North Korea and US politics

[mack341]

The Swedes are independent-minded people who will not kowtow to anyone, let alone adjust their judicial system because of a call from Mr T. They will go through the due process and follow the laws, unlike Mr T as one of his sycophants publicly said on Faux News at the time about the Supreme Court and the census question:

Hogan Gidley from the White House made a startling admission to Fox News host, Bill Hemmer. He said the president said: "Listen, I'm not going to be beholden to courts anymore. I have the legal authority to find out this information. The American people deserve to know it, so I'm moving forward with this method. "

I wouldn't expect them to change their judgement process [deciding whether someone is innocent or guilty] but to speed up the outcome, I think it's a case of assault...unless it's so bad that prison time is on the cards...I'd expect a guilty plea and then a fine. And now trump has gone public and posted about it on twitter, he'll have to carry on trying to 'help'...

Courts can be corrupt, especially if there is no jury trial, bear in mind a govt pays the judge's salary and select's the judges in the first place [plus also decides which cases they reside over]

A bit like a premier football ref, if he gets too many decisions 'wrong', suddenly he's refereeing the championship and 2nd division games, judges are clever enough to know the desired outcome and consult with others around the law and consequences.

Some cases stick in my mind as peculiar, Barry george being one, falsely convicted of killing susan dando but not entitled to compensation for being unfairy locked up for many years because he was judged 'not innocent enough' And the assange trials seem a bit predetermined too, and in my book he's being detained now for something not related to the original accusation, he went on the run through fear of being extradited to the US by sweden.

I think the US/UK deep state's transatlantic alliance has long reach into other countries internal affairs, but obviously this rapper case would have no interest to them.

 

[goatwack]

Seems that "Swedish but British really" tanker 'seized' by those dastardly Iranians is really a good set-up for heightened escalations pre-war.

I just hope the Indian, Russian, Latvian & Filipino crew members are ok

 

[mack341]

Just caught a few clips of the mueller testimony, but the fat guy sitting behind him with the constant, disrespectful look of disdain on his face is ruining it for me, I saw some very good questions from rep jim jordan though that mueller declined to answer.

 

[vorcirion]

Just caught a few clips of the mueller testimony, but the fat guy sitting behind him with the constant, disrespectful look of disdain on his face is ruining it for me, I saw some very good questions from rep jim jordan though that mueller declined to answer.

So did Trump obstruct justice in your opinion?

 

[mack341]

So did Trump obstruct justice in your opinion?

since he became president? No I'd say, mueller was able to interview whoever he wanted etc.. and go where the evidence led him.

Although I think the collusion narrative is false, and the whole mueller investigation an attempted hit job on Trump, I can't help liking mueller, he's very much old school but in this testimony he is at times coming across a bit doddery and forgetful.

I think putin/the russian govt may have said to a few oligarchs 'do you think you could try and help trump's campaign through social media' and then the oligarchs paid people to post negative stuff/memes about hillary, which was already in the public domain, but this would help amplify it.

I think that's the extent of russian interference; the hacking of the dnc was either a whistleblower or a clever inside/deep state operation to try and frame russia as an insurance policy later on if Trump were to win, and hopefully it'd be at least enough to prevent trump winning in 2020. [as it is very common for a sitting president to be re elected] which is exactly how the narrative has been used by the msm [often the mouth piece of the deep state/establishment] to damage trump as the benefactor of the hacking. Really it should've been bernie sanders who benefitted from the hacking.

I get that people like Mueller dislike and believe trump is unfit to hold the highest office and be the president, a real estate mogul who's been up to all sorts of trickster behaviour over the years, but they should have beaten him on the policy arguments, won the public over, if they couldn't then they've gone too far in the wrong direction and also want to push further along that way with extreme identity politics. Which don't address the issues people are most concerned about day to day, in my mind it's a diversion away from tackling things like crime and drug addiction, overseas wars and govt debt, they'll all carry on unchanged and unchallenged while open borders etc.. is advocated noon to night.

 

[vorcirion]

since he became president? No I'd say, mueller was able to interview whoever he wanted etc.. and go where the evidence led him.

Although I think the collusion narrative is false, and the whole mueller investigation an attempted hit job on Trump, I can't help liking mueller, he's very much old school but in this testimony he is at times coming across a bit doddery and forgetful.

I think putin/the russian govt may have said to a few oligarchs 'do you think you could try and help trump's campaign through social media' and then the oligarchs paid people to post negative stuff/memes about hillary, which was already in the public domain, but this would help amplify it.

I think that's the extent of russian interference; the hacking of the dnc was either a whistleblower or a clever inside/deep state operation to try and frame russia as an insurance policy later on if Trump were to win, and hopefully it'd be at least enough to prevent trump winning in 2020. [as it is very common for a sitting president to be re elected] which is exactly how the narrative has been used by the msm [often the mouth piece of the deep state/establishment] to damage trump as the benefactor of the hacking. Really it should've been bernie sanders who benefitted from the hacking.

I get that people like Mueller dislike and believe trump is unfit to hold the highest office and be the president, a real estate mogul who's been up to all sorts of trickster behaviour over the years, but they should have beaten him on the policy arguments, won the public over, if they couldn't then they've gone too far in the wrong direction and also want to push further along that way with extreme identity politics. Which don't address the issues people are most concerned about day to day, in my mind it's a diversion away from tackling things like crime and drug addiction, overseas wars and govt debt, they'll all carry on unchanged and unchallenged while open borders etc.. is advocated noon to night.

He wasn't able to interview Trump. And attempting to fire Mueller is also obstruction of justice. Trump asking people to lie for him is also obstruction of justice. I mean what kind of innocent man does that?

I don't understand how you come up with these crazy theories of yours...with this hacking of dnc being deep state operation etc. It sounds completely ridiculous you know.

 

[Steviedoo]

since he became president? No I'd say, mueller was able to interview whoever he wanted etc.. and go where the evidence led him.

Although I think the collusion narrative is false, and the whole mueller investigation an attempted hit job on Trump, I can't help liking mueller, he's very much old school but in this testimony he is at times coming across a bit doddery and forgetful.

I think putin/the russian govt may have said to a few oligarchs 'do you think you could try and help trump's campaign through social media' and then the oligarchs paid people to post negative stuff/memes about hillary, which was already in the public domain, but this would help amplify it.

I think that's the extent of russian interference; the hacking of the dnc was either a whistleblower or a clever inside/deep state operation to try and frame russia as an insurance policy later on if Trump were to win, and hopefully it'd be at least enough to prevent trump winning in 2020. [as it is very common for a sitting president to be re elected] which is exactly how the narrative has been used by the msm [often the mouth piece of the deep state/establishment] to damage trump as the benefactor of the hacking. Really it should've been bernie sanders who benefitted from the hacking.

I get that people like Mueller dislike and believe trump is unfit to hold the highest office and be the president, a real estate mogul who's been up to all sorts of trickster behaviour over the years, but they should have beaten him on the policy arguments, won the public over, if they couldn't then they've gone too far in the wrong direction and also want to push further along that way with extreme identity politics. Which don't address the issues people are most concerned about day to day, in my mind it's a diversion away from tackling things like crime and drug addiction, overseas wars and govt debt, they'll all carry on unchanged and unchallenged while open borders etc.. is advocated noon to night.

Hit job...hoax....all words mr trump has used to describe. He has managed to dictate the narrative.


“If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." - Special Counsel Robert Mueller

Mr mueller has clearly stated that the report does not exonerate the president. That there were many instances of obstruction. He testified this morning to this effect.

Some testimony moments below. #

Schiff: “I gather you believe knowingly accepting foreign assistance during a presidential campaign is an unethical thing to do.”
Mueller: “And a crime in given circumstances."
Schiff: "...also unpatriotic."
Mueller: "True."
——————
Richmond: "So it's fair to say the president tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?"

Mueller: "I would say that's generally the summary."
————
SCHIFF: “Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
SCHIFF: “And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”

 

[mack341]

He wasn't able to interview Trump. And attempting to fire Mueller is also obstruction of justice. Trump asking people to lie for him is also obstruction of justice. I mean what kind of innocent man does that?

I don't understand how you come up with these crazy theories of yours...with this hacking of dnc being deep state operation etc. It sounds completely ridiculous you know.

It's motive and opportunity, both those conditions are met regarding my 'ridiculous theories' about the dnc hack; I think it was more likely a whistleblower, that's how wikileaks gets it's material through leaks not cyber hacking as far as I'm aware, you may know differently?

Also Bill Binney, former technical director of the NSA no less, has questioned the 'hacking' narrative regarding the dnc server, the authorities never got their own experts to study the server but accepted the findings of a dnc hired cyber security firm. [crowdstrike, which also just happens to be founded and led by a former russian]

" In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017, former FBI Director James Comey admitted that he did not insist on physical access to the DNC computers even though, as he conceded, “best practices” dictate direct access. "

That doesn't sound odd to you on such a serious international issue you choose not to follow best practice?

I haven't read the mueller report but if the obstruction is as clear as you seem to believe then why hasn't Trump been arrested/impeached for it?

PS. I doubt you want to engage in a proper discussion, you just want to attack Trump at all costs. I'm prepared to criticize him on substantial, important issues and not this made up soap opera plot.

 

[goatwack]

It's motive and opportunity, both those conditions are met regarding my 'ridiculous theories' about the dnc hack; I think it was more likely a whistleblower, that's how wikileaks gets it's material through leaks not cyber hacking as far as I'm aware, you may know differently?

Also Bill Binney, former technical director of the NSA no less, has questioned the 'hacking' narrative regarding the dnc server, the authorities never got their own experts to study the server but accepted the findings of a dnc hired cyber security firm. [crowdstrike, which also just happens to be founded and led by a former russian]

" In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017, former FBI Director James Comey admitted that he did not insist on physical access to the DNC computers even though, as he conceded, “best practices” dictate direct access. "

That doesn't sound odd to you on such a serious international issue you choose not to follow best practice?

I haven't read the mueller report but if the obstruction is as clear as you seem to believe then why hasn't Trump been arrested/impeached for it?

PS. I doubt you want to engage in a proper discussion, you just want to attack Trump at all costs. I'm prepared to criticize him on substantial, important issues and not this made up soap opera plot.

I hear the Brexit thread is a gentler take on this one

 

[mack341]

Hit job...hoax....all words mr trump has used to describe. He has managed to dictate the narrative.


“If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." - Special Counsel Robert Mueller

Mr mueller has clearly stated that the report does not exonerate the president. That there were many instances of obstruction. He testified this morning to this effect.

Some testimony moments below. #

Schiff: “I gather you believe knowingly accepting foreign assistance during a presidential campaign is an unethical thing to do.”
Mueller: “And a crime in given circumstances."
Schiff: "...also unpatriotic."
Mueller: "True."
——————
Richmond: "So it's fair to say the president tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?"

Mueller: "I would say that's generally the summary."
————
SCHIFF: “Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
SCHIFF: “And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”

Why didn't the 'russians' who trump jnr and kushner met, actually have any info to help trump? Have you never heard of a honeypot trap?

Yes trump was willing to campaign dirty, he's only got himself to blame in many ways for all this carry on. Russian oligarchs have business links all over the world, especially in things like real estate assets, it would be surprising if trump's team never crossed paths with any, perhaps offering donations...Trump's also so greedy and devious he didn't want to use/waste his own money on the tv adverts if he could find others to spend their wealth on it etc...

The christopher steele dossier, which conveniently mueller refused to discuss, was also foreign interference with many of the sources being russian...is that okay, to fund foreign based spys/intel to create a fake dossier and then use it in an election campaign?

 

[vorcirion]

It's motive and opportunity, both those conditions are met regarding my 'ridiculous theories' about the dnc hack; I think it was more likely a whistleblower, that's how wikileaks gets it's material through leaks not cyber hacking as far as I'm aware, you may know differently?

Also Bill Binney, former technical director of the NSA no less, has questioned the 'hacking' narrative regarding the dnc server, the authorities never got their own experts to study the server but accepted the findings of a dnc hired cyber security firm. [crowdstrike, which also just happens to be founded and led by a former russian]

" In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017, former FBI Director James Comey admitted that he did not insist on physical access to the DNC computers even though, as he conceded, “best practices” dictate direct access. "

That doesn't sound odd to you on such a serious international issue you choose not to follow best practice?

I haven't read the mueller report but if the obstruction is as clear as you seem to believe then why hasn't Trump been arrested/impeached for it?

PS. I doubt you want to engage in a proper discussion, you just want to attack Trump at all costs. I'm prepared to criticize him on substantial, important issues and not this made up soap opera plot.

You say you haven't read the mueller report...but he was testifying about it! You obviously were listening or did you press the mute button when democrats asked questions? Mueller confirmed the things democrats were asking about. And it was about obstruction of justice. I don't understand why breaking the law isn't in your opinion a substantial/important issue.
Trump hasn't been arrested 'cause he's the president. Otherwise he'd be in jail already. Impeachment is a political matter and Pelosi has obviously decided that it's not the thing to do.

 

[mack341]

Hit job...hoax....all words mr trump has used to describe. He has managed to dictate the narrative.


“If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." - Special Counsel Robert Mueller

Mr mueller has clearly stated that the report does not exonerate the president. That there were many instances of obstruction. He testified this morning to this effect.

Some testimony moments below. #

Schiff: “I gather you believe knowingly accepting foreign assistance during a presidential campaign is an unethical thing to do.”
Mueller: “And a crime in given circumstances."
Schiff: "...also unpatriotic."
Mueller: "True."
——————
Richmond: "So it's fair to say the president tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?"

Mueller: "I would say that's generally the summary."
————
SCHIFF: “Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
SCHIFF: “And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”

I didn't say hoax, I might have used that word before, but to be accurate it is more of a hit job. The russians hacking the dnc server could amount to a hoax narrative but we'll never know as a 'direct hands-on' independent investigation by govt officials and experts wasn't carried out at the time.

Apparently Prosecutor's never exonerate people they decide not to prosecute due to the presumption of innocence, that came up in the hearing but mueller declined to discuss it. It wasn't part of his brief to exonerate trump, mueller seems to want it both ways "trump was naughty" but it didn't amount to a crime you could trial him over?

 

[mack341]

You say you haven't read the mueller report...but he was testifying about it! You obviously were listening or did you press the mute button when democrats asked questions? Mueller confirmed the things democrats were asking about. And it was about obstruction of justice. I don't understand why breaking the law isn't in your opinion a substantial/important issue.
Trump hasn't been arrested 'cause he's the president. Otherwise he'd be in jail already. Impeachment is a political matter and Pelosi has obviously decided that it's not the thing to do.

impeachment is the equivalent process to remove someone from office, it's obviously more than a political matter if he's obstructed and broke the law...so why has she decided it's not the thing to do, she's the leader of the team you support, hasn't she deemed to say why? Plus wasn't there an impeachment vote the other week, which failed?

Well Mueller was hardly saying anything, you can be 'testifying' and just repeat yourself. most of the time he didn't seem to know any of the details, very unsure of the passages being read out to him, as if he was terrified of being trapped on a point that doesn't make sense when examined. The democrat bits I saw were mostly them trying to blow smoke up his *ss, there was no attempt to delve deeper or query things.

 

[mack341]

I don't understand why breaking the law isn't in your opinion a substantial/important issue.

Well it obviously isn't for your leader, pelosi, your ire should be aimed more at her than me? You should really be asking 'I don't know why breaking the law isn't a substantial/important issue to nancy pelosi and the senior democrats'

 

[TheAddict]

Sorry for the relentless bombardment of alerts Mack. just came in to like your posts. I threw in a WTG to mix it up.

 

[mack341]

Sorry for the relentless bombardment of alerts Mack. just came in to like your posts. I threw in a WTG to mix it up.

It can be very lonely on this thread, even for a lukewarm defender of trump and conservatives, I appreciate any likes or emoji thrown my way, including an odd angry one or two from vorcirion

 

[goatwack]

Sorry for the relentless bombardment of alerts Mack. just came in to like your posts. I threw in a WTG to mix it up.

I'm triggered by that

REEEEEEEEEEEE

 

[imanorange]

Usually, I don't like to talk politics but I'd like to throw my 2 pennies in this thread

The mass manipulation going on is unprecedented. There has been a hidden war going on since Trump took office. Never in the known history of America has the country been BOTH so divided and patriotic at the same time.

The entire narrative is a pack of jumbled lies and disinformation. As the old saying goes, "follow the money" and suggest going back to how America started and weave your way forward. If you get your fill there, go back another couple hundred years, etc.

I'm neither Democrat or Republican I stand for freedom of thought and truth. People should pay the piper in this World for their wrongdoings no matter who they are. Everyone should have the same opportunities and respect to believe whatever and do as they wish as long as it's not destructive. This socialist agenda is horrifying but if you look at history you'd be surprised of

Pelosi is just a puppet of the real power and that is who controls the cash. Tell me one good thing that horrid woman has done for the USA and indeed the World that has a lasting positive impact. The bitch has been in power for decades and yet she blames Trump for all the problems and what has her agenda been? What has she accomplished the last 4, 6 or 8 years besides stuffing her own pockets? Please stop listening to the lies on mainstream news and do your own digging.

Trump is not all "peaches and cream" but he sure as hell is better than the witch Hilary. I mean "witch" in the true sense of the word. It's fully documented what she stands for along with her daughter. Just Google both of them in images and look closely specifically at jewelry and mannerisms. Symbolism is key. Her manipulation has been a fact for decades to those who get the news in more unconventional ways. Bill, her husband well we all know what he likes and it's probably worse too. It wouldn't surprise me.

The thing I fear the most is the future of things after Trump is gone or even worse. This is one big wildcard.

My main point is to learn about the news of the World on your own as the truth is hard to come by but it still exists. You just have to dig for it. I have lived and stay in Asia since I was 18 years old for a reason and that is a better sense of freedom. It sounds crazy but it's the honest truth. With that said, Asia is starting to turn in as yet unknown direction.

The corruption here is mind-blowingly transparent unlike that in the West. At least one knows where they stand. Cheers and nothing personal all.

PS - Just call me the Yank Nutter

 

[slotplayer]

The democrats just handed "The Donald" the 2020 election and if they continue the impeachment non-sense, the GOP the 2024 election.

 

[mack341]

This thread will get lively soon again but I'm off to watch tucker now, he'll have a field day with today's events...

 

[imanorange]

View attachment 111707

This thread will get lively soon again but I'm off to watch tucker now, he'll have a field day with today's events...

He's the only commentator I any station I'll watch on YouTube with no commercials. They probably ban his broadcasts soon enough. Does anybody remember when he wore a bow tie? lol

Like Trump or not it's impressive the number of actions and impact he has had in many spectrums. To what end and the ultimate impact is difficult to tell. His popularity is much like a rock star as he packs out the rallies and has a true pulse on many people. It's amazing how much the so-called news goes out of its way to make him look bad. They won't report ANYTHING good he does or says across the globe. They all parrot the same talking points which in of itself says everything to me.

The thing that impressed me most about him was the speech he made at the United Nations (The symbolism in the chambers, the building, and its deeds is astonishing). He told the globalists how things should be with each country controlling its own destiny among other things which I agree with which encompasses individual freedoms. The globalists and everyone in the place literally laughed at him as they do the masses of people buying into their so-called benevolence and mission of peace. Read no further than the UN charter along with their horrifying "agendas". My question is who elected them to rule the planet?

For those interested, read Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma written around 150 years ago. Try and get a copy printed before 1969. If you find that interesting explore his history and the rabbit hole goes very deep.

 

[mack341]

He's the only commentator I any station I'll watch on YouTube with no commercials. They probably ban his broadcasts soon enough. Does anybody remember when he wore a bow tie? lol

Like Trump or not it's impressive the number of actions and impact he has had in many spectrums. To what end and the ultimate impact is difficult to tell. His popularity is much like a rock star as he packs out the rallies and has a true pulse on many people. It's amazing how much the so-called news goes out of its way to make him look bad. They won't report ANYTHING good he does or says across the globe. They all parrot the same talking points which in of itself says everything to me.

The thing that impressed me most about him was the speech he made at the United Nations (The symbolism in the chambers, the building, and its deeds is astonishing). He told the globalists how things should be with each country controlling its own destiny among other things which I agree with which encompasses individual freedoms. The globalists and everyone in the place literally laughed at him as they do the masses of people buying into their so-called benevolence and mission of peace. Read no further than the UN charter along with their horrifying "agendas". My question is who elected them to rule the planet?

For those interested, read Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma written around 150 years ago. Try and get a copy printed before 1969. If you find that interesting explore his history and the rabbit hole goes very deep.

Yes the freemasonry role in world events is very interesting, they generally hold positions of great responsibility and power in society and then they go off and meet in secret with other masons and do rituals and initiations...very odd, and disturbing how it's generally accepted by the msm as just an innocent hobby that has zero influence or affects outside the lodge

I wax and wane on the occult side of things in terms of world events, sometimes I think it may play an important role, at other times I think things are just about pure greed and power. The symbolism on the back of a dollar bill [ from the great seal of the united states] is certainly strange:

Edit: I do remember seeing tucker with the bow tie, shame he's totally binned it but wearing one does invite ridicule, he's got a lot of credibility now for basically being an old school/common sense republican. In the uk it's getting harder to find his full show on youtube, it must get deleted very quickly. Laura ingraham is okay, and lou dobbs and stu varney are decent old school presenters too.

 

[imanorange]

Yes the freemasonry role in world events is very interesting, they generally hold positions of great responsibility and power in society and then they go off and meet in secret with other masons and do rituals and initiations...very odd, and disturbing how it's generally accepted by the msm as just an innocent hobby that has zero influence or affects outside the lodge

I wax and wane on the occult side of things in terms of world events, sometimes I think it may play an important role, at other times I think things are just about pure greed and power. The symbolism on the back of a dollar bill [ from the great seal of the united states] is certainly strange:

View attachment 111713

A big piece of an all-encompassing puzzle. The symbolism on the dollar bill has a lot of meaning surrounding the Novus ordo seclorum (Order of the Ages or New World Order). Who was it that coined that phrase? Oh our good buddy George H.W. Bush, he wouldn't hurt a fly. The Latin means to nod or give approval of the commencement. There are a lot of pieces if you look at none other than F.D.R and his affinity for the occult re Manly P. Hall....and... It goes on forever but hey its only coincidence, the books they wrote, what inspired them, and the people they surrounded is meaningless.

Low and behold look who donated the land for the United Nations, what an amazing person this must be. The center of everything is in your photo.

Cheers and by the way, North Korea is still a key piece on the chessboard, it will be interesting to see how its played out.

Also, here's a nice family piece of artwork in the council chambers of the UN.....

 

[Steviedoo]

Why didn't the 'russians' who trump jnr and kushner met, actually have any info to help trump? Have you never heard of a honeypot trap?

Yes trump was willing to campaign dirty, he's only got himself to blame in many ways for all this carry on. Russian oligarchs have business links all over the world, especially in things like real estate assets, it would be surprising if trump's team never crossed paths with any, perhaps offering donations...Trump's also so greedy and devious he didn't want to use/waste his own money on the tv adverts if he could find others to spend their wealth on it etc...

The christopher steele dossier, which conveniently mueller refused to discuss, was also foreign interference with many of the sources being russian...is that okay, to fund foreign based spys/intel to create a fake dossier and then use it in an election campaign?

Fake dossier. Anything else?

 

[sapit222]

Hope they will put trump in his little man (solitary confinement) cave soon.

 

[mack341]

Fake dossier. Anything else?

It's a pretty big issue by itself but how about...msm bias 24/7..all the pieces of the puzzle are there for a bent system which doesn't serve the people.

 

[imanorange]

It's a pretty big issue by itself but how about...msm bias 24/7..all the pieces of the puzzle are there for a bent system which doesn't serve the people.

Amazing how Mueller didn't wish to answer anything in that most important piece in this tangled web of babbling bullshit. He looked pretty confused when even asked about what Fusion GPS is among many other important details. It doesn't look like the man lead the investigation based on his recent testimony. The prominence in his name and respect in the intelligence community might have been used by a third party who knows YET.

If anybody has read the transcripts of Page and Sctruk (Spelling unsure) and takes their conversations at face value, then you have some serious potential implications (re Obama himself). Not to mention how Mueller and his team conveniently deleted the messages on the phone. Which in itself is at the least tampering with evidence others may go as far as treason.

The interesting thing about Mueller in my mind is the prior history (head of the FBI during 9/11, Epstein situation, and now) Imagine if even some of the rumors are true and tie that together with the above. Personally, I don't believe in coincidences.

I hope the truth comes to light no matter what that may be. One thing is for sure the truth is certainly stranger than fiction these days. Knowing what the truth may actually be is more so. I certainly don't believe what is spewed in the media.

One final thought, if I had children going to school these days I'd be reading their school books myself to see the garbage being taught to them.

 

[mack341]

Just what I've been thinking that mueller was used as a figurehead for the investigation, because of his persona/status etc.. but it was more the odd balls sat behind him that did the investigation.

Not sure mueller would be involved in the epstein shenanigans, he doesn't look the sleezy type. He may have taken this job on from a long standing dislike of trump, as FBI director etc.. he'd probably know more about high profile individuals like trump, what they'd been up to over the years, so maybe just a moral distaste.

They're roughly the same age 73&74, mueller looks more presidential than trump and probably put in more public service, incl vietnam unlike trump, maybe he resents an upstart like trump getting to be president? I'm not anti trump like the msm and far left but just trying to coldly analyse the possible factors at play, why mueller was keen to get on board with this but yesterday looked not so keen.

Didn't know about the deletion of the messages, surely that's tampering with evidence of potential corruption ?

IMO folk who think everything you see on the surface is all there is to see are a bit naive, 'deep state' may sound over dramatic or from a hollywood script, the 'establishment' or 'elite' is an alternative term, but obviously they don't do all the legwork of spying, assassinating, blackmailing, planting evidence etc.. you need undercover operatives to do this.

 

[imanorange]

Just what I've been thinking that mueller was used as a figurehead for the investigation, because of his persona/status etc.. but it was more the odd balls sat behind him that did the investigation.

Not sure mueller would be involved in the epstein shenanigans, he doesn't look the sleezy type. He may have taken this job on from a long standing dislike of trump, as FBI director etc.. he'd probably know more about high profile individuals like trump, what they'd been up to over the years, so maybe just a moral distaste.

They're roughly the same age 73&74, mueller looks more presidential than trump and probably put in more public service, incl vietnam unlike trump, maybe he resents an upstart like trump getting to be president? I'm not anti trump like the msm and far left but just trying to coldly analyse the possible factors at play, why mueller was keen to get on board with this but yesterday looked not so keen.

Didn't know about the deletion of the messages, surely that's tampering with evidence of potential corruption ?

IMO folk who think everything you see on the surface is all there is to see are a bit naive, 'deep state' may sound over dramatic or from a hollywood script, the 'establishment' or 'elite' is an alternative term, but obviously they don't do all the legwork of spying, assassinating, blackmailing, planting evidence etc.. you need undercover operatives to do this.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I don't think Mueller was involved in the Epstein wickedness and the very creepy Little St. James island. I do think he looked the other way being the FBI director at the time. Plus too many things are either sealed or had not been investigated.

Without a doubt, he has first-hand knowledge of everything that went on including the high ranking officials, VIPs, and the whole trafficking ring. That's a whole other matter and I'll just leave it at that. It's horrifying for me to even think about.

If you do some digging, you will find that its on record the text messages on I believe it was Strutk's phone had been deleted. However, there are copies of them via the NSA (wonder how that happened? lol). You'll also find high ranking officials statements and I believe it was reported but buried. Of course, it wasn't reported in the mainstream which is a shocker (gag).

There are some really heroic investigative reporters still out there and others seeking truth who wish to stay anonymous but they are excellent at getting the word out there. I say heroic because quite a few go silent....forever...

Here is what I believe in a nutshell. We have all been lied to and manipulated for centuries even longer. History is constantly re-written to suit agendas both past and present. It's up to us to seek the truth and learn from it then pass that on to the people we love.

Please do not believe me or what you are reading here. The only way for you to believe is to find out for yourself.

 

[Steviedoo]

We have now entered another dimension on this thread....

 

[mack341]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I don't think Mueller was involved in the Epstein wickedness and the very creepy Little St. James island. I do think he looked the other way being the FBI director at the time. Plus too many things are either sealed or had not been investigated.

Without a doubt, he has first-hand knowledge of everything that went on including the high ranking officials, VIPs, and the whole trafficking ring. That's a whole other matter and I'll just leave it at that. It's horrifying for me to even think about.

If you do some digging, you will find that its on record the text messages on I believe it was Strutk's phone had been deleted. However, there are copies of them via the NSA (wonder how that happened? lol). You'll also find high ranking officials statements and I believe it was reported but buried. Of course, it wasn't reported in the mainstream which is a shocker (gag).

There are some really heroic investigative reporters still out there and others seeking truth who wish to stay anonymous but they are excellent at getting the word out there. I say heroic because quite a few go silent....forever...

Here is what I believe in a nutshell. We have all been lied to and manipulated for centuries even longer. History is constantly re-written to suit agendas both past and present. It's up to us to seek the truth and learn from it then pass that on to the people we love.

Please do not believe me or what you are reading here. The only way for you to believe is to find out for yourself.

Yes that is true re Mueller, how much of the bad stuff did he turn a blind eye to over the years as head of the FBI. I'd like to think he's an honourable man and not compromised but who knows. This is another problem with the 'free press' it doesn't or is not able to delve deeply into things. Gary webb was one good investigative journalist, investigating and writing about the links between the CIA and drug trade which also links into the iran-contra afffair under reagan and colonel oliver north, Webb commited 'suicide' in 2004 with two gunshots to the head...

The oklahoma bombing passed me by at the time, I assumed it was as the press here in the uk reported it...but a few years ago read about the hero cop terrance yeakey, who was the first officer on the scene, and went into the building after the bomb and rescued survivors..his subsequent suicide seems very suspicious to me, the wounds he had suffered etc..

Suspecting how evil and corrupt some in authority can be I look at most things with a sceptical eye, if you're prepared to start and wage war and kill a million, maybe more over lies [and get away with it] then what's a building or two...that's the moral spectrum we're dealing with.

It's getting harder to find out things for yourself, in a way the msm with how they present things, thinly disguised embedded bias, reveals to me the real truth or underlying agenda. You have to read between the lines all the time, it's tiresome though not to be able to open a paper and just trust what's written as truthful and honest.

 

[mack341]

We have now entered another dimension on this thread....

We're just having a nice little conspiracy conflab...feel free to join in

 

[Steviedoo]

Lying Sarah huckabee sanders
“ Didn’t take long for Mueller to once again vindicate President @realDonaldTrump. No collusion. No obstruction. And now Mueller all but admits it was all along a total witch hunt”


This is why the republicans are so hated from the left....it is the outright lies. They send out the soldiers and spread these lies and the general public who haven’t watched the mueller testimony believe them.

 

[imanorange]

We have now entered another dimension on this thread....

Not only of sight and sound but of mind....... Even Rod Serling would be amazed

Yes that is true re Mueller, how much of the bad stuff did he turn a blind eye to over the years as head of the FBI. I'd like to think he's an honourable man and not compromised but who knows. This is another problem with the 'free press' it doesn't or is not able to delve deeply into things. Gary webb was one good investigative journalist, investigating and writing about the links between the CIA and drug trade which also links into the iran-contra afffair under reagan and colonel oliver north, Webb commited 'suicide' in 2004 with two gunshots to the head...

The oklahoma bombing passed me by at the time, I assumed it was as the press here in the uk reported it...but a few years ago read about the hero cop terrance yeakey, who was the first officer on the scene, and went into the building after the bomb and rescued survivors..his subsequent suicide seems very suspicious to me, the wounds he had suffered etc..

Suspecting how evil and corrupt some in authority can be I look at most things with a sceptical eye, if you're prepared to start and wage war and kill a million, maybe more over lies [and get away with it] then what's a building or two...that's the moral spectrum we're dealing with.

It's getting harder to find out things for yourself, in a way the msm with how they present things, thinly disguised embedded bias, reveals to me the real truth or underlying agenda. You have to read between the lines all the time, it's tiresome though not to be able to open a paper and just trust what's written as truthful and honest.

Even if none of this is true or ever half-true there are still people out there that engage in depravities none of us can imagine. I believe a lot of it might be brought into the public arena with the Epstein situation if he stays alive long enough. Of course, they will leave out the occult aspect like they always do in mainstream news.

For the record, I don't want to believe a word of anything I've written here and I've tried to discredit it and shun away from it for most of my life. Nobody can run away from the truth especially when it's right in your face. Let's just say I was taught at a very early age. That said I get reminded everywhere I look these days. There is still real information and news these days but it is getting more difficult to dig up.

I shall suggest the best way to start is by reading "Behold A Pale Horse" by William (Bill) W. Cooper. He predicted Waco Texas, The Oklahoma City Bombing and several others. By far the most notable was 9/11, he predicted who and where. This prediction and ALL the others were witnessed by millions of people on live radio. He had a brilliant radio show known as the "Hour Of The Time". He was shot several times on his front doorstep 7-8 weeks after the twin towers had been hit by Arizona Police. You can still listen to his radio show recordings for free. I think YouTube still has some but I know many are gone.

By searching him, you will be able to find forums and people just looking for real information in the "truther" community. None of them want to sell you a book, join a website or wish for any money. For example, a guy like David Icke will do your head in. You will find some good investigative reporters with proper credentials along with millions of everyday people who seek knowledge and share it.

The truth is indeed stranger than fiction making the Twilight Zone look like Amateur Hour.

 

[mrhowwoll]

Not even a month old so wouldn't call it "archives" but thanks for your valued input. Really!

But I'm like it's N Korea. What else could u expect more than banning system?

 

[mack341]

Not only of sight and sound but of mind....... Even Rod Serling would be amazed



Even if none of this is true or ever half-true there are still people out there that engage in depravities none of us can imagine. I believe a lot of it might be brought into the public arena with the Epstein situation if he stays alive long enough. Of course, they will leave out the occult aspect like they always do in mainstream news.

For the record, I don't want to believe a word of anything I've written here and I've tried to discredit it and shun away from it for most of my life. Nobody can run away from the truth especially when it's right in your face. Let's just say I was taught at a very early age. That said I get reminded everywhere I look these days. There is still real information and news these days but it is getting more difficult to dig up.

I shall suggest the best way to start is by reading "Behold A Pale Horse" by William (Bill) W. Cooper. He predicted Waco Texas, The Oklahoma City Bombing and several others. By far the most notable was 9/11, he predicted who and where. This prediction and ALL the others were witnessed by millions of people on live radio. He had a brilliant radio show known as the "Hour Of The Time". He was shot several times on his front doorstep 7-8 weeks after the twin towers had been hit by Arizona Police. You can still listen to his radio show recordings for free. I think YouTube still has some but I know many are gone.

By searching him, you will be able to find forums and people just looking for real information in the "truther" community. None of them want to sell you a book, join a website or wish for any money. For example, a guy like David Icke will do your head in. You will find some good investigative reporters with proper credentials along with millions of everyday people who seek knowledge and share it.

The truth is indeed stranger than fiction making the Twilight Zone look like Amateur Hour.

I've listened on youtube to everyone you've mentioned so far bill cooper, manly P. [also jordan maxwell too though don't know whether to take him seriously ] I didn't know bill predicted those things...he had some sort of patriot network he created for info sharing...but it was terrible the way his life was ended, effectively murdered by the police [and he'd served in the navy in vietnam I think?] I wonder what he'd made of trump?

Tried to listen to manly p's lectures many times but keep falling asleep Dr john coleman's committee of 300 is also worth a listen [on utube].

I find the esoteric stuff interesting up to how much my brain can assimilate and make sense of it. From the year 1900 to 2000 there seems to be a lot of writers and individuals discussing these things, the changes in society etc...[even mainstream writers like wells and huxley are writing on the same subject, wells wrote a book in 1940 'the new world order' advocating for it but not from the conspiracy angle.]

But since 2000 onwards I'd say there hasn't been the same level of activity by writers etc.. to explore the unseen machinations of govt and things like freemasonry. There's no new research, all the avenues have been closed down and information more closely guarded. There's the bildeberger meetings, but no real writers/investigators exploring it.

With some of the movers and shakers like david rockefeller dying off, maybe the drive towards a new world order/global govt will slow down?

 

[mack341]

Lying Sarah huckabee sanders
“ Didn’t take long for Mueller to once again vindicate President @realDonaldTrump. No collusion. No obstruction. And now Mueller all but admits it was all along a total witch hunt”


This is why the republicans are so hated from the left....it is the outright lies. They send out the soldiers and spread these lies and the general public who haven’t watched the mueller testimony believe them.

I'm not sure there was obstruction if there was no collusion, logically you'd have to have the latter occur in order for the former to then be possible. Vorcirion mentioned trump refused to be interviewed by mueller, but seeing what happened to general flynn I'm not so sure that wasn't just a sensible precaution by trump.

With all the witnesses and documents etc.. the mueller investigation had access to, they should've been able to determine collusion regardless.

"

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities"

Apparently the russian solicitor who met with trump jnr and kushner, seperately met somebody linked to fusion gps/democrats the day before the trump meeting and the day after, but mueller's team took no interest in this? Does that sound even handed to you? [fusion gps was the firm behind the steele dossier]

 

[vorcirion]

I'm not sure there was obstruction if there was no collusion, logically you'd have to have the latter occur in order for the former to then be possible. Vorcirion mentioned trump refused to be interviewed by mueller, but seeing what happened to general flynn I'm not so sure that wasn't just a sensible precaution by trump.

With all the witnesses and documents etc.. the mueller investigation had access to, they should've been able to determine collusion regardless.

"

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities"

Apparently the russian solicitor who met with trump jnr and kushner, seperately met somebody linked to fusion gps/democrats the day before the trump meeting and the day after, but mueller's team took no interest in this? Does that sound even handed to you? [fusion gps was the firm behind the steele dossier]

What kind of logic is that? They are not related issues. Lying to the FBI is a crime...telling people to lie to the FBI is a crime. Trying to fire the guy who is investigating you is a crime. That doesn't need to have anything to do with russians or whatever. It's a simple issue. Use logic please.

And Mueller has said that there was no conspiracy. Trump and russians didn't work together. They must've worked separately for the same goal...to elect Trump so that's that and I can accept that.

 

[vorcirion]

And by the way...when russians want something...well Putin in this case (russian people seem like very decent people). It's probably not good for your country. Divide and conquer you know.

 

[goatwack]

How about N.Korea's tactical missiles 'test' a few days ago eh. Was gonna mention it here but didn't want to derail the thread

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

He (Trump) tweeted that Mr Kim "knows that I am with him and does not want to break his promise to me. It's a great promise. The best. The greatest promise ever made".

Ok so I added a couple of lines at the end there. Though it's hard to tell

 

[Steviedoo]

What kind of logic is that? They are not related issues. Lying to the FBI is a crime...telling people to lie to the FBI is a crime. Trying to fire the guy who is investigating you is a crime. That doesn't need to have anything to do with russians or whatever. It's a simple issue. Use logic please.

And Mueller has said that there was no conspiracy. Trump and russians didn't work together. They must've worked separately for the same goal...to elect Trump so that's that and I can accept that.

Logic? Facts go out the window.
Even when there is proof it is a lie....still they find an alternative reality.

 

[goatwack]

I guess wild conjecture, hearsay, and baseless accusations are today's version of 'facts'

Your word against mine. But it's ok, if they don't like someone it can become 'their truth'

Almost a term in and it's spectacular that some people actually still think it was "Ze Russians"

Funny how when Dubya The War Criminal cheated himself into office people dropped it after 5 minutes. Reeeeee

 

[imanorange]

How about N.Korea's tactical missiles 'test' a few days ago eh. Was gonna mention it here but didn't want to derail the thread

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

He (Trump) tweeted that Mr Kim "knows that I am with him and does not want to break his promise to me. It's a great promise. The best. The greatest promise ever made".

Ok so I added a couple of lines at the end there. Though it's hard to tell

As I mentioned previously, N. Korea is a key piece on the 3D chessboard and it looks like a move was made. I'd say this a brilliant distraction.

I believe one must ask the following at this point. Who has more at stake than anybody besides the democrats in the US elections?

The timing of this missile launch is impeccable which begs the question asked above. The answer is China.

 

[vorcirion]

As I mentioned previously, N. Korea is a key piece on the 3D chessboard and it looks like a move was made. I'd say this a brilliant distraction.

I believe one must ask the following at this point. Who has more at stake than anybody besides the democrats in the US elections?

The timing of this missile launch is impeccable which begs the question asked above. The answer is China.

View attachment 111786

I have to agree with you actually. Wouldn't surprise me if China started meddling in US elections to help the democrats since Trump and Moscow Mitch don't seem to care about election security. Good luck dealing with China/North Korea/Iran with no allies.

I wonder what kind of capabilities the chinese have compared to russians/US.

 

[mack341]

What kind of logic is that? They are not related issues. Lying to the FBI is a crime...telling people to lie to the FBI is a crime. Trying to fire the guy who is investigating you is a crime. That doesn't need to have anything to do with russians or whatever. It's a simple issue. Use logic please.

And Mueller has said that there was no conspiracy. Trump and russians didn't work together. They must've worked separately for the same goal...to elect Trump so that's that and I can accept that.

Why don't you go into these and provide the details. Save others the time of looking? Bit of consideration instead of always writing in shorthand. BTW the mysterious professor mifsud lied to the fbi but he was never charged, mueller didn't want to talk about that... ahh how convenient.

I was under the impression mueller said the president could sack him if he wanted to, I know that sounds odd, that the person being investigated can sack the investigator, but it must be a presidential power. Trump didn't need to 'try'

The Collusion and obstruction are related, if there was no crime of collusion then how can there be obstruction of justice by trump, muellers team was also packed with people who had links to the democrats, one had even donated to hillary's campaign. So maybe trump would've been in his rights to fire mueller and his team on that basis, perceived bias, but no he sat it out. [A 22 month investigation, that's a long time to have such a serious (but ultimately proven false) accusation pending over someone]

Lastly, If Trump has been as criminal as you imply, isn't pelosi obstructing justice by not launching impeachment proceedings?

 

[vorcirion]

Why don't you go into these and provide the details. Save others the time of looking? Bit of consideration instead of always writing in shorthand. BTW the mysterious professor mifsud lied to the fbi but he was never charged, mueller didn't want to talk about that... ahh how convenient.

I was under the impression mueller said the president could sack him if he wanted to, I know that sounds odd, that the person being investigated can sack the investigator, but it must be a presidential power. Trump didn't need to 'try'

The Collusion and obstruction are related, if there was no crime of collusion then how can there be obstruction of justice by trump, muellers team was also packed with people who had links to the democrats, one had even donated to hillary's campaign. So maybe trump would've been in his rights to fire mueller and his team on that basis, perceived bias, but no he sat it out.

Lastly, If Trump has been as criminal as you imply, isn't pelosi obstructing justice by not launching impeachment proceedings?

I thought you watched Mueller's testimony. Guess you just watched Tucker's version of it. But fine...here we go:

JACKSON LEE:

Your report also describes at least 10 separate instances of possible obstruction of justice that were investigated by you and your team, is that correct?

MUELLER:

Yes.

JACKSON LEE:

In fact, the table of contents serves as a very good guide of some of the acts of that obstruction of justice that you investigated. And I put it up on the screen. On page 157 of Volume 2, you describe those acts. And they range from the president's effort to curtail the special counsel's investigation, the president's further efforts to have the attorney general take over the investigation, the president orders Don McGahn to deny that the president tried to fire the special counsel, and many others, is that correct?

MUELLER:

Yes.

H. JOHNSON:

Director Mueller, I'd like to get us back on track here. Your investigation found that President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire you. Isn't that correct?

MUELLER:

True.

H. JOHNSON:

Now, I'd like to review what happened after the president was warned about obstructing justice. It's true that on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, the president dictated a press statement, stating he had, quote, "no intention of firing" you, correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

H. JOHNSON:

But the following day, June 14, the media reported for the first time that you were investigating the president for obstructing of justice, correct?

MUELLER:

That's correct.

H. JOHNSON:

And then, after learning for the first time that he was under investigation, the very next day, the president, quote, "issued a series of tweets acknowledging the existence of the obstruction investigation, and criticizing it." Isn't that correct?

MUELLER:

Generally so.

H. JOHNSON:

And then, on Saturday, June 17, two days later, the president called Don McGahn at home from Camp David on a Saturday, to talk about you. Isn't that correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

H. JOHNSON:

What was the significant -- what was significant about that first weekend phone call that Don McGahn took from President Trump?

MUELLER:

Well, I'm going to ask you to rely on what we wrote about those incidents.

H. JOHNSON:

Well, you wrote in your report that on -- page 85, Volume 2, that on Saturday, June 17, 2017, the president called McGahn at home to have the special counsel removed. Now, did the president call Don McGahn more than once that day?

MUELLER:

Well, I gave...

H. JOHNSON:

I think it was two calls.

H. JOHNSON:

On page 85 of your report, you wrote, quote, "On the first call, McGahn recalled that the president said something like, quote, 'You've got to do this. You've got to call Rod.'" Correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

DEUTCH:

Well on -- on page 89 in your report on Volume 2, you said and I quote "substantial evidence indicates that the President's evident -- that the President's attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of investigations that involve the President's conduct, and most immediately to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice," close quote. Director Mueller, you found evidence, as you lay out in your report, that the President wanted to fire you because you were investigating him for obstruction of justice. Isn't that correct?

MUELLER:

That's what it -- it says in the report, yes, and I go -- I stand by in the report.

BASS:

On January 25th, 2018, The New York Times reported that, quote, "The president had ordered McGahn to have the Department of Justice fire you." Is that correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

BASS:

And that story related to the events you already testified about here today. The president's calls to McGahn to have you removed. Correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

BASS:

After the news broke, did the president go on TV to deny the story?

MUELLER:

I do not know.

BASS:

In fact, the president said, quote, "Fake news, folks. Fake news, a typical New York Times fake story," end quote. Correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

BASS:

But your investigation actually found substantial evidence that McGahn was ordered by the president to fire you. Correct?

MUELLER:

Yes.

BASS:

Did the president's personal lawyer do something the following day in responses to that news report?

MUELLER:

I'd refer you to the coverage of this in the report.

BASS:

On page 114, quote, "On January 26th, 2018, the president's personal counsel called McGahn's attorney and said that the president wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to fire the special counsel," end quote. Did McGahn do what the president asked?

MUELLER:

I refer you to the report.

BASS:

Communicating through his personal attorney, McGahn refused, because he said, quote, "That the Times story was accurate in reporting that the president wanted the special counsel removed." Isn't that right?

MUELLER:

I believe it is, but I refer you again to the report.

BASS:

OK. So Mr. McGahn, through his personal attorney, told the president that he is -- was not going to lie. Is that right?

MUELLER:

True.

BASS:

Did the president drop the issue?

MUELLER:

I refer to the write-up of this in the report.

BASS:

OK. Next, the president told the White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter to try to pressure McGahn to make a false denial. Is that correct?

MUELLER:

That's correct.

BASS:

What did he actually direct Porter to do?

MUELLER:

And -- and I would send you back to the report.

BASS:

OK. Well, on page 113 it says, quote, "The president then directed Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make it clear that the president never directed McGahn to fire you," end quote. Is that correct?

MUELLER:

That is as it's -- it's stated in the report.

BASS:

And you found, quote, "The president said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file for our records." Correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

BASS:

And to be clear, the president is asking his White House Counsel Don McGahn to create a record that McGahn believed to be untrue, while you were in the midst of investigating the president for obstruction of justice. Correct?

MUELLER:

Generally correct.

BASS:

And Mr. McGahn was an important witness in that investigation, wasn't he?

MUELLER:

I'd have to say yes.

BASS:

Did the president tell Porter to threaten McGahn if he didn't create the written denial?

MUELLER:

I would refer you to the write-up of it in the report.

BASS:

In fact, didn't the president say, quote, and this is on page 116, "If he doesn't write a letter, then maybe I'll have to get rid of him," end quote?

MUELLER:

Yes.

BASS:

Did Porter deliver that threat?

MUELLER:

I, again, refer you to the discussion that's found on page 115.

BASS:

OK. But the president still didn't give up, did he? So the president told McGahn directly to deny that the president told him to have you fired. Can you tell me exactly what happened?

MUELLER:

I can't beyond what's in the report.

BASS:

Well, on page 116, it says the president met him in the Oval Office, quote, "The president began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that The New York Times' story didn't look good and McGahn needed to correct it." Is that correct?

MUELLER:

That's -- as it's written in the report, yes.

BASS:

The president asked McGahn whether he would do a correction and McGahn said no. Correct?

MUELLER:

That's accurate.

 

[mack341]

I thought you watched Mueller's testimony. Guess you just watched Tucker's version of it. But fine...here we go:

JACKSON LEE:

Your report also describes at least 10 separate instances of possible obstruction of justice that were investigated by you and your team, is that correct?

MUELLER:

Yes.

JACKSON LEE:

In fact, the table of contents serves as a very good guide of some of the acts of that obstruction of justice that you investigated. And I put it up on the screen. On page 157 of Volume 2, you describe those acts. And they range from the president's effort to curtail the special counsel's investigation, the president's further efforts to have the attorney general take over the investigation, the president orders Don McGahn to deny that the president tried to fire the special counsel, and many others, is that correct?

MUELLER:

Yes.

H. JOHNSON:

Director Mueller, I'd like to get us back on track here. Your investigation found that President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire you. Isn't that correct?

MUELLER:

True.

H. JOHNSON:

Now, I'd like to review what happened after the president was warned about obstructing justice. It's true that on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, the president dictated a press statement, stating he had, quote, "no intention of firing" you, correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

H. JOHNSON:

But the following day, June 14, the media reported for the first time that you were investigating the president for obstructing of justice, correct?

MUELLER:

That's correct.

H. JOHNSON:

And then, after learning for the first time that he was under investigation, the very next day, the president, quote, "issued a series of tweets acknowledging the existence of the obstruction investigation, and criticizing it." Isn't that correct?

MUELLER:

Generally so.

H. JOHNSON:

And then, on Saturday, June 17, two days later, the president called Don McGahn at home from Camp David on a Saturday, to talk about you. Isn't that correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

H. JOHNSON:

What was the significant -- what was significant about that first weekend phone call that Don McGahn took from President Trump?

MUELLER:

Well, I'm going to ask you to rely on what we wrote about those incidents.

H. JOHNSON:

Well, you wrote in your report that on -- page 85, Volume 2, that on Saturday, June 17, 2017, the president called McGahn at home to have the special counsel removed. Now, did the president call Don McGahn more than once that day?

MUELLER:

Well, I gave...

H. JOHNSON:

I think it was two calls.

H. JOHNSON:

On page 85 of your report, you wrote, quote, "On the first call, McGahn recalled that the president said something like, quote, 'You've got to do this. You've got to call Rod.'" Correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

DEUTCH:

Well on -- on page 89 in your report on Volume 2, you said and I quote "substantial evidence indicates that the President's evident -- that the President's attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of investigations that involve the President's conduct, and most immediately to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice," close quote. Director Mueller, you found evidence, as you lay out in your report, that the President wanted to fire you because you were investigating him for obstruction of justice. Isn't that correct?

MUELLER:

That's what it -- it says in the report, yes, and I go -- I stand by in the report.

BASS:

On January 25th, 2018, The New York Times reported that, quote, "The president had ordered McGahn to have the Department of Justice fire you." Is that correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

BASS:

And that story related to the events you already testified about here today. The president's calls to McGahn to have you removed. Correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

BASS:

After the news broke, did the president go on TV to deny the story?

MUELLER:

I do not know.

BASS:

In fact, the president said, quote, "Fake news, folks. Fake news, a typical New York Times fake story," end quote. Correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

BASS:

But your investigation actually found substantial evidence that McGahn was ordered by the president to fire you. Correct?

MUELLER:

Yes.

BASS:

Did the president's personal lawyer do something the following day in responses to that news report?

MUELLER:

I'd refer you to the coverage of this in the report.

BASS:

On page 114, quote, "On January 26th, 2018, the president's personal counsel called McGahn's attorney and said that the president wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to fire the special counsel," end quote. Did McGahn do what the president asked?

MUELLER:

I refer you to the report.

BASS:

Communicating through his personal attorney, McGahn refused, because he said, quote, "That the Times story was accurate in reporting that the president wanted the special counsel removed." Isn't that right?

MUELLER:

I believe it is, but I refer you again to the report.

BASS:

OK. So Mr. McGahn, through his personal attorney, told the president that he is -- was not going to lie. Is that right?

MUELLER:

True.

BASS:

Did the president drop the issue?

MUELLER:

I refer to the write-up of this in the report.

BASS:

OK. Next, the president told the White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter to try to pressure McGahn to make a false denial. Is that correct?

MUELLER:

That's correct.

BASS:

What did he actually direct Porter to do?

MUELLER:

And -- and I would send you back to the report.

BASS:

OK. Well, on page 113 it says, quote, "The president then directed Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make it clear that the president never directed McGahn to fire you," end quote. Is that correct?

MUELLER:

That is as it's -- it's stated in the report.

BASS:

And you found, quote, "The president said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file for our records." Correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

BASS:

And to be clear, the president is asking his White House Counsel Don McGahn to create a record that McGahn believed to be untrue, while you were in the midst of investigating the president for obstruction of justice. Correct?

MUELLER:

Generally correct.

BASS:

And Mr. McGahn was an important witness in that investigation, wasn't he?

MUELLER:

I'd have to say yes.

BASS:

Did the president tell Porter to threaten McGahn if he didn't create the written denial?

MUELLER:

I would refer you to the write-up of it in the report.

BASS:

In fact, didn't the president say, quote, and this is on page 116, "If he doesn't write a letter, then maybe I'll have to get rid of him," end quote?

MUELLER:

Yes.

BASS:

Did Porter deliver that threat?

MUELLER:

I, again, refer you to the discussion that's found on page 115.

BASS:

OK. But the president still didn't give up, did he? So the president told McGahn directly to deny that the president told him to have you fired. Can you tell me exactly what happened?

MUELLER:

I can't beyond what's in the report.

BASS:

Well, on page 116, it says the president met him in the Oval Office, quote, "The president began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that The New York Times' story didn't look good and McGahn needed to correct it." Is that correct?

MUELLER:

That's -- as it's written in the report, yes.

BASS:

The president asked McGahn whether he would do a correction and McGahn said no. Correct?

MUELLER:

That's accurate.

you've got to love mueller, he stuck to what was written in his report...where's the lying to the fbi bit though?

To really understand all of the above I'd have to read mueller's report and I'm sorry I'm not going to waste my time reading that. I'm happy to trust Tucker

I'd say trump was more worried about mueller looking into his business dealings and activities and those in his circle [like cohen] and possibly an obstruction of justice charge being concocted against him, bearing in mind trump isn't a legal expert.
But he knew he hadn't colluded with the russian government to win the election..which was the principle reason for the investigation.

 

[vorcirion]

you've got to love mueller, he stuck to what was written in his report...where's the lying to the fbi bit though?

To really understand all of the above I'd have to read mueller's report and I'm sorry I'm not going to waste my time reading that. I'm happy to trust Tucker

I'd say trump was more worried about mueller looking into his business dealings and activities and those in his circle [like cohen] and possibly an obstruction of justice charge being concocted against him, bearing in mind trump isn't a legal expert.
But he knew he hadn't colluded with the russian government to win the election..which was the principle reason for the investigation.

I'm sure you're happy to trust Tucker with your conspiratorial mind.

JEFFRIES:

The investigation also found substantial evidence that President Trump repeatedly urged McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

 

[vorcirion]

CICILLINE:

So right after his White House Council, Mr. McGahn refused to follow the president's order to fire you, the president came up with a new plan. And that was to go around all of his senior advisors and government aids to have a private citizen try to limit your investigation. What did the president tell Mr. Lewandowski to do? Do you recall, he called him -- he dictated a message to Mr. Lewandowski for Attorney General Sessions and asked him to write it down, is that correct?

MUELLER:

True.

CICILLINE:

And do you -- did you and your team see this handwritten message?

MUELLER:

I'm not going to get into what we may or may not have included in our investigation.

CICILLINE:

OK. The message directed Sessions to give, and -- and I'm quoting from your report, to give a public speech saying that he planned to, "Meet with the special prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and threat the special prosecutor move forward with investigating investigation meddling for future elections." That's at page 91. Is that correct?

MUELLER:

Yes, I see that, thank you. Yes, it is.

CICILLINE:

In other words, Mr. Lewandowski, a private citizen, was instructed by the president of the United States to deliver a message from the president to the attorney general that directed him to limit your investigation. Correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

CICILLINE:

And at this time, Mr. Sessions was still recused from oversight of your investigation. Correct?

MUELLER:

I'm sorry. Could you restate that?

CICILLINE:

The attorney general was recused from oversight.

MUELLER:

Yes. Yes.

 

[vorcirion]

It's sort of impressive how Tucker found his audience. All those people who believe whatever Trump/Tucker tells them to believe. Feels like a cult or something No independent thought remaining in that cult.