Trump lawyer calls Mueller edit ‘DESPICABLE’ and ‘UNFAIR’ – here are the two versions side by side

So after the full transcript of Trump lawyer John Dowd’s call to Mike Flynn’s lawyer was released, the media went with “THIS IS ABSOLUTE PROOF OF OBSTRUCTION” or something, I couldn’t tell through the loud yelling.

BUT other people found something very interesting – an edited version of the call in the Mueller report.

The biggest problem is that it excised the comment where the lawyer says they weren’t looking for “confidential” information.

AND Dowd commented on this discrepancy and said it was unfair:

Well, unfortunately, Flynn admitted guilt. So would this have made a big difference? Would he have not admitted guilt otherwise? I haven’t seen a definitive statement that it would have, but if anyone has, feel free to let me know.



          *         *       *       *

Well that’s it for Saturday. We hope your weekend is going well. Remember we appreciate every tweet, every post on Facebook, any sharing of our articles that you may do, and any comment. That’s what keeps us going.

Well go ahead and have an open thread.

Here’s some comment fodder, there’s a lot these week!!

This is just horrible.

Ever used that phrase “cat and mouse game”? Here’s what it really looks like:

Yikes:

I would have made a post about this but there wasn’t enough to make fun of, sorry:

Who’s laffing now?

This is adorable:

Awww. Enjoy your Saturday evening, see you tomorrow!!!

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

103 thoughts on “Trump lawyer calls Mueller edit ‘DESPICABLE’ and ‘UNFAIR’ – here are the two versions side by side

  1. Increasingly loving Texas.

    https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1134944087965077507

    Finally, a government official willing to stand up to the increasingly fascist nanny-state efforts of police to shake down citizens harming no one for fines. More than once I have seriously considered sneaking out in the middle of the night with my 30.06 and taking those f*cking things out.

    I’m not going to use the word “hero,” because I don’t like that word devalued as much as it is, but this is pretty damned close.

    IS NOW LAW.

    Suck it paternalists!

    1. We used to have those here in California but they got rid of them. I’m not sure why, but one thing I learned is that getting that ticket in the mail with the photograph is not legally binding. In other words you can ignore it and not be prosecuted, because without a signature there is no proof of service and the ticket can not be enforced.

    2. More than once I have seriously considered sneaking out in the middle of the night with my 30.06 and taking those f*cking things out

      You have serious problems. Get help.

  2. I stand by my original thought, Mueller is a shyster. Btw, Weissman was the real RAT in charge of the “investigation.”

  3. Increasingly loving Texas.

    https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1134944087965077507

    Finally, a government official willing to stand up to the increasingly fascist nanny-state efforts of police to shake down citizens harming no one for fines. More than once I have seriously considered sneaking out in the middle of the night with my 30.06 and taking those f*cking things out.

    I’m not going to use the word “hero,” because I don’t like that word devalued as much as it is, but this is pretty damned close.

    IS NOW LAW.

    Suck it paternalists!

    1. We used to have those here in California but they got rid of them. I’m not sure why, but one thing I learned is that getting that ticket in the mail with the photograph is not legally binding. In other words you can ignore it and not be prosecuted, because without a signature there is no proof of service and the ticket can not be enforced.

    2. More than once I have seriously considered sneaking out in the middle of the night with my 30.06 and taking those f*cking things out

      You have serious problems. Get help.

        1. I’m not kidding. Your lack of a grasp of reality combined with your angry outbursts tells me that you should really talk to a professional about therapy and possible medication.

  4. For the first time in my life I watched a cat and mouse play….cat and mouse, and I am shook

    Were they really playing though? Have you given consideration to the notion that the cat is a psychopath, toying with its prey?

    Because cats are psychopaths.

  5. Any job that pays $2.13 an hour is not a job. It’s indentured servitude.

    YET AGAIN.

    I defy anyone to tell me that I’m wrong in my guess about her having a word-of-the-day calendar on her desk. Today’s was clearly “indentured servitude.” Which she then felt compelled to use in a sentence despite not understanding the meaning whatsoever.

  6. I stand by my original thought, Mueller is a shyster. Btw, Weissman was the real RAT in charge of the “investigation.”

  7. For the first time in my life I watched a cat and mouse play….cat and mouse, and I am shook

    Were they really playing though? Have you given consideration to the notion that the cat is a psychopath, toying with its prey?

    Because cats are psychopaths.

  8. Any job that pays $2.13 an hour is not a job. It’s indentured servitude.

    YET AGAIN.

    I defy anyone to tell me that I’m wrong in my guess about her having a word-of-the-day calendar on her desk. Today’s was clearly “indentured servitude.” Which she then felt compelled to use in a sentence despite not understanding the meaning whatsoever.

  9. With the tactics used on Flynn he would have pleaded guilty no matter the lack of evidence against him. I seem to recall Mueller threatened to go after his son. Prosecutors know how to force someone into a plea and I think it’s horse crap.

    Never support the circus. They abuse the animals really bad. I always wondered how they get away with animal abuse. We would be thrown in jail for it.

    1. I suspect Flynn will seek to revisit plea or Trump will pardon after re election in 2020

  10. The Mueller report did a lot of selective editing. Problem is, when you don’t even know who’s being quoted or the context of the conversation, it’s very hard to defend yourself.

    For instance, the quote above in the Mueller report didn’t list the name of the lawyer being quoted or who he was talking to, so it’s not surprising that Dowd didn’t even recognize how he was being misquoted until the transcript was released.

    The section on Carter Page emphasized his “becoming acquainted with Russian intelligence officers” without mentioning that he “became acquainted” with them because they contacted him out of the blue with hopes of developing him as a source, and that Page then worked with the FBI to help build an indictment against them. One of them wound up being indicted, and two were able to escape the indictment because they had diplomatic immunity.

    But since none of that served the purpose of making Carter Page look suspicious, they left it out and insinuated that he just “became acquainted” with them because he spent so much time with Russians.

    The Mueller report is full of selective quoting and omission of any information that undercuts their narrative. For someone being investigated, that’s enough to bring a charge of lying to the FBI and prison time. For the Special Counsel investigation, not so much.

  11. “Well, unfortunately, Flynn admitted guilt. So would this have made a big difference? Would he have not admitted guilt otherwise? I haven’t seen a definitive statement that it would have, but if anyone has, feel free to let me know.”

    Not sure I follow. This message was left for Flynn’s lawyer, so Flynn had the information, and he’s not relying on Mueller’s omission. Also not sure what the issue is here, in that the omissions don’t really justify Dowd’s request. Mentioning the good of the country or even confidentiality really makes little or no difference for a legal perspective. Once Flynn left the joint defense, asking for for a heads up on information implicating the president is potentially problematic.

    1. It was a conversation from one lawyer to another, asking for a heads-up for anything that affects the president, as long as it doesn’t violate any confidentiality. That part just happens to be omitted when Mueller is trying to imply it was some sort of witness tampering.

      Also, if you hadn’t noticed, Down didn’t know whether Flynn had withdrawn from the joint defense yet. Which probably has something to do with him saying, “… if we can, without you having to give up any confidential information.”

      1. Of course he did. There is only one one reason why someone in Flynn’s position withdraws from a joint defense agreement. Regardless, the bit about “confidentiality” applies to Flynn’s communications with his attorney, but not necessarily to Mueller, and that’s the problem. If in the course of cooperation Dowd/Flynn learn information from Mueller, it isn’t “confidential” by attorney-client privileged information, or covered by the other standard privileges, yet asking for such information could still be construed as an obstruction. Recall this is a similar situation to that of Manafort, where Manafort and his attorneys were continuing to work with Trump’s attorneys despite the fact that he had supposedly entered into a cooperation agreement with the government. One could argue that this was the Trump’s legal team’s MO.

        1. “One could argue” all sorts of things. It’s pure speculation, though.

          But the notion that this is obstructive is also pure speculation. There is zero request to violate any confidentiality agreement, the witness is not being contacted directly, but through his lawyer, whose job is literally to protect his client’s interests and ensure he doesn’t violate any agreements.

          And if you want to call it obstruction, you need to say what is being obstructed. It’s well established that there was no collusion or conspiracy, so it’s not like Trump was covering up a crime.

          Every statement like this gets read as if Trump is a guilty man trying to hide his crime, when instead he’s an innocent man trying to get to the end of a witch hunt investigation.

          Even by the loose standard Mueller tried to use for obstruction, there’s no way to argue anything was being obstructed here.

          Which is exactly why the Mueller report had to edit the voicemail to make it sound more suggestive than lawyer-to-lawyer communication, including the part where Dowd made it clear he was not asking for any confidential information.

          The biggest tell that this was not really obstructive is that they had to edit it carefully to make it look like it might be.

          1. I didn’t say whether or not it was obstruction. (Neither did Mueller.) As for you, either you don’t understand what obstruction is, or you are shining us on. Either way I’m not interested.

            1. @t_ump
              That entire report is filled with innuendos like that then Mueller saying “but we can’t determine if its is a crime”

              He could have made a determination on legality but instead just wrote a smear report for congress to run with.

              1. He couldn’t charge the president with crimes because of DOJ regulation. Otherwise, he did set out facts indicating that there were crimes committed. He just didn’t explicitly make a formal accusation. People who claim otherwise either haven’t read the report, don’t understand the law, or both. Mueller laid out the case for obstruction and left it to congress and the voters to decide what to do with it.

                1. He couldn’t charge the president with crimes because of DOJ regulation

                  Anti-Trumpers hold onto that reasoning from Mueller like its money.

                  Barr said that he could have made a determination. He refused to.

                2. Not sure what you mean. I don’t necessarily agree with the reasoning, but that was the reasoning, and it was based on a specific DOJ rule explicitly indicating that he couldn’t indict a sitting President. The President’s own legal team and defenders repeatedly cited this rule throughout the investigation claiming he couldn’t indict the President. And Mueller cited that rule explaining why he wasn’t indicting. So I’m not sure what you are saying?

                  Let me ask you this . . . If Mueller had charged the President with obstruction of justice, would the President’s defenders have accepted the indictment as proper and legitimate, or would they be claiming that Mueller had overstepped his bounds by indicting the president despite this explicit rule saying he couldn’t?

                  You know as well as I do that it is the latter. And, the President’s defenders would be claiming that the fact that Mueller had ignored the rule was proof that Mueller was partisan, and just out to get the President. In other words, in your eyes, Mueller was damned if he indicted, and damned if he didn’t.

                  What is obscured by all this pretense about Mueller is the factual case against Trump. Regardless of whether you think Mueller should or should not have indicted, the report laid out facts indicating that the President obstructed Justice. That should concern everyone, but especially Conservatives, because preservation of the Rule of Law is at the core of Conservative ideology, because it is foremost to our survival as a nation.

                3. If Mueller had charged the President with obstruction of justice, would the President’s defenders have accepted the indictment as proper and legitimate

                  He didnt make a case for obstruction though.

                  That is why he didnt make a determination that Trump broke the law.

                4. This is not accurate. Perhaps you haven’t read Volume II of the report? He set out an extremely strong factual case for obstruction. He did not indict the President because, as he explained, he could not charge the President because of the DOJ rule. He also indicated that, had he determined that Trump had not obstructed justice, he would have so stated.

                  If you don’t believe me, read what hubman has been writing. While hubman may not agree with it, even he acknowledges that Mueller set out the factual case for obstruction. All that is missing is the part where he charges the President, and that is missing because of the rule.

                  Here is a link to an overly-dramatized video put together by former Federal Prosecutors from the Reagan and Bush Administrations. It broadly summarizes the case set out in Volume II of the Mueller report regarding obstruction. It is overly dramatic, and I don’t agree with all of their broad-brush observations, but it does give the layperson some idea of the facts indicating obstruction, as set out by Mueller. Where I do agree with the video is with their observations about the importance of the Rule of Law to real Conservatives. That is really the foundational issue here. Do we believe in the Rule of Law, or don’t we?

                5. I dont think Hubman is granting that Trump committed obstruction but if he is I disagree with him

                  Trump isn’t obstructing when he whines on Twitter, or when he complains about Mueller nor when he fires Comey which he has the authority to do.

                  Mueller and Weisman were using a theory of obstruction that AG Barr considered unsound.

                  More on that disagreement is here

                  https://humanevents.com/2019/05/01/checkmate/

                6. I agree that Hubman is not granting that Trump committed obstruction. But he is acknowledging that Mueller set out his facts justifying an obstruction charge. Hubman laments that Trump has not been given a chance to defend himself, and that Mueller isn’t presenting the facts in the most favorable light to Trump, but of course that’s not Mueller’s job. In my opinion, Hubman is snowing us a bit, because he knows that such a defense comes in upon indictment, and that while Mueller had the facts justifying such an indictment, he was prohibited from so indicting.

                  Also, Mueller did address many of the defenses raised by Trump’s counsel in the report itself. See particularly the last section of Volume II, where Mueller explicitly addresses the defenses, including Barr’s argument. And that brings us to the Chamberlin article which you cited.

                  I agree with much of it. For example, Chamberlin suggests that Barr was working with Trump’s attorney’s during Trump’s defense, and that he sent his June 2018 memorandum to Rosenstein at the behest of Trump’s legal team. I agree. Chamberlin also suggests that Sessions was ousted and Barr appointed specifically because Barr was willing to, as he put it, “change the Department of Justice’s official view” of what obstruction means. In other words, they appointed Barr because Barr would read the law in a way which made it impossible to charge Trump.

                  The problem with all this is twofold.
                  First, if Barr was working with Trump’s lawyers, as Human Events posits, he was severely conflicted, and should never have been weighing in on, and overriding, Mueller’s findings.
                  Second, Barr’s interpretation of obstruction is extraordinarily absurd, and entirely inconsistent the way the statute has always been interpreted. Chamberlin pretty much ignores this. Human Events’ legal argument in favor of Barr’s position is almost completely absent. Rather than address the issue, Chamberlin goes on about how Barr’s letter to Rosenstein was long, well, written, and had citations. As if that settles the issue. He also indicates that Mueller’s position must be wrong because it would apply to a President who corruptly tried a FBI head to influence an ongoing investigation, or firing the FBI head for not cooperating! (“That would include, for example, asking an FBI director to lay off an investigation, or firing an FBI director.”) Of course it would! That is what obstruction is!

                  Anyway, your article makes a pretty good case for what many Liberal commentators are alleging. Barr was always in the bag for Trump, which is why he got appointed.

                7. So, what does Will Chamberlain need to add to Barrs letter that wasnt already addressed. There is a link to the letter in that article, you can see Barrs reasoning yourself.

                  Barr was brought on board to end this impasse and to clean up the DOJ. He’s going to do great.

                8. I have read the memorandum. Have you? Because you are the one accepting Barr’s bizarre and unprecedented views on Presidential power and the obstruction statutes. And you are the one citing Chamberlin to support this position. So what exactly did Barr get correct that Mueller got wrong?

                  Chamberlin doesn’t address this at all. Ironically, all Chamberlin seems to have established is that the fix was in with regard to Barr well before he was appointed. That hardly makes a case that Barr’s legal theory is the correct one.

                  You don’t seem to have much interest in Barr’s actual legal theory, except that you like it if it means Trump did nothing wrong. Is that really how we should approach these issues? Come up with the result we want, then find a theory that fits the result?

                  Such an approach is antithetical to the Rule of Law.

                9. Bizarre?

                  No it’s not bizzare, what is bizarre is Mueller conducting an investigation that started with Trump firing Comeyy – which he has authority to do.

                  Trump can make a case on Twitter that this investigation into collusion was a witch hunt because it obviously was (and we know that because no criminal charges) that isnt obstruction to whine about it or even to fire anyone he has authority to do as president.

                  Mueller was attempting to criminalize political behaviors of a president and Barr shut it down.

                10. Twitter? LOL. Trump has authority to fire Comey, just like you I have authority to to shred our files. But if we do it to destroy evidence or otherwise thwart an fbi investigation, that’s obstruction. And withTrump that’s not even close to the whole of it. But you obviously aren’t familiar and have no interest in eithet either the facts or the law, so there is no point continuing.

                11. I agree that Hubman is not granting that Trump committed obstruction. But he is acknowledging that Mueller set out his facts justifying an obstruction charge.

                  No, Mueller did not lay out facts “justifying” an obstruction charge. That would be a false statement in two ways.

                  First, what Mueller makes are assertions of fact. In a trial, this would be the prosecutor’s argument, and all the facts asserted by the prosecutor would be subject to challenge and rebuttal by the defense. But there is no trial, so the assertions in the report have not been tested for whether they are true. We’ve already seen in this one example where an assertion made in the Mueller report significantly distorts the actual facts by omitting part of the quote which they argued might be obstructive. If Flynn’s judge hadn’t required the full quote be released, we would never known how dishonestly it was edited in the Mueller report.

                  Second, “justifying” an obstruction charge implies that these assertions would justify a charge of obstruction if only the OLC opinion allowed it. But Mueller’s attempt at cleverness undermines that argument, because Mueller never even claims that there’s sufficient evidence to indict for obstruction. So no, not even Mueller claims charges of obstruction are justified. His actual claim is that, due to the OLC opinion, he declined to even determine whether there was sufficient evidence to charge obstruction. So if Mueller himself is declining to make a legal case for obstruction, it would be wrong to claim he’s laying out “facts” that “justify” an indictment when he actually refused to do any such thing.

                  If anything, he seems to be arguing that Congress can impeach the president anyway in spite of the lack of a crime of obstruction. Again, it’s Mueller’s attempt to have it both ways that makes it hard to untangle what he actually is saying.

                  Hubman laments that Trump has not been given a chance to defend himself, and that Mueller isn’t presenting the facts in the most favorable light to Trump, but of course that’s not Mueller’s job.

                  Mueller’s job is to make a decision to indict or not to indict based on evidence. He refused to do his job because he didn’t want to “exonerate” the president. But since we want to talk about what Mueller’s job is not, it is certainly NOT to hint to Congress that they should investigate the president instead.

                  As for Trump not being given a chance to defend himself, I’m simply pointing out Mueller’s hypocrisy. He claims it would be unfair to Trump to make a case for indictment on obstruction that could not go to trial, but then gives as much evidence as he can for obstruction, knowing that it not only won’t go to trial, but that the president will have no opportunity to defend himself at all. Clearly, he’s not at all motivated by fairness to Trump when he declines to indict.

                  I don’t see any way around recognizing that he doesn’t have sufficient evidence to support an indictment, so he simply refuses to make a decision either way in hopes that Trump can be impeached anyway.

                  In my opinion, Hubman is snowing us a bit, because he knows that such a defense comes in upon indictment, and that while Mueller had the facts justifying such an indictment, he was prohibited from so indicting.

                  My statements are straight-forward, in contrast to Mueller’s dishonest weaselling that implies to the public that he has evidence of obstruction, while admitting to the AG that he made no decision on that one way or the other. It beggars belief to think that this extremely aggressive Special Counsel team would have clear evidence to support an indictment and refuse to indict. Far more likely is that Mueller knows he doesn’t have sufficient evidence to charge obstruction, so hides behind the OLC opinion and claims that it’s the reason he is not issuing an indictment. This lets him argue that Trump is obstructing justice somehow without having to make a case for it that would withstand scrutiny.

                  In short, Mueller’s entire second volume is an attempt to snow us into believing that Trump is guilty of obstruction in spite of the lack of evidence.

                  BTW, the only people who made an actual prosecutorial decision on whether the evidence Mueller points to is sufficient for obstruction found there was not sufficient evidence.

                12. Either you are in way over your head with these issues, or you are just playing games. Addressing your points in order.

                  – Of course they were assertions of fact. That’s what criminal allegations are. And as alleged, the facts set out the the case for obstruction.

                  – Mueller doesn’t have to “claim[] that there’s sufficient evidence to indict for obstruction.” He set forth factual allegations, which, if proven, would establish obstruction. There was no indictment, because he was prohibited from so indicting. You obviously don’t understand how criminal allegations work. One doesn’t have to conclude, “and therefore that’s murder” to have set out factual allegations supporting an indictment for murder. Either the factual allegations, if proven, establish the crime or they don’t.

                  – Mueller’s job was NOT to make a decision of whether to indict the President, because he was specifically prohibited from so doing. It was, in part, to investigate potential obstruction of justice by the President, and to present evidence of said obstruction, if it existed. That’s what he did.

                  – His job was to provide evidence of obstruction, if it existed. He does NOT know that “it not only won’t go to trial, but that the president will have no opportunity to defend himself at all.” To the contrary, Mueller notes that an indictment will not be prohibited when Trump is no longer President, and that Congress can impeach and try the President. In either case, the President would be able to defend himself at trial.

                  – He did NOT “decline[] to indict.” He was prohibited from indicted by DOJ rule. See more below.

                  – Your argument is as follows: He would have indicted if he had the evidence to indict; he didn’t indict; therefore he didn’t have the evidence. Given the DOJ rule, this is preposterous. You try to finesse this by basically calling Mueller a liar. You claim he could indict but is pretending like he couldn’t because, really he doesn’t have the evidence. Even more preposterous. You are grasping at straws, and rather desperately, at that.

                  But don’t take my word for it. Here is what Mark Levin had to say about whether or not Mueller could indict, back in December 2018, summarized in an article titled, Mark Levin: Rule Barring Indictment Cannot be Defied. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/mark-levin-rule-barring-indicting-presidents-cant-be-defied
                  And another from April of Last Year . . .
                  https://insider.foxnews.com/2018/04/19/mark-levin-hannity-trump-cant-be-criminal-target-sitting-presidents-cant-be-indicted

                  And here is Trump’s attorney in May of Last year:

                  “All they get to do is write a report,” Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani told CNN. “They can’t indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us.”

                  That conclusion is likely based on longstanding Justice Department guidelines. It is not about any assessment of the evidence Mueller’s team has compiled.

                  https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/rudy-giuliani-robert-mueller-indictment/index.html

                  And there are dozens more from conservative commentators far and wide. Every Trump supporter out there was arguing that there could be no indictment, and Mueller acknowledged this to Trump’s legal team long before the investigation was over!

                  For you to ignore all this now, and pretend Mueller didn’t indict because the evidence didn’t support it, well . . . it is laughable, and frankly demonstrates bad faith on your part.

                13. This only seems complicated because Mueller is trying to have it both ways. He’s essentially trying to lay out evidence for obstruction while declining to say whether the evidence would actually be sufficient for obstruction. That lets him duck the question of obstruction while pretending that he had no choice but to duck it.

                  Does Mueller really make a case for obstruction? If so, he refuses to stand behind it.

                  Mueller’s volume on obstruction is the mirror image of Comey’s admission that Hillary Clinton violated the laws about handling classified emails while claiming “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict.

                  Comey’s action was meant to ignore the clear evidence that Hillary had violated the law, so he could clear her of any charges in time for the election.

                  Mueller’s obstruction argument was intended to ensure Trump was NOT cleared of obstruction charges, even though there was, unlike Hillary, not enough evidence to prove obstruction.

                  Ironically, both cases come down to intent. Comey assumes Hillary didn’t intend to mis-handle classified material, even though the law doesn’t require any sort of intention. Mueller, on the other hand, assumes evil or “corrupt” intent by Trump indicates obstruction, even though the charge of obstruction actually requires an intent to obstruct, and also requires that actions be taken to obstruct. Not talk about why you think the investigation is wrong, or criticism of the investigator’s biased motivations and conflicts, but actual actions to destroy or spoil or prevent evidence that the investigator relies on.

                  And here is where the obstruction claim falls flat. Far from obstructing the investigation, Trump gave almost unprecedented access to Mueller’s team of his staff and their internal notes and documents. Most presidents would have exerted executive privilege over at least some of it.

                  Both cases violate the responsibility of a prosecutor to either indict or not indict. Comey essentially admits the evidence is there to indict, then declines to do so. Mueller essentially admits he can’t indict but then bizarrely claims he can’t “exonerate” either, so he simply refuses to make a decision.

                14. It’s not complicated for those who understand what a criminal allegation is. We’ve known for over a year that Mueller believed he was prohibited by DOJ Rule from indicting the President. As Giuliani put it last May, “All they get to do is write a report . . . They can’t indict. At least they acknowledged that to us after some battling, they acknowledged that to us.”

                  And that’s what Mueller did. He wrote the Report, and Volume II of that report alleges facts which, if proven true, would constitute obstruction were a formal charge possible. He also addresses and dismisses a number of defenses which were raised by Trump’s counsel in an attempt to counter these facts.

                  Your digression into Comey’s pompous statement is inapt but telling. The primary similarity between the two is that those like you who are unwilling or unable to understand the statements have twisted them into partisan meaninglessness.

                15. A joint statement from the Special Counsel office and the Attorney General confirmed that Mueller did not say he would indict if not for the OLC decision. Instead, Mueller refused to make a decision to indict one way or the other.

                  So the whole theory that the left desperately clings to that Mueller was laying out a case for obstruction and saying he would indict if he was allowed to is just wishful thinking.

                16. Of course he didn’t say that explicitly, as it would have undermined the Rule. As he set out, it is NOT his decision to make. And as he said, it is up to Congress, and/or the DoJ, after Trump is no longer in office.

                  But once again, you show your ignorance of what an accusation of criminal wrongdoing really is. Mueller set out facts that, if proven, constitute obstruction. And he even considered and dismissed affirmative defenses to obstruction, a step that would have been entirely superfluous had he not just stated facts which, if proven, would constitute obstruction!

                  In other words, since Mueller isn’t in a position to charge, his determination on whether it makes sense to charge is completely irrelevant. All that matters are the facts. And Mueller gathered and presented facts which, if proven, would constitute obstruction!

                17. To use your terms:
                  1. “He laid out the case for obstruction” in the sense that he laid out facts which, if proven, would constitute obstruction.
                  2. He did NOT “say[] he would indict if he was allowed to” because it was outside his purview to even say that!

            2. Of course he didn’t say it was obstruction. He wrote an entire Volume 2 of his report, over 200 pages, of things that were never actually called obstruction directly.

              Any idiot can see that you don’t write over 200 pages of incidents that you say might be obstruction unless you mean to imply there really is obstruction.

              He actually claimed that it would be unfair to charge the president with obstruction if there can be no trial to clear his name, then dumps a report making the case for possible obstruction that he knows will be given to the public. His action contradicts his words. It doesn’t take a brilliant man to figure out what game he’s playing.

              So who’s being deliberately obtuse again?

              1. Well at least we agree that (despite all the nonsense about the president having been exonerated) whether he explicitly says it or not, the report lays out facts which amount to a case against the president for obstruction of justice. It’s up to Congress and the voters to decide what to do with it.

                1. You mean, a version of facts which are claimed to suggest possible obstruction, but weren’t strong enough to actually indict for obstruction?

                  Mueller’s trying to have it both ways by suggesting there could be obstruction, but refusing to actually make a case for obstruction, then piously declaring he’s just trying to be fair to the president while actually smearing the president from a safe distance.

                  If Mueller is pushing such transparent and contradictory nonsense, why should we take him seriously?

                  Mueller’s own explanations and defense of the second volume of his report make no sense. Unless, of course, it’s meant to be a political hatchet job. Then the innuendo and deception and transparently false representations make perfect sense.

                2. LOL. Federal prosecutors, past and present, disagree with you about whether the case is strong enough to indict. He set out a strong case for obstruction. He couldn’t indict because of DOJ regulation. That’s not exactly “having it both ways.”

                  He’s bending over backwards trying to be fair to the President, but he can’t be “neutral” when the case against the president is so obvious to anyone who actually examines it. Mueller isn’t smearing the president. The facts smear the president. That’s what you don’t get. Overall, the facts are not ambiguous, or neutral, so a fair presentation of the facts looks really bad for the President. Are all the facts presented in the best light to the President? No, because that is not what prosecutors do.

                  If his explanations make no sense it is because it makes no sense to conduct a criminal investigation without giving the investigation the power to explicitly indict. Mueller did what prosecutors do, he took the overwhelming facts and made a strong case against the President. He just isn’t allowed to explicitly say what he’s done because of the DOJ regulation.

                3. No, Mueller did not set out a strong case for obstruction. That’s just wishful thinking from the people who really, really want to believe that Trump obstructed the investigation.

                  Yes, he’s trying to have it both ways. He says he can’t indict because the OLC opinion won’t allow it. But the AG asked him point-blank three times if he would indict Trump for obstruction if not for the OLC opinion, and he said he would not.

                  So he’s both claiming that the OLC opinion is not preventing him from indicting Trump, and claiming that it’s preventing him from indicting Trump. He tries to resolve this by saying the OLC opinion is not preventing him from indicting Trump, but preventing him from deciding whether he should make a decision about indicting Trump.

                  That’s pretty much the definition of trying to have it both ways.

                  He also claims to be protecting Trump from accusations that Trump can’t defend himself against because Trump can’t be indicted, while simultaneously detailing for public consumption all those accusations that he claims to be protecting Trump from having to defend against. Again, the definition of trying to have it both ways.

                  Is your head spinning yet?

                  Mueller’s explanations make no sense because he contradicts himself.

                  Mueller did what prosecutors do, he took the overwhelming facts and made a strong case against the President. He just isn’t allowed to explicitly say what he’s done because of the DOJ regulation.

                  False. Mueller even admits that he did not do what prosecutors do. He attempts to justify his failure to make a prosecutor’s decision by claiming the DOJ opinion prevented him from doing it. To the public, anyway. To his boss, he has to admit that the OLC opinion doesn’t prevent him from making a finding about obstruction, because Barr of course knows better. So instead he claims the OLC opinion prevents him from drawing any sort of conclusion about whether there was obstruction.

                  Bottom line: Mueller punted. He punted to the AG and Deputy AG to make the actual decision about obstruction. But he fills the report with the evidence he was unwilling to assert indicated obstruction, then says he does not “exonerate” the president. Again, he’s punting to Congress to take up the question of whether there might be, you know, some sort of obstruction, because it’s been determined that there is no criminal obstruction.

                  Again, you said, “Mueller did what prosecutors do.” Punting to Congress is NOT what prosecutors do. But it is exactly what you would expect from a political hit job. He failed to find evidence of collusion, and could not prove obstruction. A prosecutor would either indict or dismiss the charges. Mueller begs Congress to impeach the president anyway.

                4. I admire your patience. It’s like you’re trying to explain difficult concepts to a small child who just isn’t capable of grasping the basics.

                5. Recreational impossibilities. Like flying, walking through mountains, or trying to get the Brantisvogan Civil Service to acknowledge a change-of-address card.

                6. How about trying to get a zealous political opportunists to realize that, without the Rule of Law, Conservativism is dead?

                7. LOL. That’s funny. For you guys “the basics” seem to be the unshakable preconception that Trump did nothing wrong, and the facts and law should be bent and broken in service of this unshakable belief.

                8. For you guys “the basics” seem to be the unshakable preconception that Trump did nothing wrong,

                  Thanks for demonstrating yet another way that you don’t even understand the basics.

                9. You are a broken record. You are misrepresenting what Mueller did, and ignoring the DOJ Rule. If you don’t think he alleged facts constituting obstruction then either you don’t understand what obstruction is, or you are rewriting the law to suit your political purposes, like Barr.

                  Mueller doesn’t “beg[] Congress” to do anything, but he did allege facts constituting obstruction, and left it to Congress to decide whether to pursue it.

      2. Correction: Rereading the above voicemail transcript, Dowd did know that Flynn was not partaking in the joint defense. What he did not know was whether Flynn was pleading guilty and cooperating with the prosecution. Which would explain why he was unsure about whether they were able to give him a “heads up” about any issues “without you [presumably, Flynn’s lawyer] having to give up any confidential information.”

        1. LOL In actuality he knew both. There is no other reason to drop out of the joint defense agreement. He may not have yet been specifically informed. But he knew. The request was totally inappropriate. Whether it amounts to obstruction is a more difficult question.

    1. I throw them in the stock pond for the fish. But yeah, the first time I dealt with that snapping bodiless head, I was a little unnerved. I still hate killing any living thing, but if you want to keep safe, and keep your livestock alive you have to. There’s a mama coyote that’s not long for this world. She’s killed a couple of my chickens and now she just keeps coming back. My dogs chase her away, but that doesn’t solve the problem because I can’t free range the chickens until she’s gone.

      1. The copperheads aren’t welcome but all the rest of our snakes get a free pass. I like having them around. I’ve jad a couple of time gardening when a copperhead could’ve gotten me. Thankfully, none have yet. The dogs are pretty good and locating any we’ve had around. Coyotes have gotten a couple of our outside cats. Good luck with getting that one taken care of!

        1. It’s copperheads and rat snakes for us. They both go after the chicken’s eggs and the chicks, Rat snakes are worse. We generally leave the rest of the snakes alone, but you do have to be careful that garden snakes don’t eat your fruits and veggies. We were having a hard time with that for awhile. Hate to say it Squirrelly, but squirrels are a major pain for us too, and for awhile we had to take many down in order to have any garden at all. They were also getting fat on our chicken food along with the rabbits. The chicken food now goes in at night so that’s not as big a deal. Ah the drama of modern day ranching. At times I really do feel like the wife and I are a reenactment of Green Acres, both of us being NY City born, paper pushing professionals, who now run a ranch on our own.

          1. No veggies this year. All flower gardens. I have large raised beds and new retaining walls being put in starting this week so wasn’t starting veggies. I am right now trying to rescue what plants I can and sad about my large mature plants that will probably be no more. Moles have been a big problem this year especially with dogs digging and going after them. Don’t think I’ve had a snake eat our veggies before but maybe. I always attribute those things to deer and rabbits at night. Thankfully, no critters except dogs & cats here. Cats for the rodents (also why the snakes are protected around here), and the dogs keep the squirrels away. Now I have Green Acres theme in my head! 😀

  12. AOC is so aggravating…..so stupid….so anti-american……..someone please primary her and redistrict her district!!!!!!

  13. Remember the thread yesterday about the courageous woman who stood up at Justin Amash’s townhall and called him out so eloquently? Well, she did a guest segment on Jesse Watters’ show tonight and I thought you all would like to see it:

    https://video.foxnews.com/v/6043642647001/?playlist_id=4607808626001#sp=show-clips

    I thought it was interesting that she said the whole audience was full of Dems because they had heard Amash was anti-Trump. They didn’t know anything else about him, that’s all they cared about. But it turns out he is a real stinker in many ways. The clip is short and worth the watch.

  14. Trump needs to Pardon Flynn and reinstate him back into his admin. Mueller needs a cell, maybe a padded one, at GITMO.

  15. @AOC: “Any job that pays $2.13 an hour is not a job.”
    This idiot was once a bartender and knows the pay system, so what’s her point? Diarrhea of the mouth is my guess.
    I waited tables in college and we { got paid a couple dollars an hour } plus tips. The tips are your income, not the base pay most states require for waiters and bartenders. You know that going in when you take the job and if that’s not suitable, don’t take the job.

    My O/T comment is this. I really miss the BLOCK feature and hope WordPress will add it. One regular has really got on my last nerve here AT The Right Scoop.

    1. Upvote for the first part of your comment. I’ve waited tables and bartended. A good waiter or waitress can make bank in tips plus who really reports those wages to the Feds so extra bonus there. When I bartended, I made hourly min wage plus again, I banked it on the tips – good money can be made doing either. I’ve known professionals that serve tables and do damn well at upscale restaurants.
      AT doesn’t bother me at all but gets under the skin of a lot of people. She/he does have some valuable posts and some I can just ignore. I rarely ever blocked anyone though – just a few people that I felt just wanted to troll or harass or prove they’re smarter than for whatever reason. It is a nice feature to have.

      1. AT doesn’t get under my skin, but I know when to give up because its just a circle of repeating the same points over and over.

    2. I’m actually glad for contrary opinions on this site. And at times think it’s unfortunate that so few are posted anymore.

      1. I know what you mean but I remember how bad these comment boards were when it was nothing but battle after battle with a certain crew of folks.

  16. Exactly why I dont care to read the report – I dont trust Mueller and his team of angry Democrats to be fair.

  17. Open thread! I wanted to share this comment that I saw recently: “Science says we need 4 basic elements to survive: water, air, food, and light. Jesus says: “I am the Living Water, I am the Breathe of Life, I am the Bread of Life, and I am the light of the world. Science was right. We need Jesus to live.” I can’t remember where I saw it, but isn’t it a great thought?!

  18. Mueller and his team were dishonest. The above is just one example. No doubt more will be coming.

  19. Flynn did get screwed and all based on lies threats and more made up stuff. He pled guilty because he had no other choice..Trump should clear him and these people need to go away for a long long time…Gitmo would be good…Sunny Cuba…

  20. AOC is a dumbass. The morons who are clapping to her insanity are worse.

    If she were to have her way and the minimum was raised to $15 an hour, half of them would be let go or they’d see their hours dramatically cut… Or maybe machines would replace them.

  21. AOC is so aggravating…..so stupid….so anti-american……..someone please primary her and redistrict her district!!!!!!

  22. Remember the thread yesterday about the courageous woman who stood up at Justin Amash’s townhall and called him out so eloquently? Well, she did a guest segment on Jesse Watters’ show tonight and I thought you all would like to see it:

    https://video.foxnews.com/v/6043642647001/?playlist_id=4607808626001#sp=show-clips

    I thought it was interesting that she said the whole audience was full of Dems because they had heard Amash was anti-Trump. They didn’t know anything else about him, that’s all they cared about. But it turns out he is a real stinker in many ways. The clip is short and worth the watch.

  23. Trump needs to Pardon Flynn and reinstate him back into his admin. Mueller needs a cell, maybe a padded one, at GITMO.

  24. @AOC: “Any job that pays $2.13 an hour is not a job.”
    This idiot was once a bartender and knows the pay system, so what’s her point? Diarrhea of the mouth is my guess.
    I waited tables in college and we { got paid a couple dollars an hour } plus tips. The tips are your income, not the base pay most states require for waiters and bartenders. You know that going in when you take the job and if that’s not suitable, don’t take the job.

    My O/T comment is this. I really miss the BLOCK feature and hope WordPress will add it. One regular has really got on my last nerve here AT The Right Scoop.

    1. Upvote for the first part of your comment. I’ve waited tables and bartended. A good waiter or waitress can make bank in tips plus who really reports those wages to the Feds so extra bonus there. When I bartended, I made hourly min wage plus again, I banked it on the tips – good money can be made doing either. I’ve known professionals that serve tables and do damn well at upscale restaurants.
      AT doesn’t bother me at all but gets under the skin of a lot of people. She/he does have some valuable posts and some I can just ignore. I rarely ever blocked anyone though – just a few people that I felt just wanted to troll or harass or prove they’re smarter than for whatever reason. It is a nice feature to have.

  25. Exactly why I dont care to read the report – I dont trust Mueller and his team of angry Democrats to be fair.

  26. Open thread! I wanted to share this comment that I saw recently: “Science says we need 4 basic elements to survive: water, air, food, and light. Jesus says: “I am the Living Water, I am the Breathe of Life, I am the Bread of Life, and I am the light of the world. Science was right. We need Jesus to live.” I can’t remember where I saw it, but isn’t it a great thought?!

  27. Mueller and his team were dishonest. The above is just one example. No doubt more will be coming.

  28. Flynn did get screwed and all based on lies threats and more made up stuff. He pled guilty because he had no other choice..Trump should clear him and these people need to go away for a long long time…Gitmo would be good…Sunny Cuba…

  29. AOC is a dumbass. The morons who are clapping to her insanity are worse.

    If she were to have her way and the minimum was raised to $15 an hour, half of them would be let go or they’d see their hours dramatically cut… Or maybe machines would replace them.

Comments are closed.