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

Are you not concerned that an investigation can be started on a sitting president with nothing but innuendo and faked evidence?

 

The entire investigation was founded on the charges of trump collusion with Russia and democrats were saying he was an illegitimate president due to this supposed collusion. By the way Mueller investigation found none.
Spying on Carter page was a backdoor way to spy on Trump. This tactic is common when prosecutors want wiretaps on crime bosses they can't get enough evidence on to get a warrant so they go after some low level hood that's in constant contact with the crime boss. It's in essence a proxy warrant. And yes they went after trump with tactics used to go after crime bosses and yes even that failed.

 

His speech was 9 and a half minutes long with the first 4 minutes dedicated to the campaign and Russian interference. He entire point was to "READ THE REPORT." He gave virtually no details about anything. So your hurt butt assessment is laughable.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...gns-as-special-counsel-full-statement-vpx.cnn

 

Are you not concerned about possible compromise?

 

Mueller ignored assertions that trump colluded with Russia which is what started this whole attempted coup investigation..

 

members of the House ... all took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. And if they do not do anything about these possible crimes that Robert Mueller has described very vividly in this report, they`re essentially saying we`re not going to – we don`t care about the rule of law. And obstructing justice, if that`s what Donald Trump has done, that will become the new normal. And later presidents will feel very free to do it too because they`ll just say the House will not do it if they think it will get them into political trouble.

What should always prevail is a feeling by members of the House that they`re going to protect the Constitution. And if they do not do that, we`re going to be in a lawless society, and we will lose our democracy.

 

There was nothing preventing Mueller from presenting evidence that Trump committed a crime and giving it to Barr to decide whether to indict.

 

I can't imagine one. Can you?

 

We did? Because the testimony I read said no such thing, in fact it said Barr released more of the report than Mueller wanted to. So what did Mueller call a lie?

 

We did? Because the testimony I read said no such thing, in fact it said Barr released more of the report than Mueller wanted to. So what did Mueller call a lie?

What the heck does that mean?

 

Mueller ignored assertions that trump colluded with Russia which is what facilitated this whole attempted coup investigation.

Fine with me. There's nothing in the Mueller report that amounts to anything near an impeachable offense and if democrats try to make mountains out of molehills and drag this country through a sham impeachment they will pay heavily in the next election. Go for it Democrats, I double dog dare you! LOL

 

You don't care about obstruction of justice? Why would trump and his administration lie about events, double down later, insist, then deny, then declare it wasn't illegal, all while trying to get his lackeys to lie to congress and to the DOJ? What could be he motivation? It must be something pretty significant, right? What is he hiding with such effort? What is so important to hide?

You don't think we should have the answer to those questions? Why not? Why is your country so unimportant that we should ignore big red flags?

 

yes there was, the DOJ policy and Muellers belief that it was unconstitutional to indict a sitting President, he told us the whys

 

he did not say no collusion, no obstruction...

 

it was a typo, "we heard it, Mueller did not say what Barr or Trump said he did" - sorry you could not figure it out, my bad

 

As Mueller's boss, Barr should have instructed Mueller to ignore DOJ rules and indict since that is what Barr says Mueller could and should do. Your post reverses the "boss/employee" relationship.

 

Reading your uplifting rhetorics gave me a toothache.

 

Thats is not the beginnings of the Russia investigation. To say that is disingenuous to the debate.

1. The Russia investigation was not about collusion, the right made that talking point early on to degrade motives for political gain. The “Russia Investigation” was an investigation into Russian efforts to manipulate our elections. Which, they did do. Which includes determining motive.

2. The investigation was not about Trump until he fired Comey, they guy running the investigation.

3. Muller was appointed to investigate Russian interference in the election, and thats very clearly spelled out in his appointment letter. His appointment letter just allows him to investigate the Trump campaign without interference if thats where the evidence takes him

4. Carter Page was under investigation long before he joined the Trump campaign. He wasn’t some “low level hood”.

5. Carter Page was under a FISA warrant, that only allowed the government to listen in, gather information on him when he was dealing with, or talking to agents of a foreign nation. It was renewed 2 times before he even joined the campaign. You guys always seem to leave that part out.

 

As I said if demecrats feel they can make any of these Mueller findings into obstruction of justice they should start impeachment proceeding immediately. Here's what's going to happen though. Democrats know they have nothing so they will continue to scream impeachment and obstruction clear to the next election in their never ending attempt to discredit Trump but they will never pull the trigger because they know the bullet in the chamber is a dud.

 

I wish the dem clown show would try and impeach. A majority of Americans are not for impeachment.

You are right though, they will hold impeachment proceedings without any impeachment for political grandstanding. That is what the dem clown show is all about.

 

@Tim15856 is right. The employee could pass on the findings of crime to the AG who has the power to indict. He did and the AG agreed with him there was not enough evidence.

 

• Nice try but here's the facts.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  "Sharyl Attkisson: How Comey's FBI Abused FISA Warrants To Spy On The Trump Campaign
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Journalist Sharyl Attkisson, the host of "Full Measure," follows up on her interview with former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell about her allegation that the "entire Russia collusion narrative was made up" by anti-Trump political partisans in the FBI and Department of Justice. Attkisson reports how one FISA warrant against Trump staffer Carter Page could be used to legally surveil 25,000 people who were associated with him:
  
  
  SHARYL ATTKISSON, FULL MEASURE: So how could these little-known abuses factor into the Trump investigation? At the same time the NSA and FBI Director James Comey’s agency were documented as having committed surveillance abuses FBI agents were secretly spying on numerous Trump associates using spy tools meant to go after foreign terrorists and spies.
  
  Through a single warrant, government agents can capture phone calls, texts, emails and bank records from people “two hops" away. That means all of the suspected spy’s direct contacts— “one hop” —and everybody who contacts those people or even visits their Facebook pages or websites—two hops.
  
  
  
  
  In this way, one analysis found intel agencies can use one legal wiretap to access to 25,000 people’s phones. Consider at least a half dozen Trump officials were caught in the FBI surveillance dragnet, according to news reports: campaign chair Manafort, multiple “transition officials” including Lt. General Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner, and adviser Carter Page— who was wiretapped over and over though never charged with anything."

SHARYL ATTKISSON: —including Trump who was known to be one or two hops away from surveilled targets.

On top of that, at least four key anti-Trump figures have admitted in testimony and interviews accessing sensitive, protected intelligence of US citizens—including Trump associates—under the Obama administration. All say they were guarding national security, had no political motives, and didn’t leak the information. As the 2016 campaign peaked, Obama official Samantha Power’s name was on hundreds of attempts to reveal the identities of Americans caught up in secretly-gathered intelligence. Obama adviser Susan Rice also took part. And Obama officials Sally Yates and James Clapper admit having reviewed intel gathered on US political figures.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...w_comeys_fbi_spied_on_the_trump_campaign.html

 

1. You didn't/can't answer my question, and

2. The Mueller report DID find and identify specific instances of obstruction.

Many of you on the right were asked what you would do if Mueller found criminal data and you all said you would accept the report. Well, it's out and you are all REJECTING it.

 

What we are rejecting is any assertion that anything in the Mueller report was criminal and the attorney general Barr gave the definitive DOJ ruling on this. If democrats in congress feel they can convince the American people different in impeachment proceedings I encourage them to get on it.

 

Oh G*d Almighty!