I can hear the argument now. Won't comment on the validity of it because I'm really not sure and definitely not a lawyer, but here's what I'm expecting:

1. SDNY seeks to arrest and indict Trump.
2. White House sues claiming that a sitting President cannot be indicted.
3. Expedited appeals take it to the Supreme Court, where the justices agree with the White House.
4. The cries for impeachment begin, and the severity and credibility of the charges determine the outcome.

The cries for impeachment began 2 years ago. It's all white noise now. Imagine when a future president actually does something that is truly impeachable.

Of the three (probably about to be four) impeachments we've seen in this country, only one was motivated by the conduct of the President and not by political interests. And technically, Nixon was never even impeached. The articles had cleared the House Judiciary Committee and would have been passed the following day had he not agreed to resign.

---

For the Democrats, I sure hope this focuses their minds a little bit on the task ahead.  This makes it a little bit more of a challenge to unseat Trump.  If they nominate some left-wing socialist, they will lose for sure.  

Because I am not going to vote for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders PERIOD!

What indications have you seen to imply the democrats will focus on something more important? They are headed the exact opposite way from that with these additional investigations.

Trump will now pounce on infrastructure and make them look even worse for not hopping onboard.

I was talking about the Democrats focusing on actually unseating Trump in an election.   This massive lurch to the left is going to hurt them badly.

---

I'd like to see what the damn thing says before rushing to judgment. I don't remember any Republicans crying about how the Starr report shouldn't have been released, and they actually child's played that all the way into the most embarrassing power play of all time by impeaching a President over the materials deposited onto a blue dress. Release the report publicly. If Mueller didn't find any collusion, obstruction, campaign finance violations, illegal payoffs, whatever, then let it go.

But we all know that's not what's going to happen. If the report has the slightest hint of wrongdoing by Trump or anyone in his inner circle, it's going to be nonstop crying about impeachment. If it says that no proof of criminal activity was found, Mueller instantly becomes the enemy of the left for, well, any reason they can come up with.

They didn't impeach him over materials deposited into a blue dress.   They impeached him for perjury.

---

From today's article in The Atlantic by David Frum:

It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Vladimir Putin’s Russia hacked American emails and used them to help elect Trump to the presidency.

This is the key to the whole "Russiagate" program. Unfortunately, it is an absolute lie and has been mathematically proven to be impossible by some of the top computer forensic experts in the world, including William Binney, former head of the NSA's technology division.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/in...-evidence/

It is illustrative that both Wikileaks and Binney's group VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) offered to testify for Robert Mueller about the source of the leaked emails.  But Mueller had absolutely no curiosity about how the leaks really happened.  It was Russia Russia Russia and he wasn't letting facts get in the way.

---

From today's article in The Atlantic by David Frum:

It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Vladimir Putin’s Russia hacked American emails and used them to help elect Trump to the presidency.

This is the key to the whole "Russiagate" program. Unfortunately, it is an absolute lie and has been mathematically proven to be impossible by some of the top computer forensic experts in the world, including William Binney, former head of the NSA's technology division.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/in...-evidence/

It is illustrative that both Wikileaks and Binney's group VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) offered to testify for Robert Mueller about the source of the leaked emails.  But Mueller had absolutely no curiosity about how the leaks really happened.  It was Russia Russia Russia and he wasn't letting facts get in the way.

Isn't it nice when you find someone who tells you what you want to hear, in spite of everyone else telling you something different.

---

From today's article in The Atlantic by David Frum:

It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Vladimir Putin’s Russia hacked American emails and used them to help elect Trump to the presidency.

This is the key to the whole "Russiagate" program. Unfortunately, it is an absolute lie and has been mathematically proven to be impossible by some of the top computer forensic experts in the world, including William Binney, former head of the NSA's technology division.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/in...-evidence/

It is illustrative that both Wikileaks and Binney's group VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) offered to testify for Robert Mueller about the source of the leaked emails.  But Mueller had absolutely no curiosity about how the leaks really happened.  It was Russia Russia Russia and he wasn't letting facts get in the way.

Isn't it nice when you find someone who tells you what you want to hear, in spite of everyone else telling you something different.

It is even nicer when one is able to follow along as world-renowned experts show why a Russian hack was physically and mathematically impossible. The concept is quite simple. Using the date and time stamps of the files copied, it was easy to prove they were copied from US Eastern time zone to US Eastern time zone at speeds much faster than any internet link between USA and Russia. The copy speeds were either from computers on the same local DNC network or (most likely) at USB speeds of 480 MBPS to a thumb drive physically plugged into a DNC computer.

Binney's group made sure Trump knew the truth. This is why Trump does not believe his own intel services. Why should he ever believe the people trying to trap him?

---

An excellent summary of the situation:

The rare wisdom of our president is a gift

---

From today's article in The Atlantic by David Frum:

It’s not a theory but a matter of historical record that Vladimir Putin’s Russia hacked American emails and used them to help elect Trump to the presidency.

This is the key to the whole "Russiagate" program. Unfortunately, it is an absolute lie and has been mathematically proven to be impossible by some of the top computer forensic experts in the world, including William Binney, former head of the NSA's technology division.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/in...-evidence/

It is illustrative that both Wikileaks and Binney's group VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) offered to testify for Robert Mueller about the source of the leaked emails.  But Mueller had absolutely no curiosity about how the leaks really happened.  It was Russia Russia Russia and he wasn't letting facts get in the way.

Isn't it nice when you find someone who tells you what you want to hear, in spite of everyone else telling you something different.

Crowdstrike did the analysis on the DNC server at the DNC's request. The FBI was not allowed to see the server. Crowdstrike claimed it was Russia, but that claim has been disputed elsewhere by an analysis of the E-mails, and Crowdstrike had a history of accusing Russia without proof in other cases. There is no hard proof that Russia had anything to do with it, and Assange, who has no reason to lie, claims it wasn't Russia.

There is no "everyone else" unless you count all of the people repeating the claim by Crowdstrike. They were the only source.

It may or may not have actually been Russia, but Frum's claim of "1) historical record" and 2) "use them to help Trump" are intentionally chosen to deceive without actually lying. 1) Historical records have been shown to be non-factual in many cases, and note that he didn't use the word "fact." "Use them to help Trump" implied intent. Of course the release helped Trump but Russia had no reason to want to help Trump (it was considered a certainty that he wouldn't win), other than to throw the US into a partisan civil war, which actually occurred thanks to the Leftist mainstream media.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Mueller Report:

https://www.scribd.com/document/40672580...from_embed

---

How much of it did they take out?

---

Love all the little nuggets Mueller threw for the low rated MSM to chew on.

---

https://mobile.twitter.com/jamiedupree/s...5803792385

---

All I've seen thus far is summaries, and those summaries are no doubt colored by the intent of their writers. If true, the thing that bothers me most is that Trump couldn't be said to have obstructed justice solely because the obstructive orders he was giving were being defied by those they were handed down to. If that is actually what the report says (huge if), that's something that should be investigated further. Corpus delecti does not apply in Congressional investigations, and if Trump made repeated, willful attempts to obstruct justice, that's something that needs to be looked into.

Again, huge if.

I've seen something else mentioned to the effect of Donald Trump Jr. not being prosecuted because he didn't know that what he was doing was illegal and didn't directly benefit from it. It does seem odd to me that the report would basically say without saying that the President is an ineffective, clueless figurehead and his son is an idiot. Neither one of those is really a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to who's leaving the administration and when, but it's weird that would make its way into a special counsel report. Unless, you know, someone said, "Well, if you can't get him on something impeachable, make him look stupid."

---

How much of it did they take out?

Looks like the largest parts are connected to the ongoing court proceedings...ie. the Russian companies that pushed back against Mueller for evidence to prepare for case.

---

All I've seen thus far is summaries, and those summaries are no doubt colored by the intent of their writers. If true, the thing that bothers me most is that Trump couldn't be said to have obstructed justice solely because the obstructive orders he was giving were being defied by those they were handed down to. If that is actually what the report says (huge if), that's something that should be investigated further. Corpus delecti does not apply in Congressional investigations, and if Trump made repeated, willful attempts to obstruct justice, that's something that needs to be looked into.

Again, huge if.

I've seen something else mentioned to the effect of Donald Trump Jr. not being prosecuted because he didn't know that what he was doing was illegal and didn't directly benefit from it. It does seem odd to me that the report would basically say without saying that the President is an ineffective, clueless figurehead and his son is an idiot. Neither one of those is really a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to who's leaving the administration and when, but it's weird that would make its way into a special counsel report. Unless, you know, someone said, "Well, if you can't get him on something impeachable, make him look stupid."

Most of the "ifs" and "why nots" have zero legal justification for prosecution. For instance, it isn't legal to talk to Russian diplomats or to have them try and offer you material if you don't bite. It also isn't legal to voice your opinion. Try to go to trial based on tweets and open venting would have eventually stalled out in court duee to the executive privileges and rightfull justifications for his professional actions. There was opportunity for a ton but never follow through of any incriminatory action.

The most interesting thing I read was how distraught Trump was when he found out a Special Counsel was being assigned. Most around him understood that to be a political death sentence for anybody. In the end, Mueller did not have enough to put his neck on the line to drag this through the courts for another 2-4 years.

---

All I've seen thus far is summaries, and those summaries are no doubt colored by the intent of their writers. If true, the thing that bothers me most is that Trump couldn't be said to have obstructed justice solely because the obstructive orders he was giving were being defied by those they were handed down to. If that is actually what the report says (huge if), that's something that should be investigated further. Corpus delecti does not apply in Congressional investigations, and if Trump made repeated, willful attempts to obstruct justice, that's something that needs to be looked into.

Again, huge if.

I've seen something else mentioned to the effect of Donald Trump Jr. not being prosecuted because he didn't know that what he was doing was illegal and didn't directly benefit from it. It does seem odd to me that the report would basically say without saying that the President is an ineffective, clueless figurehead and his son is an idiot. Neither one of those is really a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to who's leaving the administration and when, but it's weird that would make its way into a special counsel report. Unless, you know, someone said, "Well, if you can't get him on something impeachable, make him look stupid."

Most of the "ifs" and "why nots" have zero legal justification for prosecution. For instance, it isn't legal to talk to Russian diplomats or to have them try and offer you material if you don't bite. It also isn't legal to voice your opinion. Try to go to trial based on tweets and open venting would have eventually stalled out in court duee to the executive privileges and rightfull justifications for his professional actions. There was opportunity for a ton but never follow through of any incriminatory action.

The most interesting thing I read was how distraught Trump was when he found out a Special Counsel was being assigned. Most around him understood that to be a political death sentence for anybody. In the end, Mueller did not have enough to put his neck on the line to drag this through the courts for another 2-4 years.

The thing that really hangs for me is that Trump gave several orders that would have obstructed justice had they been carried out. To draw a parallel to that, if I offer a cop posing as a lady of the night $20 to shiver me timber, I've solicited prostitution whether she goes through with it or not. I'm still going to be cited and/or arrested for solicitation. If Trump was giving out orders that he knew would disrupt the investigation, then that's close enough to obstruction to merit further inquiry. Again, huge if, I haven't read the report yet. That's just the bit I keep seeing come up that really bothers me. A President attempting to interfere in an investigation focused on him is something that has to be investigated fully, especially if a special counsel's report states that the only reason justice wasn't obstructed is that no one agreed to follow through with it.

---

Most of the "ifs" and "why nots" have zero legal justification for prosecution. For instance, it isn't legal to talk to Russian diplomats or to have them try and offer you material if you don't bite. It also isn't legal to voice your opinion. Try to go to trial based on tweets and open venting would have eventually stalled out in court duee to the executive privileges and rightfull justifications for his professional actions. There was opportunity for a ton but never follow through of any incriminatory action.

The most interesting thing I read was how distraught Trump was when he found out a Special Counsel was being assigned. Most around him understood that to be a political death sentence for anybody. In the end, Mueller did not have enough to put his neck on the line to drag this through the courts for another 2-4 years.

The thing that really hangs for me is that Trump gave several orders that would have obstructed justice had they been carried out. To draw a parallel to that, if I offer a cop posing as a lady of the night $20 to shiver me timber, I've solicited prostitution whether she goes through with it or not. I'm still going to be cited and/or arrested for solicitation. If Trump was giving out orders that he knew would disrupt the investigation, then that's close enough to obstruction to merit further inquiry. Again, huge if, I haven't read the report yet. That's just the bit I keep seeing come up that really bothers me. A President attempting to interfere in an investigation focused on him is something that has to be investigated fully, especially if a special counsel's report states that the only reason justice wasn't obstructed is that no one agreed to follow through with it.

I get what you are saying but now you enter an interpretation issue and I blame Mueller for that. Was there intent? Did an action occur? Did the action obstruct a process? It becomes dangerous from a crime perspective. In any case, the bread crumb report was expected and planned for by the Dems. This will just carry on until elections and still nothing will come of it.

-Arrest that guy because he looks like a rapist and talks like a rapist.
-Arrest that dude because he was going to drive drunk last night but didn't actually.

---

The thing that really hangs for me is that Trump gave several orders that would have obstructed justice had they been carried out. To draw a parallel to that, if I offer a cop posing as a lady of the night $20 to shiver me timber, I've solicited prostitution whether she goes through with it or not. I'm still going to be cited and/or arrested for solicitation. If Trump was giving out orders that he knew would disrupt the investigation, then that's close enough to obstruction to merit further inquiry. Again, huge if, I haven't read the report yet. That's just the bit I keep seeing come up that really bothers me. A President attempting to interfere in an investigation focused on him is something that has to be investigated fully, especially if a special counsel's report states that the only reason justice wasn't obstructed is that no one agreed to follow through with it.

I get what you are saying but now you enter an interpretation issue and I blame Mueller for that. Was there intent? Did an action occur? Did the action obstruct a process? It becomes dangerous from a crime perspective. In any case, the bread crumb report was expected and planned for by the Dems. This will just carry on until elections and still nothing will come of it.

-Arrest that guy because he looks like a rapist and talks like a rapist.
-Arrest that dude because he was going to drive drunk last night but didn't actually.

This is why I need to find time to sit down and read the thing, at least the sections that both sides have latched onto. In my mind, telling someone to take an action that would obstruct an investigation is the same as obstructing justice, whether that person carries out your request or not. Is that really what the report says, and if so, what corroboration is there for it? A thinly-veiled suggestion that the President directed others to obstruct justice in an investigation of himself is a heavy hammer to drop without corroboration from multiple people who saw it happen.

---

Yeah intent to obstruct should qualify as reason for impeachment. If it was a democratic president who did it you'd all be over him like flies on meat

---

Barr's statements during his odd "press conference" sounded more like what a client's personal lawyer might say than what we would expect from an AG.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Yeah intent to obstruct should qualify as reason for impeachment. If it was a democratic president who did it you'd all be over him like flies on meat

I think it would be a great parlor game to play with Trumpettes, "What if Obama...?" then fill in just about anything Trump says or does.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley