It never happened. And don't forget these other two comments.

      -----------------------------

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      Now compare it with this USA article

      "Donald Trump’s claim that the United States has "no idea" who is behind recent email hacks is just not true.

      The fact-checking website Politifact says Hillary Clinton is correct when she says 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking.

      “We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing,” Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas.

      Trump pushed back, saying that Clinton and the United States had “no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else.”

      But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

      "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

      While the agencies all issued the statement together, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung told Politifact he took Clinton to be implying each agency came to the conclusion independently, a situation Cheung finds "unlikely."

      This summer, Wikileaks released a trove of emails from the Democratic National Committee. And over the past two weeks, Wikileaks has been releasing Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails. The Clinton campaign has neither confirmed or denied the authenticity of the emails, though they have pushed back on certain emails and warned that stolen information could be altered."

      B:

      Do you see the anomalies?

      -----------------------------------

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      This is politifact

      "Assessing our October rating

      Back in October 2016, we rated this statement by then-candidate Hillary Clinton as True: "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election."

      Many readers have asked us about this rating since the New York Times and Associated Press issued their corrections.

      Our article referred to an Oct. 7, 2016, joint statement from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security that presented a preliminary conclusion about Russia’s involvement in the election.

      We noted then that the 17 separate agencies did not independently declare Russia the perpetrator behind the hacks; however, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence speaks on behalf of the group.

      We asked experts again this week if Clinton’s claim was correct or not.

      "In the context of a national debate, her answer was a reasonable inference from the DNI statement," Cordero said, emphasizing that the statement said, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident" in its assessment.

      Aftergood said it’s fair to say the Director of National Intelligence speaks for the intelligence community, but that doesn’t always mean there is unamity across the community, and it’s possible that some organizations disagree.

      But in the case of the Russia investigation, there is no evidence of disagreement among members of the intelligence community."

      B:

      This was an opinion of Hillary Clinton followed by an opinion from an Intelligence Agency. How is Highly confident a truth. It was a consensus, but there was no evidence to make it factual.

      Can you even share why they are confident, and on what is that makes them confident? And how that become a fact much less evidence?

      ------------------------------------------------------------

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      They are wrong when they aren't reporting facts such as when you say "The government never verified the DNC hacking," - THAT is simply not true Brad and you know it.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      I see whenever you say something it is a fact, and when someone else says they are wrong. That is not the same things as the truth.

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "B: What did they agree about it, and what was the truth? They were wrong." - I am not covering old ground with you again and Mueller AND Barr said they were right and that YOU are wrong.

      Zorvos - Try reading the news like I did

      "B: What Mueller did was puffing and gas letting because he failed to find anything criminal on Trump, and that is a fact." - I AM SO glad you are privy to the Mueller report and the rest of the world is not. If you have it, share it, otherwise stop making things up.

      "B: Couldn't that also be true of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters and the rest of the anti Trump democrats?" - NO! Nor most of the Republicans either. JUST TRUMP.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      "Summer Zorvos Defamation Lawsuit

      Zervos was a contestant on the Apprentice and said in 2016 that Trump had sexually assaulted her in 2007. After Trump called her a liar on the campaign trial Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit against him.

      These are just the more famous ones."

      B: There was no crime, just another Dr. Ford with old events and accusations that have no proof.

      And defamation isn't a crime.

      And you didn't give the disposition now that it is more than 12 years later.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Leslie

      You didn't read my answer.

      -----------------------------------

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Really? How in hell did u see the report?

      Because this is what I saw of it: “the report does not exonerate trump”.

      Does. Not. That means doesn’t. That means uh ohhhhhhhhhh, spaghettios!

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      Scott

      "Actually we don't, Brad, not for that part anyway. ALL US intelligence agencies have agreed with that assessment for over a year."

      B: What did they agree about it, and what was the truth? They were wrong.

      ------------------------------------

      LESLIE - I buy that the public can't see the grand jury (unless a judge allows it) and classified parts. But, we should see the rest. The Gang of Eight, however, should see it all.

      B: That Grand Jury was for the Russians not Trump.

      -----------------------------------

      "Thanks, HS. The irony is Trump's claim of no exoneration is an Absolute LIE (# 11,001?) given that Mueller said he was NOT exonerated. (although his head-in-the-sand, brain-dead supporters don't see it that way. They think Mueller lied about that part and only that part, lol)"

      B: What Mueller did was puffing and gas letting because he failed to find anything criminal on Trump, and that is a fact.

      The reason that Mueller didn't charge Trump with Obstruction wasn't because of FBI policy on a sitting president. It was as explained by the AG and Deputy AG that Mueller didn't have any evidence that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the accepted hurdle to prove a crime. And he didn't recommend any further indictments

      .-----------------------

      Saw a good tweet this morning which said "Donald Trump could dress up like a Nazi Drag Queen in Black Face and go into the Ladies' Bathroom to Snort Crack off of the Koran and Still Not Lose His Base.""

      B: Couldn't that also be true of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters and the rest of the anti Trump democrats?

      -----------------------------------

      Leslie

      Why would Mueller cover up his investigation results? He wouldn't, he just didn't have the evidence, because it doesn't exist. He had to save face after spending over $30 million and coming up empty.

      -----------------------------------

      -----------------------------------

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Yeah, I get that the rules changed after Starr.....where we got to read intimate details of 2 people’s sexual lives....which btw could have been avoided.

      But, this is looking like a big ole coverup to me, just like the first 2 years of the Trump presidency.

      I am really sick and tired of having different standards for republicans.

      Didn’t they release thousands of pages regarding Hillary Clinton E mail, Benghazi, how dare she be a woman, etc?

      It’s one week today. This clown Barr could read it all, and write a conclusion in 2 days, but they can’t figure this out in one week?

      I’m not buying it. They want to string it out so the Trump media machine can brainwash the masses.

      This is called co - equal branches of gvt. Not all hail the king.

    • My Esoteric profile imageAUTHOR

      Scott Belford 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Actually we don't, Brad, not for that part anyway. ALL US intelligence agencies have agreed with that assessment for over a year.

      LESLIE - I buy that the public can't see the grand jury (unless a judge allows it) and classified parts. But, we should see the rest. The Gang of Eight, however, should see it all.

      Thanks, HS. The irony is Trump's claim of no exoneration is an Absolute LIE (# 11,001?) given that Mueller said he was NOT exonerated. (although his head-in-the-sand, brain-dead supporters don't see it that way. They think Mueller lied about that part and only that part, lol)

      Saw a good tweet this morning which said "Donald Trump could dress up like a Nazi Drag Queen in Black Face and go into the Ladies' Bathroom to Snort Crack off of the Koran and Still Not Lose His Base."

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      Brad 

      6 months ago

      The answer is unequivocally YES. The report determined that the Russians used two primary modes of attack. One was hacking the DNC and Clinton campaign emails and releasing them in such a manner as to have the most impact. The other was to mastermind a massive, social media disinformation campaign to split Americans into two warring factions.

      B: We will have to see the report before you can say this is unequivocal?

      The government never verified the DNC hacking, and the servers were never seen by the government. In addition, John Podesta's password was password, you could even hack that one.

      "Clinton campaign emails and releasing them "

      Really, the Russians?

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Here’s a picture of the Ken Starr report being delivered...

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2sJPOQXgAAsAp6?format...

      And we all got to read it.

      Tomorrow makes a week for the Mueller report......obviously they don’t want us to see it.

      Doesn’t much matter. There is no escaping it anyway you look at it.

      Mueller knows, Rosenstein knows......the clock is ticking.

      And who else knows?

      Pelosi and Schiff.

      And us, of course. *wink*

      Those of us not smitten with ”The Donald”

      Hey Trump.....You’re Fired.

    • profile image

      Howard Schneider 

      6 months ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

      I agree and believe everything you have stated is true, Scott. The bottom line is we need to see the entire Mueller report and not just Barr's spin. This has allowed Trump and his stooges to claim with no clear proof that Trump is completely exonerated. This must be fought at every turn. The public must see the entire report.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)