He better not because he is the last interview and his only chance is to save hinself. Pleadibg the 5th would be an admission of what ymthey already know.
Judge says Justice Department must give House evidence from Mueller grand jury, citing ‘potentially
- Thread starter moe
- Start date
I think in Muellers report he didn't say he could prove obstruction he said he couldn't disprove obstruction. How does one prove something which didn't happen?Can you tell me if Mueller was "obstructed" while conducting a criminal investigation or a counterespionage operation?
I'll bet you can't...(or won't) [eyeroll]
This is typical of how country rolls....show up in a thread weather it concerns country or not...post a few dismissive comments...drop a few F bombs...then disappear when challenged never answering questions, especially if they prove country is wrong as is usually the case.
I called country out for this just the other day. Same thing here again. Notice Dave how I never got an answer to my question? Oh, I did get a sound lecturing of how stupid my question was. Yeah...so stupid it shut dumb country up and sent the professor away didn't it? [eyeroll]
The predicate of Mueller's investigation is under criminal investigation. Mueller's report is now worth less than 1 ply toilet paper.
A better question for me is how a counter espionage investigation is administration of Justice? Barr & Durham are both doing criminal investigations and they can most certainly be "obstructed" from it. Mueller wasn't investigating any criminal activity of Trump! He was trying to determine if Russians had infiltrated his campaign and if he was "colluding" with them to interfere with or steal the '16 election?
"Collusion" isn't a Federal crime, so what administrations of "justice" was Trump allegedly "obstructing"?
Last edited:
His report was worthless when he wrote it, Was worse when he showed up to read it to the public and has diminished in value since. The only value the Mueller Report has will be for people to realize how much money it took to sink the Dem/Socialist party....
Tell that to Flynn, Manafort, Papadopoulos, Stone, Russians who were indicted, Maria Butina, etc.
LMAO!
It amazes me how stupid you are.
So why don't you cite for the board what crimes of "collusion" they were charged/convicted for?
Run along now.
No Anericans were charged for conspiring with Russia you dipshit. Now go do some homework on how many times Mueller and Weismann have had cases over turned for misconduct. One more time because you're a special kind of stupid. John Durham is conducting a criminal investigation on the predicate of the Russia hoax and related issues. Now does Brennan plead the 5th or not ?
Last edited:
Neither you, nor Dave, nor me will EVER get a reasonable factual or even accurate answer to anything we ask country. I'll tell you what what we will get Gunny...watch this....
Hey @countryroads89 wanna answer a question?
Oh btw @countryroads89
Last edited:
The MSM left this out of Mueller's resume when they were pumping sunshine up everbody's butt when he was appointed.
https://www.eff.org/wp/patterns-misconduct-fbi-intelligence-violations
Patterns of Misconduct: FBI Intelligence Violations from 2001 - 2008
Damn you Gunny...that's not fair! Some of that stuff you posted wasn't within my purview!!!
Damn you Gunny...that's not fair! Some of that stuff you posted wasn't within my purview!!!
This was in his purview.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-report-documents-fbi-abuse-911
@countryroads89
My post wasn't challenging the procedures outlined here. I was clarifying the point this is as much a political process as it is legal. While procedurally all of this is correct which @The Dunedein mentions, it does not address the political implications of my post where I pointed out House Democrats are not following precedent established to include all sides equally.
I'm arguing that precedent determines how viable any actual impeachment articles are once/if they reach the Senate for trial. Impeachment doesn't necessarily have to be strictly a legal question. Congress can impeach the President for whatever they choose, so long as they can make their case politically for it!
My post argues they have not, particularly since Nancy didn't call the inquiry process into action with a full vote by all House members. True she did not have to, but the case politically she needed in order to do that with full support among all House members, (which ironically would have included the Republicans by giving them the ability to call their own exculpatory witnesses as well as ask questions) she couldn't make.
She is hoping the process itself builds political viability to support the case. She didn't have the votes to make that case at the start of the inquiry which is why she didn't call a vote, and she STILL doesn't have those votes! There are 40 House Democrats who won the last election in districts Trump won... she needs to convince them to vote to impeach Trump as well as about 20 Republicans she needs in the Senate to convict him if the case even makes it that far.
Right now, neither she, nor Schiff are doing what's needed to make their case politically.
Why do I get the feeling Kkuntry/Lawyer is staring at a mirror while making this statement?
kay:
Thanks for the compliment (i think). But, honestly, i would have no idea on that particular scenario since i don’t do criminal law. Handled appointed cases my first few years to get courtroom experience, but after nearly four decades of practice, i have retained only general, basic knowledge of criminal law, and the current rulings and points of law have flowed far past me on that specific river of knowledge. There are a number of other lawyers on the board, some of whom undoubtedly do practice criminal law, and can give you a much better answer on your question than me.
