The Right Side of the News

GOP Rep. Rips Into Trump, Barr After ”Carefully’ Reading Mueller Report

quote:

---

Amash argued that Trump “engaged in impeachable conduct” and Barr “intended to mislead the public” about Mueller’s findings.

​

The GOP rep. notes that he is now offering his conclusions after reading the redacted report “carefully and completely.”

​

Along with Barr and Trump, Amash criticized members of Congress who he claims didn’t read the report and whose “minds were made up based on partisan affiliation.”

---

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Because he wasn't a "Trump despiser" before thoroughly reading the report. He's the chairmen of the Liberty Caucus, almost as right-wing as the Freedom Caucus.Interesting how actually reading the report convinced him.I don't know any Republican "Trump despisers". I do know some such as Susan Collins who criticize him mildly but never do anything about it. Can you name a half-dozen "Trump despisers"? ? Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

No defense of the lies I identified?

quote:

---

Let's play spot the lies!
BREAKING: Judge Orders Portions of Mueller Report Unredacted - Then Released to Public

​

quote:

---

As expected, Mueller and the media spun a voicemail President Trump’s personal counsel left for Flynn as a possible effort to obstruct the General’s cooperation with the special counsel.

​

General Flynn’s late 2016 phone calls to Kislyak were unmasked then illegally leaked to the Washington Post ” Flynn was then ambushed by two FBI agents, Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka without his lawyers present and he was ultimately fired from his job as NatSec Advisor.

​

Mueller and his team of angry Democrat thugs charged Flynn with making a false statement to the feds even though Flynn didn’t lie.

​

It is also widely believed that there was a FISA warrant on General Flynn ” the president should issue Flynn a full pardon and prosecute every corrupt official who illegally targeted Flynn for ruin.

​

Flynn is still awaiting sentencing after being harassed by Mueller and Obama’s corrupt officials for the past several years.

---

​

I'll start.

​

• He hasn't heard the voicemail, and presenting his assumption that it's innocuous as fact he's lying by omission.
• Flynn is a sufficiently smart adult to decide whether or not he wants a lawyer. Nevertheless, throughout he knew the consequences of lying to the FBI, and many of his lies were with his lawyer present (see below)
• "Ambushed" does not relate to what happened in any way. He was interviewed in a mutually agreeable setting.
• Mueller is, of course, a Republican and many on his team are Republicans or independents or have no affiliation.
• Flynn lied his ass off.
• There is no evidence that anyone "illegally targeted Flynn for ruin".
• There is no evidence of corruption in the Mueller probe, and there is no evidence of any relevant corruption in the Obama administration.

​

Any more?

​

---

​

From Mueller's reply to Flynn's sentencing memo at GOVERNMENT’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING

​

quote:

---

A sitting National Security Advisor, former head of an intelligence agency, retired Lieutenant General, and 33-year veteran of the armed forces knows he should not lie to federal agents. He does not need to be warned it is a crime to lie to federal agents to know the importance of telling them the truth. The defendant undoubtedly was aware, in light of his “many years” working with the FBI, that lying to the FBI carries serious consequences. See Def. Sent Mem. at 8. He, unlike Van der Zwaan and Papadapoulous, was a senior national security official with extensive federal government experience, had led an intelligence agency, had worked with the FBI, and was steeped in the importance of accurate information to decision making in areas of national security.

​

The defendant agreed to meet with the FBI agents, without counsel, and answer their questions. His obligation to provide truthful information came with that agreement; it did not turn on the presence of counsel. Moreover, as the defendant has admitted, weeks after the January 24 interview, he made materially false statements in filings he provided to another branch of the Department of Justice pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”). See Statement of Offense at 5, United States v. Flynn, No. 17-cr-232 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2017) (Doc. 4). The defendant made those false statements while represented by counsel and after receiving an explicit warning that providing false information was a federal offense. See, e.g., FARA Registration No. 6406, Flynn Intel Group (March 7, 2017), available at https://efile.fara.gov/...istration-Statement-20170307-1.pdf. The defendant was equally responsible for telling the truth to both Department of Justice entities, and under both circumstances he chose to make false statements.

​

Finally, the interviewing agents did not observe indicia of deception and had the impression at that time that the defendant was not lying or did not think he was lying. See Strzok 302 at 4. Members of the Presidential Transition Team were likewise misled by the defendant’s false denials. Those misimpressions do not change the fact”as the defendant has admitted in sworn testimony to this District Court”that he was indeed lying, and knowingly made false statements to FBI agents in a national security investigation. Those false statements were material, including by raising the question of why he was lying to the FBI, the Vice President, and others.

---

---

You seem to think that the new Barr investigation will overlap with the Mueller investigation.It won't.What Mueller investigated is outside the scope of the Barr investigation. The Barr investigation will only look at the source of the FBI investigation into Russian collusion.Which, of course, we know already and two other investigations are looking into. It's pretty obvious the Barr investigation's only purpose is to placate Trump and give the sheep a straw to cling to.

John Huber, U.S. Attorney in Utah, was appointed by Sessions to investigate the FBI investigation origin. It appears he hasn't done much.

"Spying" is loaded with gratuitous negative connotations. That's obviously why Barr and the right are using it. There's nothing to whitewash.Best is to use an accurate description: duly authorized surveillance.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Disputed by some who have no evidence.

Lots of them, you said.Lots.You can't think of a single name

Yes, that's what it's about.For which there's no evidence, and there's significant evidence against it.

There is no question among those who support the Constitution and our system of laws.

He already thinks the FBI is his personal Gestapo. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The dossier was not the basis for starting the investigation. That's a right-wing hallucination.
Some of it is wrong, some of it has been confirmed. Calling it "fraudulent" is just another right-wing fraudulent scare tactic.The FBI investigation of the Trump campaign began in July 2016. The FBI did not learn of the dossier until McCain gave them a copy in December 2016. 5-6 months later. The FBI and FISA Court are not time travelers.As the Mueller report says in the introduction to volume :

quote:

---

In late July 2016, soon after WikiLeaks's first release of stolen documents, a foreign government [Australia - JonF] contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities.

---

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The board keeps discarding the end of my message, so:What specific actions were criminal? I suspect you know the same number as your lots of Republican Trump haters. 0.Hillary was not named as the source of the dossier because she was not the source of the dossier. Her campaign was the proximate (not the only) source, and was named.It's sad to see you drop the pretense of waiting for evidence and return to regurgitating right-wing propaganda. What is the point of investigating when you know the answers already?

Yes in some circumstances, no in other circumstances. Gosh, your sources didn't explain that? Could they be lying by omission?There are two statutes that cold apply in this case. 18 U.S. Code ”1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material:

quote:

---

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

---

Note the word "knowingly". That's important. 18 U.S. Code ”798. Disclosure of classified information:

quote:

---

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information”
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes”
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

---

"Knowingly and willfully". Notice a pattern?Hillary had three classified emails on her server.Emails containing classified information must start with a header stating so. That header, for whatever reason, was not on those three emails.Classified information in emails must be marked with, for example, (c) for confidential information. The classified information in those emails wa so marked, but it was way down in the chain of replies and forwards. I don't know if you have any relevant experience, but it is very rarer for anyone to go down through that chain instead of just reading the top message. Since the required header was not present to alert her and Hillary was a very busy person, it's virtually certain she did not see that (c).So. not knowingly and willfully, unless you can prove otherwise, which ain't gonna happen. Not a crime.Continued on next rock...