Posted on 07/27/2018 4:04:40 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
When the emails of Hillary Clinton are under subpoena yet they end up deleted along with the computers destroyed that is somehow not obstruction of justice. In stark contrast when President Donald Trump tweets that does constitute obstruction of justice for a crime that has not even been charged.
Such is the absurd extent Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team of intrepid investigators, who have been unable to find any actual crime to charge the President with, have descended. The result is the high comedy of trying to mind massage Trump's very public tweets into somehow representing obstruction of justice leading to the liberal dream of impeachment, or, more accurately in this case, imtweetment.
Perhaps the funniest aspect of this latter day Keystone Kops episode of using tweets to prove obstruction of justice for a non-crime, is the utter seriousness with which the New York Times tries to rationalize it. The attempt was made on July 26 by Times reporters Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman in "Mueller Examining Trump’s Tweets in Wide-Ranging Obstruction Inquiry."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
New York Times is hearing voices.
Now THAT’S FUNNY!
Seriously mooler you need to STFU!!! you are really ONE BIG A$$HAT...
Will Mueller be releasing a redacted version of those tweets?
This is silly alright. Trump’s real “offense” is lese majeste, of the majesties that are the alphabets.
What’s next ,capture some of the air Trump breaths to see if it’s Colluding ?
From CNBC.com, July 7, 2016...
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment. ...”
Here’s a full transcript of the exchange:
_____________________________________________
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That’s what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said “I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.” That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there’s no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right[]
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent?
In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You’re right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn’t say that in ‘08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don’t know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ‘On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.’
It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you’re Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there’s no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn’t. There’s nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out.
But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
(the source of this transcript is closed captioning)
Rosenweasel and Herr Mueller are crooked and partisan and continue to act with impunity. They have politicized their office. They refuse to investigate Democrat criminals.
The President has the right to fire these men. Why doesn't he?? Why let this charade aka witch-hunt continue?
Facebook is The Matrix.
Twitter, I’m not sure.
Maybe it’s because Jesus is Lord.
Mueller ,one of the most corrupt people in the world investigates one of the cleanest people in the world
“..intrepid investigators,.... “ -—> Klown Kar Posse.
Why does this make me think that this is about as silly as Dr Johnny Fever of WKRP getting fired for saying “booger” on the air when he was in L.A.?
Hillary Clinton & Robert Mueller Linked in Russian Uranium Exchange
American Liberty PAC ^ | Jun 20, 2017 | Kirk
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton facilitated a uranium exchange with Russian law enforcement by former FBI Director (and current chief Deep State inquisitor) Robert Mueller.
The exchange was exposed via a recent Wikileaks publication of a secret cable between Hillary’s State Department and the Russian embassy.
Hillary sent Mueller to Moscow with orders to turn over a 10 gram sample of highly enriched uranium (HEU) which was obtained during a shadowy 2006 nuclear “sting” operation conducted in the Georgian Republic.
The ostensible reason for the transfer was to engender further trust between Russian and American law enforcement in the area of nuclear materials and to learn more about how to trace nuclear materials.
But when it comes to Hillary and Russian uranium interests, the shady Uranium One deal cannot pass unnoted.
There still has been no real investigation into how Hillary gave permission for a Russian company to acquire a quarter of the North American uranium reserves after Russian interests poured hundreds of millions into the Clinton Foundation and gave Bill Clinton six figure speaking fees.
At the very least, this exchange raises serious questions about the ability of Robert Mueller to do his job as special prosecutor on the Russian collusion charges since he already has connections to major figures in Russian law enforcement.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanlibertypac.com ...
_____________________________________________________________
Special Counsel Mueller Literally Handed Uranium to the Russians!
IWB ^ | Mark Angelides
We all know that the Russian Collusion investigation is nothing but a game to try and distract the population from actually caring about the day to day running of the country, but the charade has gone too far and some serious questions need to be asked; most especially of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
WikiLeaks has put out a document that details then FBI Director Mueller’s itinerary on his visit to Russia to deliver 10 grams of Enriched Uranium.
One more time for those who missed it…Mueller hand delivered Highly Enriched Uranium to the Russian government!
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
New York Times Reports Mueller Investigating Trump Tweets for Obstruction of Justice
It makes a person wonder when Mueller is alone by himself and is contemplating what he has been doing, if he doesn’t feel a kind stupid for what he is doing. As for as old as he is you would think by now he would have acquired some sense as to how things could or should be working. Instead go after the real crooks like Hillary.
The entire purpose of Mueller’s team is to cover up the crimes of the Kenyanesian Usurpation.
Mark
President Trump should delete all his Tweets.
With Bleachbit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.