There will be different versions of Mueller report for different people...

[Justified112]

You're absolutely correct and those actions have been going on for quite sometime on multiple websites/forums.

It utterly amazing that some folks would waste so much of their day posting that kind of baseless information, so you really have to wonder what their motivation is?

Well, the Mueller report was what the Dems hung all of their hopes on. They don't want to accept the findings of the Mueller team. The motivation is purely emotional, not rational.

It's kind of like the same stages of grief that people go through when losing a loved one. The Dems are in the denial stage, right now. They don't want to accept that the report says what it says. It just wasn't supposed to end this way. The report was supposed to pretty much prove that Trump was not legitimately elected and thus, nullify his presidency and if possible reverse the election. It was supposed to be the basis of impeachment. So, they are going to parse every word and now they bring Mueller up on the carpet for questioning, in the hopes that he will give them something in the report they can use to their advantage. That will be a dud, as well.

 

[Justified112]

Dropped quietly? I remember much shrieking and rending of garments over Hillary Clinton, after which the chief inquisitor very quietly admitted that he could find nothing deserving of legal action.

He "dropped it quietly", precisely because it was very clear that there was no way to gin it up into anything remotely like Trump ordering his underlings to obstruct justice, as Mueller noted that he did repeatedly.

They had plenty of stuff about Hillary deserving of legal action. The FBI simply changed the word "negligent" to "careless" in their report in order to avoid having to charge her with a crime. Comey stood there for 10 minutes outlining the crimes she committed and then decided not to recommend an indictment. They simply chose to ignore numerous felonious actions by Hillary in order, and exonerate her in advance of the elections Hillary needs to be in jail. Nothing Trump has done is anywhere near as serious Hillary. The private server alone is a violation of federal law and is worth several years in prison.

Trump ordered some in his cabinet to fire Mueller, but they knew better than he did and they didn't do it. That means no obstruction occurred. It didn't happen. Trump's lack of experience and knowledge came through, but that's why presidents have people and advisors around them to tell them what they can and cannot do. And fortunately, his advisors saved him from a huge mistake.

 

[redleghunter]

No they didn't. They hired a firm which hired Christopher Steele who made contacts in Russia which provided him with information. Nothing illegal has been shown in what they did.

That's Russian collusion by delegated agency. What they actually did Trump and his campaign were accused of.

I do agree opposition research is not illegal. Which begs the question that if the accusations against Trump were considered collusion and we have evidence (Hillary admitted it) the HRC and DNC actually did collude with Russian agents via the "Kevin Bacon" degrees of separation, then why was there a special prosecutor? And why was an opposing party's political opposition research used by federal authorities to obtain FISA warrants to surveil a duly elected President and his administration?

If the shoe was on the other foot many heads would be rolling right now.

 

[redleghunter]

Yet they hired Russians to do their dirty work. They actually did what Trump was falsely accused of. And our FBI and intelligence agencies used a politically motivated dossier obtained from Russians through a foreign retired spy to apply for FISA warrants.

That is actually collusion to influence an election.

Any layer worth his weight would laugh at your conclusion.

Let's examine this a bit.

If Trump sent someone like Roger Stone to a DC law firm to dig up opposition research on Hillary, then that law firm hired a political consulting group which hired a foreign spy who then used his/her Russian contacts to collect Russian intelligence on the opposing candidate, I'm sure the press and FBI would have deemed such 'colluding with a foreign government to influence an election.'

Mueller was appointed to examine the Trump campaign for such connections and found none. Yet the HRC/DNC effort was deliberate...Meaning they sought out foreign agencies to build a dossier on an opposing candidate. The collusion has been there all along.

 

[redleghunter]

So no one was surprised to learn that he was warning Trump about what was in the report before he let anyone else see it.

Is there evidence of this?...

 

[redleghunter]

Barbarian observes:
Well, that's not the case, it seems...
White House and Justice Dept. Officials Discussed Mueller Report Before Release

Already mentioned. There's a reason for this...Executive privilege...which Trump waved.

 

[redleghunter]

But as you realize. It is true...

The Mueller report says "NO." The hero of the Left did not give them what they wanted.

 

[redleghunter]

If that were true, Trump would exerted executive privilege, but he didn't. Your speculation is just nonsense.

Exactly. All that embarrassing information like Sarah Sanders exaggerating FBI no confidence in Comey could have been redacted by President Trump, but as you said he waved executive privilege. But none of the facts are going to get in the way of the Leftist press pushing a new collusion conspiracy. Some are still pushing the lie Barr actually redacted the report.

 

[redleghunter]

It is important to note that since the report is viewable by everyone, it is also viewable by the entire Mueller team. So if Barr didn't put out the same report the Mueller team sent to him, they would call him out on it. But they didn't.

This is the 'new' conspiracy. LOL Barr has altered the Mueller report and Mueller is being silenced. The House now wants Mueller to testify. What is he going to say? "Congressmen, please refer to page 200 of the report I issued..." LOL.

 

[redleghunter]

The thing is over.

Not quite...Now the true investigation needs to come forward...Investigating how political opposition research turned into a federal investigation of the opposing party's campaign and then administration.

 

[redleghunter]

Speaking of releases I'm wondering when Pencilneck plans on releasing all the "evidence" he has on Trump colluding with Russia? I can just imagine that would be another very amusing moment in this saga of "Trump is guilty of something we just know it (but can't prove it) so we'll just keep on insinuating it even though nobody is believing us"....

He probably has piles of NYTs and WashPo articles he will enter into the record.

Not to mention several CNN and MSNBC panels. They all said there was collusion, that it was true and there was evidence...so it must be true!

 

[redleghunter]

One version, different security clearances for viewing the redactions...Barr has been very clear there were very few made and all are explained as necessary by law...so what is wrong with that exactly??? It's still the same report...not versions of it.

Yes but you are informing these facts to a certain populace who have for two years been convinced of their own 'press.' It's hard to find out facts sometimes do not equate to what is created in the mind.

The shame is on the majority of media outlets. They promoted the hoax for two years even venerating inappropriate content lawyer Michael Avenatti. They were so desperate to find anyone to tell them what they wanted to hear. Shame on them.

 

[Yarddog]

That's Russian collusion by delegated agency. What they actually did Trump and his campaign were accused of.

Saying that over and over is a right wing way convince the uniformed that you're correct but with nothing factual to back your theory, you're still incorrect.

I do agree opposition research is not illegal.

Then you should understand why your accessment is incorrect.

Which begs the question that if the accusations against Trump were considered collusion and we have evidence (Hillary admitted it) the HRC and DNC actually did collude with Russian agents via the "Kevin Bacon" degrees of separation, then why was there a special prosecutor?

You're funny. Keep reaching at conspiracy theories. You must love info wars.

And why was an opposing party's political opposition research used by federal authorities to obtain FISA warrants to surveil a duly elected President and his administration?

Because parts were verified and evidence which accompanied those parts gave enough for the judge to believe it was necessary.

If the shoe was on the other foot many heads would be rolling right now.

No more than are now. That is the reason things were investigated by law enforcement. Facts are important. Info Wars doesn't use those. Hannity doesn't. Most right wing pundits don't. Let the pros do their jobs, without interference, like Trump did throughout this investigation.

 

[redleghunter]

Well, the Mueller report was what the Dems hung all of their hopes on.

Yes as they hung all their hopes on Hillary Clinton. And when she lost a duly constitutional election, they did not like the results so had to conjure up a manufactured conspiracy to take down a sitting President. This too blew up in their faces so now they have to triple down and push forth another hoax and point the finger at Barr.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Mueller report says "NO." The hero of the Left did not give them what they wanted.

Mueller is a conservative republican. You didn't know?

And he's documented that Trump repeatedly tried to obstruct the investigation, failing only because even his people wouldn't do it for him.

Mueller’s analysis of the evidence clearly points toward an attempt to obstruct justice in that circumstance. He established that Trump intended for McGahn to tell the Justice Department to remove Mueller, and that he did so out of concern that Mueller was looking into his firing of FBI Director James Comey. “Substantial evidence indicates that the president’s attempts to remove the special counsel were linked to the special counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the president’s conduct—and, most immediately, to reports that the president was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice,” Mueller wrote.
...
He also suggests that Trump’s efforts fell short only because his subordinates repeatedly disobeyed his instructions. “The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests,” he wrote. “Consistent with that pattern, the evidence we obtained would not support potential obstruction charges against the President’s aides and associates beyond those already filed.”

Some of the president’s allies in the legal world, including Rudy Giuliani and Alan Dershowitz, have argued that the president can’t be charged with obstruction of justice for acts related to the exercise of his constitutional powers. But the special counsel goes to unusual lengths to rebut that analysis. The report closes with 23 pages devoted to explaining that presidents can indeed commit obstruction of justice under current federal law.
How to Get Away With Obstruction of Justice

Several of the obstruction of justice provisions prohibit "endeavors" to obstruct. Section 1503 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits "endeavors" to tamper with jurors and officers of the court. The omnibus clauses of sections 1503 and 1505 prohibit "endeavors" to obstruct justice as well as actual obstructions of justice.
1736. Inchoate Obstruction Of Justice Offenses

 

[The Barbarian]

Already mentioned. There's a reason for this...Executive privilege...which Trump waved.

Executive privilege applies to withholding information, not an AG colluding with the target of an investigation to keep him informed on its progress.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
So no one was surprised to learn that he was warning Trump about what was in the report before he let anyone else see it.

Is there evidence of this?...

The WH has since admitted that the president and the justice department were discussing the case.

 

[redleghunter]

That's Russian collusion by delegated agency. What they actually did Trump and his campaign were accused of.

Saying that over and over is a right wing way convince the uniformed that you're correct but with nothing factual to back your theory, you're still incorrect.

It's fact. Hillary did not deny her campaign along with the DNC hired Fusion GPS through a law firm. She actually paid them to do the research. Fusion GPS hired Steele and Steele paid off Russian agents he knew to collect data on Trump and his campaign. These are admitted facts to which Hillary said "it's not illegal to do opposition research." She's right it's not illegal. Yet what she and the DNC actually did is what Trump was accused of...coordinating with a foreign government to influence an election.

 

[The Barbarian]

They had plenty of stuff about Hillary deserving of legal action.

Unfortunately, the republicans couldn't substantiate that belief. Like bigfoot and the tooth fairy, it exists only in the imagination.

Trump ordered some in his cabinet to fire Mueller, but they knew better than he did and they didn't do it. That means no obstruction occurred.

Several of the obstruction of justice provisions prohibit "endeavors" to obstruct. Section 1503 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits "endeavors" to tamper with jurors and officers of the court. The omnibus clauses of sections 1503 and 1505 prohibit "endeavors" to obstruct justice as well as actual obstructions of justice.
1736. Inchoate Obstruction Of Justice Offenses

Unless the Supreme Court overturns the current law, Mueller has documented several felonies by Trump.

 

[redleghunter]

Executive privilege applies to withholding information, not an AG colluding with the target of an investigation to keep him informed on its progress.

How did AG Barr collude with a sitting President. Maybe you can explain this new collusion and who has facts it occurred and what was actually colluded.

Or is this another case of "well there must have been collusion, so we have to investigate to find out if there was" situation again. Once again wanting an investigation of something where there is no evidence to investigate.