After Two-Year Investigation, “No Evidence of Collusion”

[jamil]

A question or two for you: Did or did not President Clinton lie under oath? And another one for you: Have other people been sent up the river for perjuring themselves for more trivial matters? What about Hillary?

As far as I know not one single fact uncovered during the Star Investigation has ever been refuted. One may think it is salacious, frivolous or whatever. But it was conducted in an absolutely professional manner.

I am no fan of the Clintons. The Star investigation had one purpose nust like the Mueller investigation has one purpose. That’s to find an impeachable offense. I’m not saying Clinton didn’t lie. He perjured himself because he couldn’t help it. The sex scandal had nothing to do with investigating Whitewater. Star already knew the answer to the question about Clinton and Monica before he asked it. He asked it to get Clinton to perjure himsel and it worked. Shortly after, the investigation ended with nothing on Whitewater, because mission accomplished. It is the same with the Mueller investigation.

Luckily for Trump his lawyers are smarter than Clinton’s. They won’t let him testify. Though Trump is arrogant enough to want to testify. If he allowed himself to be interviewed by Mueller, he’d probably perjure himself. Because he couldn’t help it.

Mueller would ask him something he already knows the answer to. Something maybe embarrassing if it got out. Something Mueller thinks Trump would have a high probability of lying about. Just like Star asking Clinton if he ever had sex with Monica.

Mueller probably has a whole list of gotcha questions. They likely would be something completely unrelated to Russian collusion. Because that’s what these investigations are for. To find a reason to impeach the President.

Multiple things can be true. Clinton was a horrible President. The Whitewater investigation was for the purpose of finding a reason to impeach the President. That doesn’t make Star unprofessional. He did his job. Mueller is trying to do his.

 

[Doug]

The Justice Department has been weaponized against the Republicans, just as the IRS was under Obama. The tell-tale that this is true is that all Trump persons were questioned under oath and recorded so they could replay the recordings looking for inconsistencies.
Hiliary Clinton was "interviewed," not under oath, and no recordings were made.
Hiliary could say anything and later deny it; Trump campaign officials could be threatened with perjury for getting a date wrong.

 

[BugI02]

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18233483/mueller-report-release-trump-russia-investigation-next-week
Reports say Robert Mueller could conclude his Trump-Russia investigation next week
Both NBC News and CNN are reporting this.


CNN, the Mueller team's pet leak recipient, one of those reporting this

Funny how quickly this can wrap up when the prospect of real oversight looms

 

[jamil]

https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18233483/mueller-report-release-trump-russia-investigation-next-week
Reports say Robert Mueller could conclude his Trump-Russia investigation next week
Both NBC News and CNN are reporting this.


CNN, the Mueller team's pet leak recipient, one of those reporting this

Funny how quickly this can wrap up when the prospect of real oversight looms

Real?

Why real now? What’s changed?

 

[BugI02]

IDK if real, its Vox for god's sake

NBC and CNN both calling it, so a leak to prepare the ground? Barr has been confirmed, I assume the report goes to him now. The only rationale I could think of was trying to make it so Whitaker got it instead of Barr. Alternately, maybe he was holding out for Barr. It seems like he might feel he held the line as long as he could without getting his own tit in a wringer

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Justice Department has been weaponized against the Republicans, just as the IRS was under Obama. The tell-tale that this is true is that all Trump persons were questioned under oath and recorded so they could replay the recordings looking for inconsistencies.
Hiliary Clinton was "interviewed," not under oath, and no recordings were made.
Hiliary could say anything and later deny it; Trump campaign officials could be threatened with perjury for getting a date wrong.

This is false. If you said it had been weaponized against Trump, then there's a discussion to be had. However, the people who have be most noteworthy in prosecuting the case against Trump have been Republicans.

 

[mmpsteve]

This is false. If you said it had been weaponized against Trump, then there's a discussion to be had. However, the people who have be most noteworthy in prosecuting the case against Trump have been Republicans.

The IRS scandal comes to mind, before Trump. But your second point is well taken, as in Comey.

.

 

[Doug]

I stand corrected.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The IRS scandal comes to mind, before Trump. But your second point is well taken, as in Comey.

.

As is Muller, McCabe, and Rosenstein.... all Republicans.

 

[Libertarian01]

Seeing that collusion is not a crime I don't see a problem here.

Bribery is a crime, but that must be proved.

My largest concern is when a crime occurs because a crime is being investigated and people lie, thus then breaking the law even though no original crime occurred. In other words the investigation itself makes someone a criminal due to the investigation and not due to an original act. If that isn't confusing.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Kutnupe14]

Seeing that collusion is not a crime I don't see a problem here.

Bribery is a crime, but that must be proved.

My largest concern is when a crime occurs because a crime is being investigated and people lie, thus then breaking the law even though no original crime occurred. In other words the investigation itself makes someone a criminal due to the investigation and not due to an original act. If that isn't confusing.

Regards,

Doug

It's not confusing. Tell the truth and you have no issues.

 

[Doug]

"...a tribe's greatness is figured on how mighty its enemies be." Del Gue, from the film Jeremiah Johnson.

 

[T.Lex]

Having the MSM behind you is a serious plus. This has become so evident in the last 20 years.

Just ask Jussie.

 

[Doug]

Just ask Jussie.

It isn't over, yet; jury nullification is still a possibility.
As a lawyer's billboard once proclaimed, "Just because you did it doesn't mean you're guilty."

 

[T.Lex]

It isn't over, yet; jury nullification is still a possibility.
As a lawyer's billboard once proclaimed, "Just because you did it doesn't mean you're guilty."

He'll plea. They always take a plea.

(He'll also get nominated for an Emmy for his ABC interview.)

 

[DoggyDaddy]

He'll plea. They always take a plea.

(He'll also get nominated for an Emmy for his ABC interview.)

It would be interesting to have one of those body language/facial expression experts analyze that interview to see if he exhibited subtle clues that he was just flat out lying throughout the whole thing.

 

[T.Lex]

It would be interesting to have one of those body language/facial expression experts analyze that interview to see if he exhibited subtle clues that he was just flat out lying throughout the whole thing.

Actually, one of the entertainment shows my wife watches (yeah, that's it), had a couple people talk about that. They were totally non-committal, but said things like, "The way he looks away from the interviewer can be a sign of deception. Or this actor who's spent thousands of hours performing in front of people and cameras was nervous about being scrutinized in front of cameras."

I don't normally pay much attention to those shows, but it was interesting to me that they went there.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Actually, one of the entertainment shows my wife watches (yeah, that's it), had a couple people talk about that. They were totally non-committal, but said things like, "The way he looks away from the interviewer can be a sign of deception. Or this actor who's spent thousands of hours performing in front of people and cameras was nervous about being scrutinized in front of cameras."

I don't normally pay much attention to those shows, but it was interesting to me that they went there.

I liked when he tried to be all macho when he said, "So I punched his ass back!"

I'm thinking it would've gone more like this...

 

[mmpsteve]

I liked when he tried to be all macho when he said, "So I punched his ass back!"

I'm thinking it would've gone more like this...

I didn't watch the interview, but seeing the pic of the Nigerians, I don't think it would have gone like that. (If it were true). That is a funny clip, though.

.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I didn't watch the interview, but seeing the pic of the Nigerians, I don't think it would have gone like that. (If it were true). That is a funny clip, though.

.

Yeah, I was thinking more in terms of how Smollett might have fought back.