Did President Trump withhold staff from Special Counsel? No.
Did President Trump exert Executive Privilege at any point during Special Counsel's investigation? No.
So the entire case of "obstruction" was based solely on President Trump's Twitter account?
Scott R. Anderson et al of ‘Lawfare Blog’ are attempting to lay out a blueprint to continue the witchhunt.
Guess what? They will be confined to defending the many criminal indictments that are coming.
The Trump side is now shifting to the offense.
Lefty lawyers will be suffering severe mental constipation.
i don’t care. He will not lose my support.
"There are other examples too. The Mueller report lays out in detail a sustained effort to obtain a set of emails that figures associated with the campaign believed hackers might have obtained from Hillary Clinton’s private server before she deleted them. The trouble is that it appears the emails didn’t exist. It has previously been reported that now-deceased Trump supporter Peter Smith went to extreme lengths to try and track down Clinton’s 30,000 deleted emails. According to the Mueller report, after candidate Trump stated in July 2016 that he hoped Russia would “find the 30,000 emails,” future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn reached out to multiple people to try and obtain those emails. One of the individuals he reached out to was Smith. Smith later circulated a document that claimed his “Clinton Email Reconnaissance Initiative” was “‘in coordination’ with the Trump Campaign” specifically naming Flynn, Sam Clovis, Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway. While the investigation found that Smith communicated with both Flynn and Clovis, it found no evidence that any of the four individuals listed “initiated or directed Smith’s efforts.” So essentially, a bunch of people in Trump’s orbit tried very hard to obtain stolen emails but came up empty. Mueller decided that chasing this particular ghost did not constitute criminal conduct."
We know those 30,000 emails and almost 250,000 other emails from Hillary’s unauthorized server do indeed exist, found on Huma Abedin’s husband Anthony Wiener‘s Apple MacBook Pro, in a file folder called "INSURANCE," seized when he was arrested by the New York Police Department for sexual perversity with a minor. That laptop was handed over to the FBI and James Comey In 2016.
"In coordination with the Trump Campaign. . ." simply meant that the campaign was looking for that information and Smith had sent emails to Flynn, Clovis, and Conway saying he too was trying to find them. It doesn’t mean he was under their direction or being paid by the campaign. Even if he were being paid to search for them, it’s not illegal to do so. The article implies that attempting to find the emails was somehow "criminal conduct" even though it failed. It isn’t. Even finding and publishing them is not criminal conduct. . . Discovering and publishing evidence of criminal conduct by public officials is NOT criminal, otherwise many news reporters would have been imprisoned over the past two centuries.
Yes, you are most Definitely, “concerned.”
This is a far left Brookings Institution blog, and yet it’s posted here, without comment, as if it contains some deep revelations,
This is a smear and twisting of the facts, but a bunch of left wing hacks.
Yet, you are “concerned.”
"Mueller ultimately concluded there was not sufficient evidence to pursue campaign finance charges against campaign officials regarding the Trump Tower meeting. He cites the government’s “substantial burden of proof on issues of intent,” raising questions about whether the participants knew the activity was illegal at the time, as is required by the statute, and then explores whether Veselnitskaya’s offer of “dirt” on Hillary Clinton qualifies as a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” under campaign finance laws. While the report recognizes that opposition research could be considered a “thing of value,” no judicial decision has considered this issue. Rather than tackle that issue himself, Mueller declined to pursue criminal campaign finance charges.
This is the most ridiculous overreach the article makes. There is no law and no regulation that establishes that information, I.e. "dirt" or "opposition research" is a thing of value equivalent to a "campaign donation" and would be the equivalent of Mueller’s team legislating or acting as a trier of fact to attempt to make it criminal. Such a fact could come over-the-transom, in an email, from a news source, and listening is free. As stated, there is no legislation, no regulation, no case law. . . and such a suggestion is dicta wishful thinking on the part of some prosecutors (it sounds like Mueller’s chief assistant DA Andrew Weissmann who has a history of charging people, and even getting convictions, on non-existent crimes, for non-offenses, he’s made up out of whole cloth!), made up ad hoc to include. If there is now law, regulation, no offense to even consider, WHAT IN HELL IS THE REASON THEY’RE EVEN BRINGING UP THE POSSIBILITY?
What this article is...
Is the negotiation stage of grief.
Which is Progress!
As soon as the names of Carter Page and Papadopolis were mentioned as keys to the collusion thread, their credibility flatlined.
I’m supposed to believe, then, that the Russiancommies hated our own Clintoncommie. They desperately wanted Trump.
Right?
RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGEEAICHTEEEE???
Not even CLOSE to passing a smell test.
The rest? Unmitigated bullshit.
They are using the train of thought that allows one to question what the meaning of “is” is....gonna get dizzy and sick from all that spinning...also notice they omit an “analysis” of the parts that clearly show collusion among the Dems who engineered this whole fiasco of treason and treachery.