WATCH: Devin Nunes Says Russia "Hoax" Has Gone On Too Long - Mueller Hearing

And lying under oath which was why he lost his law license.

 

Clinton is history and you Trumpers always deflect to other people.

 

I was responding to your post. And I don't know who "you Trumpers" are.

 

If you are a diehard supporter of Trump, refuse to acknowledge his narcissism, divisiveness, vindictiveness, incompetence, and constant lying, you are a Trumper.

 

If you don’t acknowledge that he is doing a pretty damned good job as president, far better than I thought he would do, then you are one of the ignorant leftist drones with their head in the sand, incapable of independent thought and requiring talking points from Pelosi, and “the squad”.

 

Obama did not engage in an abuse of power and this Nunes is a wise-ass and a shill for Trump

 

So using the IRS, FBI, and CIA against political opponents isn’t abuse? Liberal logic 101.

 

That is exactly what Trump wants to do as he places people in our intelligence community who are loyal to him instead of the American people. He will have his own private police force. Kinda like in Putin land.

 

Or like Barack Obama, who did exactly the same thing Donald Trump is being accused of.

 

That is the problem. He is not doing a pretty darn good job. Quite the contrary.

 

LOL, you mean like Obama's wingman Holder?

 

He might want to...!but he isn’t. Which is the opposite of Obama who did

 

Obama didn't do anything remotely like that, not even close. Trump demands loyalty to him rather than to the American people.
Hell, he even demanded that Comey swear loyalty to him and was told by Comey that he worked for the people. Comey may have cost Clinton the election with the e-mail thing. If you don't swear loyalty to Trump, you are dead meat. Trump is no patriot.

 

Demanding loyalty is what anyone should demand of an employee.

Obama used the CIA to spy on Congress, the iIRS to harass political critiques, the FBI to spy on reporters and the DOJ to prosecute politicial rivals.

Oh and Comey didn’t put classified material on Clinton’s illegal serve or on her sexual predator friend Weiner’s

 

Are you nuts? Our intelligence community works for the American people, not for one person. If Trump may be subverting the law, then he should be investigated just like anybody else, or we become a dictatorship and he can order opposition leaders to be arrested like
dictators do in a banana republic.

 

Um maybe you don’t know how are govt is set up....we have three branches of Govt, the president is the head of the executive, the cia reports to him.

We just had an investigation into trump...maybe too missed the epic testimony of mueller where the dems looked foolish?

But I’m not sure what trump has to do with obama’s Abuse of power

 

Actually they work for the Administration and Trump is the head of the Administration. Why was there no outcry when the Obama admin obviously subverted the law by attacking political opponents?

 

You people always retract to Obama. Obama did not call for the arrest of anybody, yes? It is one thing to criticize, and another thing to call for an arrest and trial when all they did was to oppose Obama.

 

Who was arrested and put on trial or are you talking about free speech again? BTW, the hypocrites calling for Trump's ouster conveniently fall back on excusing Obama using government to abuse people's rights.

 

Bullshit

 

he is doing exactly what we elected him to do.

 

It's hard to imagine their disappointment!

Dirty Bob's Witch Hunters wrote a 448-page tome, overflowing with details about a traitorous collusion plot that never happened and the obstruction of an investigation that was never actually impeded in the slightest. Even though the regulations call for a confidential report from the special counsel to the attorney general, the Mueller report was patently written with the intention that it would be transmitted to Congress and the public. When AG Barr undertook to announce only the special counsel’s bottom-line conclusions, Mueller’s staff threw a fit, grousing to the media that Barr was wrongly withholding the report and denying the public the condemnatory narrative in which they had couched these benign conclusions.

If Mueller really believed the OLC guidance prevented him from even considering whether President Trump could be charged, why did he render a decision on the collusion aspect of the probe? He can’t have it both ways.

If Mueller really believed the OLC guidance prevented him from performing the prosecutor’s task, why on earth did he accept the appointment to act as a prosecutor?

If Mueller really believed the OLC guidance prevented him from considering whether to indict, why did he tell AG Barr, two weeks before filing his report, that the OLC guidance was not the reason he would refrain from recommending obstruction charges?

Barr understands that a president is only liable for a criminal obstruction charge if he engages in blatantly corrupt conduct that is not within his constitutional prerogatives — e.g., bribing witnesses or destroying evidence.

In mid-February 2019, after Mueller’s staff had been going merrily along this way for 21 months, Barr became attorney general. At that point, Mueller’s staffers knew they were now dealing with a strong AG who had a scholarly understanding of obstruction law and would not be cowed by their skill and aggression.

So they wanted to get the the obstruction case before congress even though prosecutors knew they couldn’t get away with recommending an obstruction indictment. How to accomplish this? By pretending that the OLC guidance prevented prosecutors from even making a charging decision.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/the-olc-guidance-against-indicting-a-sitting-president/

 

That's exactly right.

Mueller’s staff did not want to admit that the evidence of obstruction was not strong enough for criminal indictment — that would hurt the position of congressional Democrats who want to impeach Trump. But neither would they be permitted to claim that the OLC guidance forbidding indictment of a sitting president prevented them from recommending obstruction charges. Barr would know that such a claim would be the functional equivalent of saying Trump should be charged. He would not countenance that; he would instruct Mueller to make a recommendation, one way or the other, about whether Trump should be indicted, and leave it to Barr to worry about the OLC guidance.

In their first meeting about the investigation, Mueller assured Barr that the OLC guidance was not his basis for refusing to decide the obstruction issue. When Barr inevitably pressed him on what, then, was his rationale, Mueller said his team was still formulating its reasoning. . . even though the decision not to decide had already been made.

Then, two weeks later, they filed the report and claimed to interpret the guidance to prohibit them from even considering whether Trump should be charged. Mueller’s prosecutors acknowledged that they were not finding Trump had committed an obstruction crime; but they carefully qualified that neither were they saying he had not committed obstruction — in their constitutionally offensive parlance, they were not “exonerating” the president. With a wink to congressional Democrats, Mueller’s activist Democratic staff essentially said: We’re not charging him, but that doesn’t mean there is insufficient evidence to charge. . . which means there might very well be impeachable offenses.

Barr check-mated them by accepting Mueller’s report and exploiting its weakness, namely, the special counsel’s failure to decide the central question of whether there was sufficient evidence to indict. With Mueller having abdicated, Barr filled the void by making the decision — in conjunction with Rosenstein, the official who supervised Mueller’s investigation for almost all of its duration was in agreement with the Barr’s determination.

Even though he disagreed with Mueller’s interpretation of obstruction law, Barr adopted it for argument’s sake; and similarly, he assumed the accuracy of Mueller’s investigation and undertook to decide the obstruction question solely on the facts as Mueller found them.

No matter what legal standard is employed, a prosecutor cannot prove obstruction without establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant had corrupt intent. To say there is insufficient evidence of corrupt intent does not mean there is no evidence. At Wednesday’s hearing, Democrats seemed to believe that if there is evidence of corrupt intent (or any other element of a criminal offense) then that element is deemed to be satisfied. That, however, is not how it works. With an essential element of a criminal offense, there is almost always evidence on both sides. That evidence must be weighed, and the element is only deemed satisfied if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/the-olc-guidance-against-indicting-a-sitting-president/

 

That makes a LOT of sense, by the way, have you met Salty Dancing? He has some interesting theories as well and posts here some times.

Anyway Nunes is right. This has gone on long enough and Barr is getting to the bottom of this terrible misuse of the Federal Government to attack political opponent and then a sitting President.

Barr found that intent could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Why? Because

(a) Trump provided extraordinary cooperation to Mueller (even making his White House counsel extensively available, which he did not have to do);
(b) Trump never shut down the investigation or fired Mueller, though he had the power to do so;
(c) the investigation was not actually impeded in any way;
(d) there was no underlying collusion crime so Trump could not have been trying to cover up a conspiracy with Russia; and
(e) Trump was lashing out due to frustration, not corruption, because he knew he was not a Russian agent but had to endure slanders that he was by investigators and political opponents.​

Barr accepted Team Mueller’s gamesmanship on the OLC guidance, accepted their obstruction analysis, and accepted their conclusions of fact. By doing so, he left them no credible grounds to object, while he found that Trump had not committed obstruction. He made the prosecutors’ conclusions publicly available quickly — and they looked derelict because, in deciding to try to do Congress’s job, they had failed to do their own. All they could complain about was that the public did not get access to the anti-Trump flavor of their narrative quickly enough to suit them.

Barr saw through their underhanded tricks and had the brains and the power to stay a step ahead.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/the-olc-guidance-against-indicting-a-sitting-president/

 

That thug has trump by the shorthairs and the orange hope knows it, so he plays obedient lapdog to putin and his oligarchy.