Justice Department preparing for Mueller report as early as next week

We did just recently have a bi-partisan report released by the Senate which was a two year investigation declaring no collusion.

 

Trump can't hide it, he has no role in it's release.

Mueller report may be 'anti-climactic,' says ex-intelligence director

...“I think the hope is that the Mueller investigation will clear the air on this issue once and for all. I’m really not sure it will, and the investigation, when completed, could turn out to be quite anti-climactic and not draw a conclusion about that,” Clapper said Wednesday on CNN.
https://thehill.com/policy/national...ional-intelligence-mueller-report-may-be-anti

Even Clapper who once claimed the evidence was clear on collusion is now trying to soften the whimper that may be coming. ABC and NBC have also bee reporting the same based on their contacts with knowledge of the investigation.

 

Into what?

 

All SORTS of private citizens are interviewed and investigated some having their lives turned inside out and no charges are filed against them. They have a RIGHT to have their personal private information kept just that, personal and private and not hung out to dry for the whole country to see. And there is all the grand jury testimony which is by default private and must be kept private.

 

None of which are related to the Trump campaign and collusion with Russia with regard to the election.
You may as well tell us how many speeding tickets 15 LA 7 Mary 3 and 4 handed out.

 

I know, I know. But it would be great if citizens could know all the underlying politics of the thing.

 

Without any conclusion I suppose they can bleed this thing a while longer, until most people are eyes glazed over tired of it.

 

The russkies?

 

A new 2nd council will go after those that attempted the coup.

 

Obama? By promising to be more flexible? Bernie Sanders? Jill Stein?

 

I hope there is enough in there to piss off both the Republicans and Democrats.

 

What in the hell are you even talking about? If memory serves accurately, wasn't it your beloved Comrade Obama who was whispering to Russia's President Dmitri Medvedev about how much more "flexible" he'd be about missile defense AFTER Obama could be safely re-elected? Didja forget about THAT?! Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/...crophone-telling-medvedev-of-flexibility.html

And wasn't it "Messiah" Obama who abandoned missile defense in Europe? Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/17/missile-defence-shield-barack-obama

You say Trump is "kissing Putin's ass"...?! Did you miss this Trump-era development regarding missile defense?

US and Poland strike $10.5 billion missile defense deal
Link: https://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719

And maybe you also missed the very recent news about Trump pulling the U. S. out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF)? And so you also missed Putin's very agitated response? Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...3dcf6b68558_story.html?utm_term=.0023ba92d930

You very clearly have absolutely no idea what you're mouthing off about, and that's a fact! Have there been 'presidential lips' pressed on Russian ass? YES! But those lips didn't belong to Donald Trump!

. "Add some tongue to go with your marvelous lips and you'll be perfect!"

 

As far as the OP is concerned. I will believe it when I see it. Until then it is just rumor.

 

Either Trump needs to be thrown out of office or the Democrats need to apologize and leave him alone.

 

Yes, Obama was an asset for both the Kremlin and the Iranian Mullahs.

NONSTOP PHONY HYSTERIA SINCE NOVEMBER OF 2016:

 

Which is irrelevant and useless in a debate based on facts.

 

What planet have you been on? FYI:

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/interactive_mueller-indictments-russia-cohen-manafort/

 

Looking through your referenced information I noticed a lot of allegations and assumptions, but I did not notice the name of Donald John Trump. Fishing much...?

 

Right in the first paragraph (No John)... Did you skim too fast??

Also, did a search on "Trump"... 53 hits... Coincidence?? I think not...

 

Not quite:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-trump-claims-hes-vindicated-in-russia-probe

 

Pay attention: you said no indictments....there are a plethora of such. And if you are not aware, the investigation is to gather evidence as to who knew what and when, who did what and when. To indict a sitting President is a process requiring evidence and a released report first. And so far, Trump's campaign and etc., ain't looking good. But you go right ahead and go fishing...the rest of us will pay attention.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ly-as-next-week.551271/page-6#post-1070255491

 

Your post is a plethora of misinformation, fabrications and wish-casting. Mueller has nothing indicating that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Putin.

It's a counterintelligence investigation to inform THE PRESIDENT of national security threats. And after two years, Mueller has communicated nothing indicating an imminent threat to US national security, rather he has been screwing around with decade old issues with Maniforte, process crimes and Stormy Daniels.

He has no evidence and he is bound by DOJ guidelines, which forbid indicting a sitting President.

His report, by statute, is confidential and will be released directly to the AG.

The Trump campaign did not engage in a criminal conspiracy with Putin, that is why you have no evidence that they did, because they didn't, and they are looking just fine. You accuse OTHERS of fishing? That's hilarious!

 

Just curious why you always mention Putin in collusion threads? I've seen no legitimate claim that Trump and Putin were in direct contact during the election... Nor is that something Mueller was tasked with....

There are plenty of Russians outside of Putin.... Kislyak, Deripaska, Agalarov, Kilimnick, Veselnitskaya, Torshin, Butina... (all off the top of my head, but I did have to look up how to spell Veselnitskaya)

 

1. Unless you can factually prove any item in the link is incorrect, YOU are LYING. Mueller investigation is about the Trump campaign, NOT Trump directly. If Trump is indeed found complicit on any level, that's not good for 2020.

2. Your revisionism is irrelevant: https://www.axios.com/mueller-russi...nts-70433acd-9ef7-424d-aa01-b962ae5c9647.html

3. He has evidence, and it's debatable as to indictment:
CAN A SITTING PRESIDENT BE INDICTED?

Legal experts are divided on that question. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the president can be indicted or whether the president can be subpoenaed for testimony.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal advice and guidance to executive branch agencies, has maintained that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Two Justice Department reports, one in 1973 and one in 2000, came to the same conclusion. https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/12/08/can-a-sitting-president-be-indicted-while-in-office

4. But given Bar's previous public statements, that would not be a good thing for the Orange Oaf: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ueller-report-release-but-at-risk-of-backlash

5. Again, your revisionism and wishful thinking is irrelevant. Nothing funny about denial & willful ignorance from Trumpsters in and out of Capitol Hill.