Mueller Hearings

[Mindmaster]

Mueller just said that neglecting to report to the FBI any information of foreign nationals offering information to your campaign constitutes crime

No, it's not. No more than talking to anyone else is. If they are working for you, you're paying them, or other financial engagements, yes. But, generally, you're free to speak with whomever you like even if they're Russian.

The original dossier was constructed by information from a UK national -- if this was the case, you should have had an investigation for Hillbot too.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Another highlight:

Rep. Schiff: "Russia committed federal crimes in order to help Donald Trump?"

Mueller: "When you're talking about the computer crimes charged in our case, absolutely"

 

[The Reverend Bob]

No, it's not. No more than talking to anyone else is. If they are working for you, you're paying them, or other financial engagements, yes. But, generally, you're free to speak with whomever you like even if they're Russian.

That is not what the law says

 

[Enoch07]

Rep. Raskin: "you found evidence that the President engaged in efforts to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation."

Mueller: "That's correct."

Obstruction.

Evidence is not proof.

For example if someone was murdered at 10pm in Lincoln Park last night. And I was seen in the area of Lincoln Park around 10pm last night. That is evidence I could have committed the murder. It is not proof though.

There was evidence to suggest Trump obstructed, but not enough to prove it.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Highlight:
Rep. Buck: Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?
Mueller: Yes.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Evidence is not proof.

For example if someone was murdered at 10pm in Lincoln Park last night. And I was seen in the area of Lincoln Park around 10pm last night. That is evidence I could have committed the murder. It is not proof though.

There was evidence to suggest Trump obstructed, but not enough to prove it.

It warrants further investigation then

 

[Nakosis]

LIEU (D-CA): The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?
MUELLER: That is correct.

Rep. Ken Buck: "Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?"
Robert Mueller: "Yes"
Buck: "You could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?"
Mueller: "Yes"

So, Mueller is handcuffed and the right believes they have won a grand victory. Since when is allowing criminal acts to proceed without punishment an act of patriotism? Or does it only exist to fluff the right when they have no other outs?

In what context? Any President after leaving office could be charged with a crime, including obstructing of justice. IOW the answer would be the same if asked about Obama or any president.

Has anyone asked if there was sufficient evidence to charge Trump with collusion or obstruction?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Mueller: The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,

 

[The Reverend Bob]

The original dossier was constructed by information from a UK national

He was contracted by Fusion GPS, a US company, not Hillary Clinton

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Mueller: Many more countries are developing the capability to replicate what the Russians have done, they are doing it as we sit here.

 

[Mindmaster]

That is not what the law says

The law says:

110.20 Prohibition on contributions,
donations, expenditures, inde-
pendent expenditures, and dis-
bursements by foreign nationals (52
U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510)

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2019-title11-vol1/pdf/CFR-2019-title11-vol1.pdf

(you can literally just search this document for "foreign" and you're going to see it's all related to money)

It doesn't say anything about speaking to them -- you can "collude" by talking all you'd like, it's not against the law. The law prohibits contributions of money or anything of worth. There is currently a better case against the Democrats whom received the Steel dossier which we could argue is an "item of worth".

It doesn't, however, have anything to do with speaking with foreign nationals. This is a big nothing burger...

 

[The Reverend Bob]

The law prohibits contributions of money or anything of worth.

And that would include information gathered by the Russians form the hacks.

There is currently a better case against the Democrats whom received the Steel dossier

How so?

 

[Mindmaster]

Another highlight:

Rep. Schiff: "Russia committed federal crimes in order to help Donald Trump?"

Mueller: "When you're talking about the computer crimes charged in our case, absolutely"

Yeah, but if you look at the "crimes" they're pretty laughable on the level of Pepe mem troll pages. These aren't so much computer crimes as jokes. Anyway, it's confirmation bias -- this is really only a crime if you can't take a joke. Most people would ignore these sorts of pages anyway.

 

[Mindmaster]

And that would include information gathered by the Russians form the hacks.


How so?

Actually, most of the Russian hack information was publicly released via other channels -- Gucifer, Wikileaks, and others. The Trump campaign could have had that information as it was then available, but it's obvious they didn't have an inside source other than what everyone else was getting.

But still -- it's not a crime to have that information or talk to someone about that information it's a crime to pay them or receive pay. It's also probably a crime if you do not report the activity, but man that's hard to prove in any case -- even in domestic issues where we know someone witnessed a crime but didn't bring their testimony to a case.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Yeah, but if you look at the "crimes" they're pretty laughable on the level of Pepe mem troll pages. These aren't so much computer crimes as jokes. Anyway, it's confirmation bias -- this is really only a crime if you can't take a joke. Most people would ignore these sorts of pages anyway.

He is talking about the hacks.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Actually, most of the Russian hack information was publicly released via other channels -- Gucifer, Wikileaks, and others.

Eventually.

The Trump campaign could have had that information as it was then available, but it's obvious they didn't have an inside source other than what everyone else was getting.

They were offered information gathered from the Russian hacks of the DNC and DCCC by Russian nationals

 

[Mindmaster]

He is talking about the hacks.

He's been mostly talking out of his *** for about two years -- they're taking about Russian hacks because that's all the score he got for the millions of dollars wasted.

However, I don't trust their commentary -- hacking is popular as a hobby in Russia, it's much more likely the hacks came from Russian's who were these sorts of people rather than state actors. It's more likely these people were acting independently for amusement rather than doing so at the behest of their employers.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Bloomberg on Twitter

 

[Stanyon]

They were offered information gathered from the Russian hacks of the DNC and DCCC by Russian nationals

This wasn't backdoor information it was posted on Wikileaks for the entire world to see. If it's wrong to relay information from the Internet then we are all guilty of it.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

He's been mostly talking out of his *** for about two years -- they're taking about Russian hacks because that's all the score he got for the millions of dollars wasted.

However, I don't trust their commentary -- hacking is popular as a hobby in Russia, it's much more likely the hacks came from Russian's who were these sorts of people rather than state actors. It's more likely these people were acting independently for amusement rather than doing so at the behest of their employers.

Russian intelligence was tied to the hacks.

Mueller says Russia's GRU stole Clinton, DNC emails and gave them to WikiLeaks