The Mueller Report – some early takes (updated 20apr19)

George Rebane

The long-awaited report from special counsel Robert Mueller has turned out to be a disappointment on all counts to all sides.  The following summarize my initial take on it.

1. From a legal perspective, the report is an iconic nothing-burger. A 400-page embarrassment that documents the failure to conclude anything definite about the commissioned purpose for the drawn-out investigation.  It is a collection of legal pabulum as a CYA disguise for spending tens of millions over two years to no avail.
2. From the gitgo the Mueller investigation was an obviously composed effort to nail the president and derail his administration. The composition of the investigative team and its flailing, off-the-mark, subsequent indictments gave evidence that it really was a desperate witch hunt which had to fire off a few legal pyrotechnics now and then to keep the effort looking credible to the light thinkers.
3. From a political perspective, the report is a success. Since there was no credible prosecutorial evidence for either ‘collusion’ or ‘obstruction’, the investigation’s redoubt terminus was always to deliver a product that would dissemble its conclusions so as to invite and enable follow-on probes which the Democrats took every opportunity to specify during the 22-month fiasco.  Team Muller got its marching orders early and often from the Left and its lamestream.
4. President Trump and his administration have been isolated, perhaps, like no other administration in our history. The Dems could never accept the election results, and the Repubs have carried on a feckless relationship with a president who obviously was not their first choice from their retinue of available candidates.  And Trump’s incurable foot-in-mouth disease did not endear him to anyone in the Washington political establishment.  Mueller’s investigation was drawn out for the obvious collateral damage it was inflicting by hobbling and diverting Team Trump from governing.
5. Mueller’s work has also served 1) to firmly entrench the public’s longstanding opinion of the dodgy legal profession and our convoluted and corrupt justice system in which it operates, and 2) to highlight and further widen our country’s ideological divide. The report’s dearth of evidence and painfully wordsmithed syntax made sure that it would change no minds already secure in their beliefs about Trump’s guilt or innocence.  All sides can now put their own particular spin on it, and never look back.

WSJ Washington columnist Kim Strassel adds more meat to these points in her ‘Mueller’s Report Speaks Volumes’.

[20apr19 update]  Upon reflection on Volume 2 of the report dealing with obstruction, it strikes me as more than utter bullshit that would be below the standards of any other profession other than those populated mostly by sleazebag lawyers.  I add point #6.

6. “… while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” A little thought immediately causes one to ask, ‘is there ANY investigation that cannot have such a codicil appended to its conclusion, should the investigator desire to leave a cloud over the individual investigated without the finding of any illegality or indictable criminality??’ To conclude with such an unnecessary assertion is an act of desperation which confirms that the investigation was carried out with an agenda unfulfilled.  Such a dangling innuendo strongly implies that guilt could yet be uncovered with more effort, and forces the so accused into having to prove his own innocence – not exactly the way our system of jurisprudence was intended to operate.  (That is one of the many reasons I assess our judicial system to be invitingly corrupt.)

In Mueller’s case he was not able to indict someone for not obstructing an unobstructed investigation that terminated without finding any evidence of an indictable crime.  About that the Dems are pissed to the gills, and will now do everything to correct the situation.  Go figger.

Comments

[Don Bessee]

Talk about a total lack of self awareness from the pony tail of ignorance. Squawk it, up it does not change your record.

;-)

[George Rebane]

Gentlemen, stow the mudballs and return to the topic. How many of you prefer that the House proceeds to impeachment, and more importantly, why would that be a useful tactic for 2020?

[Todd Juvinall]

I think it is a negative for the dems and a plus for the R's and Trump. Americans are at their core a fair people and if they see one group ganfing up they will punish them.

[Gregory]

Punchy

Trump is back even steven... 49-49 by the Rasmussen daily poll, but then I suspect you already know that but didn't bother to mention it. Why confuse people...

[Don Bessee]

The pony tail of ignorance is a co-conspirator with the masters of the universe -

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/04/23/blacklisters-at-microsofts-newsguard-still-label-most-debunked-russia-hoaxes-as-credible/

;-)

[scenes]

"Trump is back even steven... 49-49 by the Rasmussen daily poll, but then I suspect you already know that but didn't bother to mention it."

It's kind of like those problem gamblers that just remember their wins.

If you listened just to Mr. Paul, Trump would be at a 5% vs. 95% value (which, in the new Emerymath™ means he'd be down by 90 'points').

[George Rebane]

ToddJ 1146am - What happens when you factor into your argument that IF/WHEN the Dems impeach, then the lamestream will become their loudest trumpet of support, daily generating and broadcasting fake news and lies about the individual articles of impeachment. When Clinton was impeached, the lamestream did exactly the opposite, hid and lied about the articles of impeachment (claiming they were about Lewinsky and sex, instead of perjury, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice). People correctly thought that Clinton's sex life should be his private affair since it would not affect his official duties, and compassionately boosted his approval to 70+. This ain't gonna happen with Trump, as the lamestream will now work hand-in-glove with the Dems to make sure that Trump's vilification sticks, and that the more chickenshit Repubs in the Senate will consider voting with the Dems to convict.

[scenes]

"How many of you prefer that the House proceeds to impeachment, and more importantly, why would that be a useful tactic for 2020?"

One advantage I can see is that the Prez could push through scads of executive orders and changes in regulations since the impeachment hullaballoo would suck all of the news air out of the room.

Dunno how it would alter swing votes, which is the point of the question after all. It depends how it all plays in Ohio or Florida I guess.

[Gregory]

Imagine... Joe Biden becomes the DEM nominee and a SCOTUS seat opens up... Say, it's Ruth Vader Ginsberg, and Trump goes to nominate a solid Jeffersonian textualist off the Federalist Society list.

Biden once boasted, "Remember, I'm the guy that kept there from being a guy who was maybe the most brilliant conservative who was nominated for the Supreme Court and I kept him off the court. And I was able to ... in the Judiciary Committee (to) defeat (Clarence) Thomas (nominated by the elder Bush four years later). Bork got flat defeated. Thomas got defeated in committee. But the Constitution says the Senate shall advise and consent, not a committee shall advise and consent. And so, you know, you can, I don't think we should step away for a moment."

The Great Borking was courtesy of Biden, then new chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Ted Kennedy, then the hindmost Kennedy brother. And the partisan ugliness over judicial appointments started with the Borking.

[Todd Juvinall]

GeorgeR 1146

Just surmising. I think we have enough media outlets now to offset the liars. Look at his numbers after all the piling on by the lamestream. He is even at least. The American people are inherently fair-minded and they know when things are nor right. The dems will be perceived as bullies by the indies and that is what we will get.

[Ozz]

Todd 1:22
"The dems will be perceived as bullies"

Trump wore out his bully card about 24 months ago. No one has ever lost a minute of sleep when a bully getting bullied. Everyone cheers when the playground bully gets punched in the mouth. Maybe you never noticed because you were too busy wiping your lip.

[Gregory]

When Michael P. Anderson bullied me over his imagining me a "climate brownshirt" who needed to be shown "extreme opprobrium" lest I be free to walk down Broad Street, my wife started shaking in fear and I got angry.

Like you, "Ozz", he sees himself as working to bloody the noses of bullies to the cheers of the rest of the kids in his playground.

Grow up, "Ozz".

[Steven Frisch]

Well of course if a Supreme Court seat opens up now it should not be filled until after the Presidential election.

After all, the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. If there is a vacancy it should not be filled until we have a new President. The Presidential election is after a ll a referendum on who we want to make these decisions.

As a matter of fact, when we have a new President, and it is a Democrat, it is clear to me that Congress should not have oversight power over executive branch actions. After all, according to the current executive branch administration Congress should not be able to call people to testify or provide documents or information.

So rejoice old men; you are overseeing the destruction of American constitutional governance.

[Paul Emery]

Don't go to Todds website!!!!

This comes up

Did Not Connect: Potential Security Issue

Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to www.sierradragonsbreathe.blogspot.com because this website requires a secure connection.

[Paul Emery]

Todd writes:

"The American people are inherently fair-minded and they know when things are nor right."

They sure do. That's why the Pubsters have been dumped in California and the Dems picked up 40 seats in the House midterms.

[Todd Juvinall]

The link is just fine to my blog. I just checked it. And I get a lot of hits./. I think PE's computer is infected.

[Todd Juvinall]

Frishie 310
My my my, now that Obummer is gone and after all his anti-constitutional acts, Frischie is apoplectic the R's will enforce the Constitution. You must be on meth today bub.

[Paul Emery]

Can you list a couple anti-constitutional acts that you claim Obama did Todd?

[Todd Juvinall]

Spied on fellow Americans with bogus warrants. Sold weapons to Mexican drug lords. Tried to bring in terrorists to NYC courts even though they are enemy combatants. And many more. You sure are a lazy man. Used the ITS to harass and deny conservative 501's.

[Todd Juvinall]

Just had some people do independent checking on my blog and it works fine. Paul Emery is trying to deny free speech. And he is a so-called journalist. Pretty pathetic.

[Paul Emery]

The warrants were issued by FISA Judges Todd. Were they corrupt? Trump sells weapons to Saudi gangsters who slaughter innocent children in Yemen. Are those things Constitutional Todd?

[Don Bessee]

Oh great pony tail of ignorance, the FISA courts were lied to, the IG report will be out soon. Pass the popcorn. It looks like creepy uncle joe is all wobbly -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6950837/Joe-Bidens-campaign-chaos-announce-2020-run.html

;-)

[Paul Emery]

Can you tell me how they were lied to Don? Who has made that determination. That would be a crime is anyone being charged? Details, details......

[Ozz]

Cut and paste from Safari:

Not secure-http://sierradragonsbreathe.blogspot.com

CAUTION! Todd's blog is NOT SECURE. It is always guaranteed to make you ill, today your computer might even come down with something.

[Todd Juvinall]

Looks like Paul; Emery can't handle the truth. He asks me for examples ten changes the direction as usual. FISA court Judges were lied to by Strck and McCabe etal. Even Comey. Later Comey told Trump he was in a dossier that was never verified and that was a couple of months after he told the FISA Judges it was the reason for wiretapps. But none of this penetrates Paul Emery's head as he is a man with TDS and is sick.

Oh and didn't Obama blast a few hundred people and even an America n citizen to ble=ithereens with drones? Paul Likes drones.

[Todd Juvinall]

OOZE I do expect you trolls to wretch when you read the truth and my erudite musings. It is OK, you can get help at the ER. Maybe some fentanyl? Anyway, trolls have no souls so you can't get infected.

[Gregory]

Frisch 310pm

Stevie, I'm afraid the Clay(et al)/Biden/Schumer/McConnell rule doesn't work that way. It's entirely up to the Senate to act, or not to act, on any Presidential SCOTUS nominee.

Henry Clay and Whig friends in the Senate couldn't stand His Accidency, the slaver John Tyler, after 'Tippecanoe' died after a month in office. And so his open seats stayed open for a record time, until a new President could be elected and take office.

Biden and Schumer didn't want any more GW Bush nominees and so declared they wouldn't entertain any... even though they didn't get a chance to block one. I don't doubt they would have kept their word on that.

When Scalia died, Obama's nominee, Garland, would have changed the balance of the court far more than Bork would have had Biden not seen to his destruction in the Great Borking. McConnell might have worked with Obama had a someone closer to Scalia than Ginsberg been nominated but Obama, true to form, kept to his guns, with CLinton trying to play bad cop by saying her nominee would be much farther to the left.

I never quite understood why Clinton didn't just say she'd renominate Garland after her inauguration... at least that would have fit the DEM narrative.

With McConnell in control of the Senate with a larger majority than before the last election when Scalia died, I suspect the Federalist Society would come up with a name acceptable to Trump and to McConnell, with a window that might not close until the actual 2020 primaries start. Maybe not even then, though I suspect it might be difficult to manage a Senate vote after the actual nominating Conventions start.

Sorry you don't get it, Steve, but that's what a Constitutional governance looks like.

[Gregory]

Paul 323pm

I've tried Todd's blog from two different Firefox installations and there is no problem I can find. Perhaps you should find a computer literate person who agrees with your politics to look your device over... Michael P. Anderson might have time to spare.

[Don Bessee]

Keep it up socialist-dems and we may retake the house!

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/23/analyst-voters-not-discussing-impeachment-mueller-on-campaign-trail/

;-)

[Paul Emery]

It seems to work ok at my house (Todds blog) but at KVMR I get that message.

[fish]

Posted by: Steven Frisch | 23 April 2019 at 03:10 PM

So rejoice old men; you are overseeing the destruction of American constitutional governance.

Oh it died long ago Ozz.......err....I mean Steve! I'm guessing to the thunderous applause of the doughy technocrat class to which you aspire!

Sorry it didn't work out like you planned.

[Todd Juvinall]

If RBG croaks it would make me sad for about a minute then elated for the country! McConnell will pull a Reid and we will see a vote even in the last year of Trump. That is called the Ropa-Dope strategy.

[scenes]

OMG!! https://www.rebaneruminations.typepad.com/ is not secure either!!! Attackers are trying to steal my bank account!!!!

I'll bet it's Russian hackers.

Their names are +#$%{`&+#{@$`%+NO CARRIER

[fish]

“I never quite understood why Clinton didn't just say she'd renominate Garland after her inauguration... at least that would have fit the DEM narrative.”

No kidding! Wonder if that simple statement would have been sufficient to drag more progressive democrat carcasses to the polls?

Oh well......now we’ll never know!

[Bill Tozer]

FROM “COLLUSION” TO “OBSTRUCTION”
“With the release of the Mueller Report last week, the mainstream media have mostly moved on from “collusion” to “obstruction” without a look backward. While they formerly chimed in on “collusion” with the unanimity and volume of an audience of Communist Party functionaries applauding one of Stalin’s speeches, they have now transferred to the same hatefest with a new theme. It is remarkable.

“Indeed, I wonder if the state press of the Soviet Union achieved such monochromatic stupidity as they propagate the new party line. At least the state press of the Soviet Union had the excuse of the Gulag to account for their behavior. Our media have no one to blame but themselves — not that they are inclined to acknowledge their own errors proclaiming the party line, let alone cast blame for them.”

[scenes]

You like obstruction and I like collusion
You like pussy grabbin', I like the Russians.
Obstruction, collusion, pussy grabbin', the Russians.
Let's call the whole thing off.

[Don Bessee]

Bummer for the rancid Russian dressing set, them be reelection numbers -

While the aforementioned 54 percent stood by Barr’s evaluation of the findings regarding alleged collusion between Russia and President Trump’s 2016 campaign, the other 46 percent said it was “largely inaccurate.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/04/23/poll-majority-believe-william-barrs-mueller-report-summary-was-largely-accurate/

;-)

[Bill Tozer]

“So, President Obama’s top intelligence official and a man with access to FBI, CIA, and NSA surveillance on President Trump’s campaign stated categorically that no evidence existed of “any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.” This was two months before Rosenstein appointed Mueller special counsel, and Clapper’s knowledge dated into 2017. So why did Rosenstein appoint Mueller?

“Mueller’s appointment, and the behavior of FBI and intelligence officials that preceded this two-year investigation, point to violations of U.S. Code 371 and a conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/24/james-clapper-knew-no-evidence-trump-russia-collusion-2016/

[George Rebane]

DonB 818am - Mr Bessee, do you know what evidence was cited by the 46% claiming Barr's summary was "largely inaccurate"? In my experience, statements like that from the port side are just empty unsubstantiated assertions - 'This is so, because I say it is so.'

[Paul Emery]

I'm amazed George that you accept Trumps cover up as valid. Answer me this, if it were Obqama instead of Trump with everything else being the same would you support Obama's innocence the same way you support Trump? ?

[Todd Juvinall]

Funny how the left will forgive serial killers and want to allow them to vote but won't believe the AG. You cannot make this stuff up.

[fish]

MATT TAIBBI: The Press Will Learn Nothing From the Russiagate Fiasco: The inability to face the enormity of the last few years of errors will cost the news media its credibility, even with blue-state audiences.

You know what was fake news? Most of the Russiagate story. There was no Trump-Russia conspiracy, that thing we just spent three years chasing. The Mueller Report is crystal clear on this.

He didn’t just “fail to establish” evidence of crime. His report is full of incredibly damning passages, like one about Russian officialdom’s efforts to reach the Trump campaign after the election: “They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect.”

Not only was there no “collusion,” the two camps didn’t even have each others’ phone numbers!

In March of 2017, in one of the first of what would become a mountain of mafia-hierarchy-style “Trump-Russia contacts” graphics in major newspapers, the Washington Post described an email Trump lawyer Michael Cohen sent to Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov. They called it “the most direct interaction yet of a top Trump aide and a senior member of Putin’s government.”

The report shows the whole episode was a joke. In order to further the Trump Tower project-that-never-was, Cohen literally cold-emailed the Kremlin. More than that, he entered the email incorrectly, so the letter initially didn’t even arrive. When he finally fixed the mistake, Peskov didn’t answer back.

That was “the most direct interaction yet of a top Trump aide and a senior member of Putin’s government”!

But it generated clicks and viewers and made them feel like bold warriors against the bad orange man.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russiagate-fiasco-taibbi-news-media-826246/amp/

Sweet, sweet music!

[Bill Tozer]

“In that sense, the report is more akin to one of the White House tell-all bestsellers such as Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury than a criminal investigation — which normally would not release evidence against people who have not been charged with a crime. In fact, The Washington Post has already announced plans to sell copies of the report in a fashion very much reminiscent of those books.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/46385/ellis-mueller-report-legally-inconsequential-jenna-ellis?%3Futm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

[George Rebane]

PaulE 429pm - Hell no! Obama's fundamental transformation is exactly what I oppose. What is this "innocence" of his to which you refer? The man is plausibly guilty of enabling and promoting corruption of the highest order in the DoJ, FBI, and federal intelligence services during his administration. Hopefully, Barr's upcoming investigation and the IG's upcoming report will shed more light on that. Right now, for all the crap that he condoned during his reign, let's just say that he remains a person of interest.

[Paul Emery]

But you have absolutely no "concerns" about Trump right George

[Paul Emery]

George

The essence of Mueller's report DOES NOT clear Trump. Here's a direct quote from the report:
"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

Vol. II, Page 182:

[George Rebane]

PaulE 622pm - That statement is well-known. To me and mine that is a lame ending that says all about where Mueller's heart is re Trump. Can you tell me what kind of investigation into someone's alleged criminality cannot have such an appended codicil inserted into its concluding report? This was clearly inserted in the effort to continue to damage Trump and give the Dem congress critters something to chew on for the new series of investigations.
Hint: Citing the possession of "confidence" one way or the other is just a very subjective assessment intended to sway the reader. It sure has worked with you for the same reason.

[Don Bessee]

Psycho is as psycho does @622 -

;-)

[Paul Emery]

So George you are saying Mueller did that intentionally to incite further investigations but did not necessarily believe it to be true. So Mueller is one of the bad guys out to get Trump in your view.

[Todd Juvinall]

According to Joe Degenova, the FISA Judges have opened a criminal investigation or referral for all the players Paul Emery loves. This will be so fun to watch. And their conspiracy has now been exposed and many will be in the big house with Comey and Clinton. All those convicts will be honored by the left as martyrs. TThat is the state of mind on the lefty loons.

[Paul Emery]

George:
Here are two of the articles of impeachment against Nixon. Does this sound familiar?

Article I alleged in part:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.[98]

and more directly

Article III alleged in part that Nixon:

failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas.[98]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon#Articles_of_impeachment

[Todd Juvinall]

What will Paul Emery say when all his heros are in the hoosegow for their attempted coup?

[Paul Emery]

Todd

Why didn't Sessions do any investigations and press charges when he was AG or is he part of the Swamp as well?

[Todd Juvinall]

It will be so fun to see all your pals you have defended in the hoosegow. All your protestations are nil.

[Don Bessee]

Po, po, pitiful you @814 - Jeff Sessions did launch an investigation but based it outside of the swamp and that's why there have been no leaks!

;-)

[Paul Emery]

So what are they "ALL" guilty of Todd or do you just want to round them up and jail them?

[Bill Tozer]

Cause Session recused himself and Mueller took over the Investigation. Sessions got fired, new AG will pick up on the criminal behavior of those who should brought to justice. Also, there is an on going IG Investigation going on right now. Gotta wait for Horowitz to finish his report on the handling of the application for the FISA warrants, lying to Congress, lying to his investigators, abuse of power, obstructing justice, lying to a court, etc,....then Barr will look at it all. I will not be surprised when two swat teams raid Sally Yates home at 5 am, throw her on the floor, put automatic weapons to her head, and yell out in front of her children, “Move one finger, bitch and we will blow your ducking head off, cunt. Go ahead bitch, move one finger. And tell your fucking kids to shut the fuck up.” Works for me.

[Paul Emery]

Looks like Biker Bill is back!!! You are really a disgusting person Bill condoning such treatment of a person while being arrested. By the way what do you contend Sally Yates did to qualify for such treatment?

[Bill Tozer]

Oh, they will probably not even charge her. Mueller tactics. She is a small fry. The FBI will keeping asking her the same question, hour after hour, ask it different ways with different cadence, and bring her back over and over again for about 30 hours to answer the same question. Then, when a detail changes like the strength of the breeze in the air, charge her for perjury, lying to the FBI. It’s how it’s done, the Obama way. The Weismann way. The truth is not as important as a conviction.

But, the topic here is the Mueller report. Then the IG report. Then a look at the evidence. Who knows what are dead-ends and what will bear fruit at this moment. Getting ahead of ourselves. Mueller report is the topic. I suppose what led tothe appointment of the Special Counsel is on topic, so I be wrong.

[AVMan]

,,,Trump really really wanted to obstruct the investigation because as we all know by now he is a lyin’ cheatin’ son of a bitch...but his staff would not follow his direction...because they knew what a lowlife he is...

‘’’Many of Trump's potential efforts to obstruct the investigations against him failed after staffers rebuffed him.
Mueller's team found "multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations."
The report specifically cites one-on-one meetings between Trump and top-level staffers where the president directed them to curtail investigations. For example, he asked then-White House counsel Don McGahn to have Mueller fired and requested that former staffer Corey Lewandowski ask then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the scope of the Russia investigation.
The investigation ultimately found that Trump's efforts to influence it "were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests."’

[Paul Emery]

The likelihood of stonewalling Congress in their request for documents and information is striking similar to the articles of impeachment against Nixon which stated:

"Article III alleged in part that Nixon:

Failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas.[98]

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul Emery would you please show us in the Constitution where it gives the power of oversight to Congress over the Executive.

[Paul Emery]

So Todd you believe Nixon did nothing wrong and should not have been investigated by Congress?

[Gregory]

punchy 1040am

Where does the Constitution give Congress the right to demand any information it wants from the executive branch? What punishment is prescribed for the President for "willfully disobeying" a subpoena from Congress? Who conducts the trial?

[Todd Juvinall]

Pau; Emery answer my question. YES OR NO?

[Gregory]

The crimes of Nixon involve the active coverup by Nixon of the breaking and entering at the Watergate Hotel by folks with ties to the Committee to Reelect Nixon.

The imagined crimes of Trump involve a non-existent coverup of a non-existent conspiracy of the Trump campaign with Putin's Russia hallucinated by Democrats in the aftermath of their meltdown once they realized Hillary lost to the Donald.

It's over, Paul. Give it a rest.

[Todd Juvinall]

YES or NO Paul Emery. Where in the Constitution can you point to the Congress having oversite of the Executive? YES or NO!

[Gregory]

"Eric Holder held in contempt of Congress after historic vote"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/28/eric-holder-contempt-historic-congress-vote

That's about as far as the Congress can go when the Executive branch tells them to go pound sand.

Now, 2nd Amendment fundamentalists think Fast and Furious was a crime, intended to stampede Congress into passing gun prohibitions. It didn't work.

[Paul Emery]

It's all over the Constitution Todd. Examples are that Congress has to support Presidential nominations for Cabinet positions and can investigate to that end. Also they can investigate into whatever they feel is of concern-Watergate, Iran Contra, and oh yeah-Clintons alleged perjury. Did you support Clinton being impeached?

It's just beginning Gregory. Get used to it. There are no less that 12 active investigations into Trumps business affairs and the investigation into obstruction is very much open according to Mueller who left it up to congress with his open ended statement
The essence of Mueller's report DOES NOT clear Trump. Here's a direct quote from the report:
"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

[Paul Emery]

I'm not doing your homework for you Todd. Here's a link to the Constitution. Your homework is to study it and report back to me. Class is over.

https://constitutionus.com/

[Don Bessee]

Time for a referral to behavioral health @1237,1240!

;-)

[scenes]

"Where in the Constitution can you point to the Congress having oversite of the Executive? YES or NO!"

You are cheating.

The oversight is implied.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul Emery answer the question. Point to the articles in the Constitution that gove Congress oversight of the Executive. What you posted at 1237 is pure bS. The document is an enumerated one so there has to be written words. Where are they? I already know but now I see you don't. You are just a BS artist without smarts.

[Todd Juvinall]

I love it when a moron like Paul Emery dodges a simple issue. What a hoot!

[George Rebane]

If my understanding is correct, the House's oversight functions do not delve into criminal investigations, but they can investigate matters for impeachment when there is a clear indication that the investigation will reveal "high crimes and misdemeanors" that there is indication that the target of impeachment may have committed. Re Trump, there is NO indication that he has actually done anything wrong. He cannot be impeached for leaked Oval Office conversations that resulted in no unlawful act. Our justice system does not allow persecution for unfulfilled intent that was not even attempted.

But then, perhaps the brave new world of liberal mind police are ready to expand the landscape of indictable offenses so that power and control may be more firmly secured by an expanding government.

[Ozz]

Trump continues to blow wind into the sails of the Mueller report. Keep on tweeting, keep it in the spotlight!! Trump's favorite subject is Trump and as long as his "enemies" give him enough rope to stay engaged, he won't let go and will keep glued to his TV set and Twitter. I think this is a winning strategy to defeat Trump. Let himself ego himself right off the stage. As we've learned he can't keep focused on two things at once. Todd will be there to catch him with wet kisses.

[scenes]

" I think this is a winning strategy to defeat Trump."

lol. It sure has worked so far.

Don't worry, these things happen in cycles. Pretty soon we'll have a President who is for open borders, drag queens reading books to kids, college children terrorizing their professors, moar and moar iron rice bowl .gov jobs.

For one thing, there's hasn't been near enough white people saying they are so so sorry for their many crimes. We need to amp that up a little.

It's all good. Either things go the way I want, or they are so ridiculous that I just have to laugh. It's win-win.

[Gregory]

"It's just beginning Gregory. Get used to it. There are no less that 12 active investigations into Trumps business affairs and the investigation into obstruction is very much open according to Mueller who left it up to congress with his open ended statement"-Punchy

12 active investigations into Trump's business affairs, Punch?

I know there are 12 ongoing investigations in the aftermath of Mueller, but it wasn't said who or what they were aimed at. Can you refer me to a reference they're all into "Trump's business affairs"?

Again, that would be something unrelated to Russia and/or the Trump campaign. Good news, eh?

[scenes]

GeorgeR: "But then, perhaps the brave new world of liberal mind police are ready to expand the landscape of indictable offenses so that..."

If you held both houses of Congress, you could simply impeach any President of the opposing party, no bonafide reason needed. Wash,rinse,repeat (well, wash-rinse) until you hit the Speaker of the House.

It's something of a bug in the design if you think about it. Andrew Johnson just about succumbed via similar means.

When you are on the road to reinventing the country, any tactics are justified. Year Zero is a real thing I think.

[scenes]

"12 active investigations into Trump's business affairs, Punch?"

Maybe he meant 12 polls. or 12 porn stars, or something. It was all on some website you know.

[Gregory]

"Our justice system does not allow persecution for unfulfilled intent that was not even attempted."
-GR 200pm

It certainly does, George. Informal persecution by the Ozzs, AVMs and Punchies has always been allowed for thoughtcrime.

It's prosecution that is barred. You know, the use of the legal system to find and punish actual lawbreakers. Until we can crack the thoughtcrime and futurecrime determinations, that is.

[Todd Juvinall]

Still no proof there is a Constitutional provision for "oversight".

[George Rebane]

Gregory 259pm - thank you Gregory; I did mean persecution through formal judicial system proceedings - e.g. subpoenas, grand jury testimonies, testifying under oath, being named 'person of interest', threat of prosecution, threat of being charged with perjury, gratuitous indictment, etc. Sorry for being unclear.

[Gregory]

George 308pm

If your intent was to refer to an ironic misuse of legal mechanisms to persecute the innocent, your original quote does fall short. Apology accepted.

So, you are saying you agree with my referrals a number of times (five or more over the years) to the appointment of "special persecutors" to harass the unlucky?

[George Rebane]

Gregory 337pm - Agreed.

[Paul Emery]

Scenes

Actually there are 16 continuing investigations into Trump . Here they are:
Roger Stone criminal trial
The hush money investigation
Trump’s inauguration funding
Pro-Trump super PAC
Trump Organization insurance policies
The Trump Foundation
Trump’s taxes
Trump’s golf club employing undocumented immigrants
Michael Cohen’s legal fees
House Intelligence Committee
House Judiciary Committee
House Oversight Committee
House Financial Services
House Ways and Means Committee
House Foreign Affairs Committee
Senate Intelligence

http://time.com/5557644/donald-trump-other-investigations-mueller/

[Bill Tozer]

12 investigations? Wow, they are working overtime trying to make PMSNBC number one again. Go man-boy R. Maddcow and you too, crazy Amy Goodman. Hang in there. You will get your mo-jo back.

It’s rather troubling to consider there was zero Russian Collusion going on, never happened, never was, and everybody knew it from the start.....well before Mueller came on the scene. CIA knew, they all knew. And Mueller knew no later than Oct, 2017, if not before. Part II is just one big slime. To keep the hysteria going until 2020. The Mueller Report (Part II) is all about 2020, not much else.

And to think they got a FISA warrant not once, but four times on Carter Page to spy on the entire Trump Campaign based on nothing but the DNC-Clinton Industrial Complex dossier.....written by a foreign national with 3rd and 4th person Russian contacts and one very pro-Hillary Ukrainian parliament member pissed at Manafort.....who did work for the other side in Ukraine. Of course the targeted leaks to the media were used to collaborate the Dossier, lol.

Sounds like they were setting up an September- October Surprise, but, by golly, the Dossier that Hillary Machine was shopping around to the media outlets was so off the wall friggin crazy, even the lefty media refused to run with it since for months, roflama. No verification, can’t verify. Then Hillary got tangled up with a million e-mails on Carlos Danger’s laptop. Oh, the best laid plans of mice and men. But, we won’t talk about Part I....or the economy. Forward ho!

As a interesting side note, this week we have learned that those missing 30,OOO Hillary e-mails she destroyed where found at last.....in the White House .......received from Carlos Danger’s laptop. And that had nothing to do with Russian hacking. At the height of the Russian hysteria, if you waved to a crowd or said “hi” to someone at the food buffet and a couple of Russian happened to be there, oh boy. Proof! Treason!! Conspiracy!!
Russia phobia is a good angle. They are real bad guys, our sworn enemy for years. Cold War opponent. Spy vs. spy. Great storyline. :)

[George Rebane]

On some of these topics I refer you to the 24apr19 Scattershots and its updates. Enjoy.

[Paul Emery]

Never had anything to do with the Russian hacking Bill. The emails stolen and utilized by Trump were from the DNC.

[Bill Tozer]

Really? No kidding Punchy. What was your first clue?
And what did the Obama Administration and Clapper and Comey and the FBI and Susan Rice do after learning in March, 2016 that the DNC computers had been “leaking” files since Jan. 2015? Hmmm. They warned the R’s and preventative measures were taken. They warmed the Hillary Campaign and the FBI was shown the door. Odd.

And Part 1 does say what we all knew (but you for over two years,) which is the Russian meddling was inconsequential to the election....after you read through the smoke and a d get to the money quote.

[Todd Juvinall]

I thought someone else stole or hacked those emails? When they were placed into the public domain they became a perfect target. That Wiki guy was smart but still a rat.

[Paul Emery]

Still Trump using for his own advantage stolen material. Todd, would it be ok if someone broke into your house and stole private letters and correspondence from you and they ended up on R R's blog?

[Todd Juvinall]

You mean like Mueller attacking and confiscating Cohen's stuff with Trump? I think I am against the government doing that. But if someone stole from my home I certainly would be upset.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul Emery, I am still waiting for you to back up your [psotoion that Congress has oversite on the Executive. Please provide your proof.

[Paul Emery]

Study the Constitution Todd. I'm not doing your homework for you.

[Don Bessee]

Hey TJ why not let the pony tail of ignorance wallow in it?

;-)

[Paul Emery]

Todd writes:

"But if someone stole from my home I certainly would be upset."

So Todd someone stealing private files from the DNC is no different than someone stealing private correspondence from your home. Do you agree?

[Don Bessee]

BWWAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAH @741 That's just so precious.

;-)

[Paul Emery]

Are you trying to say something Don? I'm worried about you.