Did Clinton email faux pas cost 20 agents lives?

[Lone Star]

Tomorrow, emails between others and Samantha Power, Obama's UN Ambassador, will be released. Power is responsible for HUNDREDS of unmasking requests (over 300) in the waning days of the Obama Administration. These unmasking requests are odd since Power has no investigative role that would involve unmaskings. She was the US ambassador to the UN.

Additionally, Power's emails reflect the same bias against Trump that occurred in the text messages between FBI members of the Coup Cabal.

In past testimony before Congress, Power said she did not make the requests and that someone may have done it in her name -- but her emails do not reflect that.

Unmasking requests are highly sensitive and logged -- whether the unmasking is approved or not. Someone is going to have a big problem. If not Power, then whoever approved the unmasking for someone else in Power's name.

[Lone Star]

Bob Mueller.

He has been subpoenaed to testify before the House Democrat Circus.

What the ignorant do not understand about this entire process is that Mueller's Report is the final say. It was delivered to Mueller's boss, Attorney General Barr in an incomplete format. Barr made the final decision regarding the findings of the report.

If Mueller ADDS anything to his report that is not contained in the report, his credibility is shot. The Report will be rendered meaningless. If so important, why was it withheld from the report?

There is also another issue relative to guilt and innocence in the US. It is not the role of a prosecutor to determine innocence. They either prosecute, or there is nothing to report. Americans' reputations are not hauled in front of the media to examine everything they did unless they are charged. Trump was not charged.

"While Trump may have not stolen any horses, we think he intended to steal horses, tried to hide that fact, and then objected to being hanged for something he didn't do."

Yeah, that's Mueller's new gauge for justice.

Had obstruction occurred, Mueller would have recommended charges. A sitting president cannot be indicted, but nothing prevented Mueller from recommending charges as Ken Starr did when he was a Special Prosecutor investigating Clinton. Starr recommended almost a dozen charges.

If Trump didn’t act even within his own authority over an investigation that proved no core crime, how can he have obstructed? Wanting to do something and not doing it, doesn't constitute a crime. To have thoughts and ideas that are never acted upon don't constitute a crime. Even if just trying to prove a conspiracy, there must be ONE ACT taken by the accused to further their mission toward committing the crime.

In the case of Comey, firing him didn't end the investigation. It continued. Nothing was obstructed.

Mueller and AG Barr BOTH admit that Trump fully cooperated with the investigation in every way. Documents were turned over. All witnesses were allowed to meet with the Special Counsel. Trump did not even claim 'executive privilege' in any matter concerning the investigation.

As AG Barr pointed out, Trump's discussions of firing and ending anything were all a result of his outrage over being investigated based on no evidence and partisan hate. Trump could have ended it all whenever he wanted to do it. He could have fired Mueller and ended it all. Legally. Trump allowed it to proceed to its final conclusion. No conspiracy. No obstruction.

Couple of things to keep in mind:

1. The questions Democrats want answered are in the report already. If Mueller elaborates, he and his investigation and report have a big problem. It won't look so good for Mueller.

2. The questions Republicans want answered are NOT in the report. They will ask why Mueller ignored information when evidence took his team to that path. Mueller CAN answer those or just refuse, which will then not look so good for Mueller.

3. Mueller has already walked back his statement about not charging Trump because he is a sitting POTUS. Mueller told Barr three times in their meetings that his not charging Trump had only to do with the vagueness of the law and not enough evidence. It had nothing to do with not being able to charge a sitting president. Barr and Mueller released a joint statement after Mueller's press conference stating such.

Read up, Wishcasters.

[Lone Star]

Alan Dershowitz, Democrat, Harvard Law Professor, Author, Attorney and Hillary supporter and voter AGREES WITH ME.

You can't be subpoenaing prosecutors and asking them why they did NOT prosecute someone.

Mueller is in a trickbag.

[tamada]

...
Unmasking requests are highly sensitive and logged -- whether the unmasking is approved or not. Someone is going to have a big problem. If not Power, then whoever approved the unmasking for someone else in Power's name.
...

Or whoever hacked or spoofed her email account maybe? The 'security' of us.gov servers are already the stuff of legend, probably only surpassed by the sublimely ignorant public servants that use them. They really should buy more Huawei hardware and just get over themselves.

[Lone Star]

More information came out in the last 24 hours via John Solomon of The Hill.

There was a 350% INCREASE in unmasking requests in the Obama Administration in 2016 -- a national election year.

[tamada]

More information came out in the last 24 hours via John Solomon of The Hill.

There was a 350% INCREASE in unmasking requests in the Obama Administration in 2016 -- a national election year.

You're not suggesting Obama was colluding with Putin are you? I mean, who else would benefit from knowing who the spooks are?

Anyhoo... is there any correlation between the amount of unmasking requests and the amount of actually fulfilled unmaskings?

[tamada]

.. It was delivered to Mueller's boss, Attorney General Barr in an incomplete format. ...

And there's y'all talking about ignorance.

[Lone Star]

.. It was delivered to Mueller's boss, Attorney General Barr in an incomplete format. ...

And there's y'all talking about ignorance.

The Special Counsel answers to the Attorney General. Before Barr was confirmed, Mueller got his marching orders from Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein.

When the report was complete, the Special Counsel handed it over to his boss -- the Attorney General. Barr did not have to release any of it, nor was he bound to even comment on it.

The report was incomplete in that Mueller would not reach a decision on obstruction and left it up to the Department of Justice. Barr and Rosenstein and the DOJ Legal Counsel found no obstruction.

[Lone Star]

More information came out in the last 24 hours via John Solomon of The Hill.

There was a 350% INCREASE in unmasking requests in the Obama Administration in 2016 -- a national election year.

You're not suggesting Obama was colluding with Putin are you? I mean, who else would benefit from knowing who the spooks are?

Anyhoo... is there any correlation between the amount of unmasking requests and the amount of actually fulfilled unmaskings?

If I had a guess, I would have said so. The increase of that magnitude in an election year is staggering considering all that has been learned thus far about the Coup Cabal atop Obama's DOJ/FBI/CIA.

[tamada]

.. It was delivered to Mueller's boss, Attorney General Barr in an incomplete format. ...

And there's y'all talking about ignorance.

The Special Counsel answers to the Attorney General. Before Barr was confirmed, Mueller got his marching orders from Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein.

When the report was complete, the Special Counsel handed it over to his boss -- the Attorney General. Barr did not have to release any of it, nor was he bound to even comment on it.

The report was incomplete in that Mueller would not reach a decision on obstruction and left it up to the Department of Justice. Barr and Rosenstein and the DOJ Legal Counsel found no obstruction.

The report was complete in every literal and legal sense. It took long enough!

As Special Counsel, it was never in Mueller's remit to make or announce any decision. His job was only to report his findings in the otherwise 100% complete report. He did comment that although he found nothing to prove there was any collusion, he hadn't found anything to rule out collusion. Fundamentally an open verdict that was quickly and somewhat predictably claimed by DJT and his sycophants as a 'yuge' statement of innocence.

Mueller's inability to 100% rule out any collusion was probably due to being unable to pursue certain avenues of investigation towards the end as the digging got deeper. This through a combination of obfuscation and blatant stiff-middle-fingering to legal due process by certain entities which was openly approved by the White House, albeit mostly by tweet. In that regard, his report was a complete as it was ever going to be allowed to get.

If partisan insensibilities precluded the AG from making a non-partisan decision, then there's bugger all can be done about it and as Sonny & Cher sang, 'The Beat Goes On.'

[Lone Star]

. . .

As Special Counsel, it was never in Mueller's remit to make or announce any decision. His job was only to report his findings in the otherwise 100% complete report.

True. However, his report was complete as far as Mueller was concerned, but shocking that there could be no finding regarding obstruction. That was Mueller's job to find one way or the other. If there is no finding of wrongdoing in a criminal investigation in the US, there is no parsing of words or "maybes" or "might haves." There's nothing. Mueller left it up to Barr, Mueller's boss, on the issue of obstruction. Case closed.

He did comment that although he found nothing to prove there was any collusion, he hadn't found anything to rule out collusion. Fundamentally an open verdict that was quickly and somewhat predictably claimed by DJT and his sycophants as a 'yuge' statement of innocence.

Not true. In fact, Mueller's report stated that there were several attempts to entice Trump campaign members into conspiracy and all advances were rejected. Also, several Russian firms/individuals were charged by Mueller, and Mueller's investigation found that NO American -- in or out of Trump's campaign -- were involved with them. There was no American charged with working with Russia on election interference.

It's not Mueller's job or any other prosecutor in the US to say that "there's a possibility that this person committed crimes, but we couldn't find any evidence." That ain't how justice works in America for anyone.

Mueller's inability to 100% rule out any collusion was probably due to being unable to pursue certain avenues of investigation towards the end as the digging got deeper.

Mueller was given almost unlimited scope. Taxi medallions, bank loan applications, working as foreign lobbyists, etc. Had Mueller been limited in scope, none of that would have been part of the investigation.

This through a combination of obfuscation and blatant stiff-middle-fingering to legal due process by certain entities which was openly approved by the White House, albeit mostly by tweet. In that regard, his report was a complete as it was ever going to be allowed to get.

Mueller was denied nothing by the White House. Not one thing. And both Mueller and Barr stated that Trump was completely transparent and provided everything -- witnesses, documents, etc. Trump did not exercise one instance of Executive Privilege in the entire investigation.

[jackspratt]

Hmmm.....

One key way in which Trump failed to cooperate was by denying Mueller an in-person interview.

Mueller and his team sought for more than a year to personally talk to the president — but they were ultimately rebuffed. Instead, the special counsel eventually agreed to accept Trump’s written answers to questions.

But Trump’s written responses were "inadequate," Mueller said, and contained dozens of instances where Trump claimed not to recall the information sought by the special counsel. Mueller also noted that Trump declined to answer questions about obstruction of justice, or questions on events that occurred during the presidential transition.

Here’s how the report describes the back-and-forth with Trump’s personal counsel:

Mueller: "We informed counsel of the insufficiency of those responses in several respects. We noted, among other things, that the President stated on more than 30 occasions that he ‘does not recall’ or ‘remember’ or have an ‘independent recollection’ of information called for by the questions. Other answers were ‘incomplete or imprecise.’ "

Because the written exchange gave investigators "no opportunity to ask follow-up questions," Mueller’s team again requested an in-person interview. Once again, Trump declined.

Ultimately, Mueller concluded, "We viewed the written answers to be inadequate."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... gation-no/

[Lone Star]

Mueller could have gone to court if he was truly convinced of criminal activity on the part of the president.

I guess Mueller knew he would lose in court if he tried to compel a sitting POTUS to interview when there was no crime connected to the president. It was an investigation into a person in search of a crime. Cart before the horse. Only an idiot would walk into a perjury trap.

[jackspratt]

Mueller was denied nothing by the White House. Not one thing

So we know that bit is not correct.

And both Mueller and Barr stated that Trump was completely transparent and provided everything -- witnesses, documents, etc.

Barr may have stated that, but I can't find any evidence that Mueller said so. In fact, the bits I quoted earlier from his report would seem to contradict that.

But I am sure you can clear it up by providing a link to where Mueller is quoted as saying Trump "was completely transparent, and provided everything".

[Lone Star]

The crimes of conspiracy and obstruction BOTH require the participation of at least one other person. In the US, it's up to the prosecution to prove the crime, NOT the accused (and Trump was never accused) to prove innocence. Mueller had access to everyone, including the White House Counsel -- to be able to find their evidence. I guess there was no one who could provide Mueller with what he so desperately wanted to hear.

It's up to the Democrat-controlled House to move forward with impeachment if they don't like the result, but even the lead investigator is quoted as saying "There's no there there."

Democrats are never going to let it go. They're like a puppy with a sock. They'll interview Mueller publicly -- only one question each (another waste of time); and they'll interview one or more members of his investigative team behind closed doors.

If the Democrats don't impeach (they need the Senate to convict), I fully expect Democrats to beat this dead horse all the way up to November 2020. GET TRUMP is their strategy. They have nothing in their platform to improve the lives of Americans without penalizing other Americans. "You there. Pay for John's health care. You there. Pay for Mary's house. You there. Pay for Mike's college. You there. Pay for Jane's abortion."

It's all politics.

[jackspratt]

Mueller was denied nothing by the White House. Not one thing

So we know that bit is not correct.

And both Mueller and Barr stated that Trump was completely transparent and provided everything -- witnesses, documents, etc.

Barr may have stated that, but I can't find any evidence that Mueller said so. In fact, the bits I quoted earlier from his report would seem to contradict that.

But I am sure you can clear it up by providing a link to where Mueller is quoted as saying Trump "was completely transparent, and provided everything".

So I guess that is a "no" ........ with both statements being "not correct" - in the Trump sense.

[Lone Star]

If Trump didn't fully cooperate, that would have made Mueller's obstruction case for him.

Trump didn't steal any horses, but we think he thought about it. Trump talked about stealing horses, but never did it. Then Trump had the nerve to object to being hanged for something he didn't do.

That's what all this is.

[tamada]

^ Yes, wishful thinking. That's all it is.

Just like the Access Hollywood locker-room style conversation that came up pre-election. He never actually grabbed any p***y. He just talked about it.

[Lone Star]

Bobby Boy Mueller might want to rethink his testifying. There will be a lot of NEW and interesting questions for him regarding his failure to look toward "the other side" and their efforts to recruit Russians to affect US elections. Two weeks to go until the testimony, and lots happening.

Bobby Boy has put himself in a trickbag.

[Lone Star]

Bobby Boy has another problem.

But now you know why the AP and other large media aren't reporting on it. THEY WERE INVOLVED WITH THE LEAKS. They would have to tell on themselves.