The Mueller Report Was Just Released. Here's Where You Can Read It Online for Free

I'm sure you dived right in.

It is here for you to do the same.

I've read enough to know this Mueller report is a total fraud.

Why do you say that Steve?

The section that starts with "We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation...", in Volume 2 page 1, is ONE BIG LIE Ron.

investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry. Even if the removal of the lead prosecutor would not prevent the investigation from continuing under a new appointee, a factfinder would need to consider whether the act had the potential to delay further action in the investigation, chill the actions of any replacement Special Counsel, or otherwise impede the investigation.

A threshold question is whetherthe President in fact directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. After news organizations reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President publicly disputed these accounts, and privately told McGahn that he had simply wanted McGahn to bring conflicts of interest to the Department of Justice's attention. See Volume II, Section II.I, infra. Some of the President's specific language that McGahn recalled from the calls is consistent with that explanation. Substantial evidence, however, supports the conclusion that the President went further and in fact directed McGahn to call Rosenstein to have the Special Counsel removed.

First, McGahn's clear recollection was that the President directed him to tell Rosenstein not only that conflicts existed but also that "Mueller has to go." McGahn is a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate given the position he held in the White House.601 McGahn spoke with the President twice and understood the directive the same way both times, making it unlikely that he misheard or misinterpreted the President's request. In response to that request, McGahn decided to quit because he did not want to participate in events that he described as akin to the Saturday Night Massacre. He called his lawyer, drove to the White House, packed up his office, prepared to submit a resignation letter with his chief of staff, told Priebus that the President had asked him to "do crazy ****," and informed Priebus and Bannon that he was leaving. Those acts would be a highly unusual reaction to a request to convey information to the Department of Justice.

Steve, this is just some of the proof in The Mueller Report, that you can read it here for yourself on page 88.

Second, in the days before the calls to McGahn, the President, through his counsel, had already brought the asserted conflicts to the attention of the Department of Justice. Accordingly, the President had no reason to have McGahn call Rosenstein that weekend to raise conflicts issues that already had been raised.

Third, the President's sense ofurgency and repeated requests to McGahn to take immediate action on a weekend-"You gotta do this. You gotta call Rod."-supp0ti McGahn's recollection that the President wanted the Department of Justice to take action to remove the Special Counsel. Had the President instead sought only to have the Department of Justice re-examine asserted conflicts to evaluate whether they posed an ethical bar, it would have been unnecessary to set the process in motion on a Saturday and to make repeated calls to McGahn.

Finally, the President had discussed "knocking out Mueller" and raised conflicts of interest in a May 23, 2017 call with McGahn, reflecting that the President connected the conflicts to a plan to remove the Special Counsel. And in the days leading up to June 17, 2017, the President made clear to Priebus and Bannon, who then told Ruddy, that the President was considering terminating the Special Counsel. Also during this time period, the President reached out to Christie to get his thoughts on firing the Special Counsel. This evidence shows that the President was not just seeking an examination of whether conflicts existed but instead was looking to use asserted conflicts as a way to terminate the Special Counsel.

If that is not a case of obstruction of Justice by Trump, then what is Steve?

What I understand now is: We’re aided immensely by Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of these matters in The Federalist Papers. He writes that what treason and bribery have in common in the impeachment context is that they are political crimes. They strike at the functioning and legitimacy of the government itself. They are not common crimes. They are “high” crimes and that is the difference.

It seems like I can't stop reading this Mueller report because you can plainly see in this report that BARR did not tell The American people about this part of the Mueller Report. Here take a look.


On page 90 you will find this: F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
Overview

Two days after the President directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one with Corey Lewandowski in the Oval Office and dictated a message to be delivered to Attorney General Sessions that would have had the effect of limiting the Russia investigation to future election interference only. One month later, the President met again with Lewandowski and followed up on the request to have Sessions limit the scope of the Russia investigation. Lewandowski told the President the message would be delivered soon. Hours later, the President publicly criticized Sessions in an unplanned press interview, raising questions about Sessions's job security.
The President directed that Sessions should give a speech publicly announcing:

I know that I recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas. But our POTUS . .. is being treated very unfairly. He shouldn't have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel b/c he hasn't done anything wrong. I was on the campaign w/ him for nine months, there were no Russians involved with him. I know it for a fact b/c I was there. He didn't do anything wrong except he ran the greatest campaign in American history.

WOW!!! This is the LIE Trump wanted to tell The American people. WOW!!!! It's all right here in this unredacted part of The Mueller report and you can fine this information on page 90.

Mueller didn't identify ANY crimes committed by Trump, now did he? He specifically said that would be the wrong thing to do. He says that explicitly on page 1 Ron.

Mueller, left that job to congress Steve and you know that to be a FACT.

Steve, here that LIE that TRUMP wanted McGahn to do. Why would the President want to do something like that, LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

A threshold question is whetherthe President in fact directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. After news organizations reported that in June 2017 the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President publicly disputed these accounts, and privately told McGahn that he had simply wanted McGahn to bring conflicts of interest to the Department of Justice's attention. See Volume II, Section II.I,

All of volume 2 is garbage Ron. I got to this sentence, realized what a whopper of a lie it is, and quit reading.

"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the President committed crimes."

YOUR MUELLER REPORT IS WORTHLESS, TIME TO HANG IT UP.

So, where is the exoneration, complete and total exoneration of the President in those words?

Now that also, tells the American people that BARR LIES 🤥 to protect you (The Trump supporter) from the truth that will come out later on that same day.

Steve, You have been gaslighted to believe a lie is the truth but the truth that have you to believe is a lie.

Steve, I like to answer that question on your next reply, can you do that?

"...we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the President committed crimes." TRUE or FALSE Ron?

Steve, I asked you a question: "So, where is the exoneration, complete and total exoneration of the President in those words?"

Mueller''s TEAM has nothing to do with exoneration Ron. They have one job and that is to bring charges OR NOT. Mueller's report was your one big shot and YOU BLEW IT! President Trump and all of US have had enough. The President will not accede to ANY subpoenas and those undemocratic pussies in Congress can't do a damn thing about it.

That is exactly my point Steve, The Mueller report does not completely exonerate Trump, then why did BARR lie about what's in the report before releasing it?

Why did Trump take a victory lap and LIE to The American people that the Mueller report completely and totally exonerated him, when the Mueller report clearly does not?

The President deserves his victory lap Ron. No crime was committed, as per Mueller: "...we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the President committed crimes."

Steve, The President deserves NO victory lap if, you can't find in the Mueller report that the information contain with in it completely exonerate Trump? You got the report right in front of you Steve, can you show me and the people here on Black In America that completely exonerates Trump?

If you can't, then their is no bases for you to say: "The President deserves his victory lap Steve, where is that finding, can you find it?

Now if you can't find it, then you too are promoting a LIE, WHY?

Eventually Ron, you'll accept that IT'S OVER. The Mueller report completely absolves, vindicates, EXONERATES President Trump. If you think otherwise then you have a CIVIC DUTY to impeach.

So, you can not find in the Mueller Report, that is right in front of you right now, that states the information contain with in it, that completely exonerates Trump?

Once again Steve, you will never find or prove that LYING information contain with in it completely exonerates Trump because it is NOT THERE in Mueller's report, You have not found it yet Steve?

That is a LIE which I have shown you time after time and time again, which is impossible for you to find or prove because it never happened but you keep on trying to tell that LIE of Trump's anyway because a LIE is all Trump gave you to believe in and the truth is nowhere in Trump's words. WOW!!!

You have been GASLIGHTED, You Steve, over time has gotten so beaten down with Trump's LIES, you so sure you might be at fault, that you can't identify THE GASLIGHTING dynamic of Trump.

Steve, in your case, The Gaslight Effect happens over time, gradually, and often, by the time you are deep into the Gaslight Tango (the dance you do with your gaslighting partner, who is Trump in this case, where you allowing him to define your reality) you are not the same strong self you used to be. In fact, your ego functioning has been compromised and, no longer being certain of your reality, you are not often able to accurately identify when something is "off" with your TRUMP.

HARRY, YOUR WORDS: Dumb ass Mr. Ron I’m going to ask you this question to help you to think analytically and rationally, what is another word synonymous to exoneration? The answer is cleared or discharged!

What makes you dumb and stupid Mr. Ron you are looking for the specific word exonerated in Mueller’s report and the word exonerated is in Mueller’s report in disguise or camouflage and that’s why you couldn’t see it. You are FU*KING DUMB!

MY REPLY: HARRY, let's see if you can find where The Mueller Report, completely exonerates or uses another word that is used that is synonymous to exoneration of Trump in this report? Can you do that on your very next reply?

OH!!! by the way HARRY, The discussion is right here on this blog and not anywhere else. Please feel free to make your comments right here on this blog, where we can talk Man to Man and not like some person who shows shameful lack of courage or fortitude.

Welcome the challenge and be a man, talk to me man to man because I want you to show me these so-called words that are in disguise or camouflage in this Mueller report, can you show me and the people on Black In America those
disguise or camouflage words in your very next reply on this blog?

Here is the proof that the Mueller report exonerates the President. Read it carefully Ron.

"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the President committed crimes."

Since you are so excited by Trump's "gaslighting", whatever the hell that means to the multitude of us that never read the book (did you read it Ron?), does that mean you've grown some balls and support impeaching the President?

Let us get back to my direct question that I have asked you, that you willfully ducked answering.

1. Steve, So, you can not find in the Mueller Report, that is right in front of you right now, that states the information contain with in it, that completely exonerates Trump?

What is the matter Steve, where is your answer?

Once again Steve, you will never find or prove that LYING information contain with in it completely exonerates Trump because it is NOT THERE in Mueller's report, Have You have found it yet to support Trump's claim of Victory yet, Steve?

Answer that question on your next reply.



That is a LIE which I have shown you time after time and time again, which is impossible for you to find or prove because it never happened but you keep on trying to tell that LIE of Trump's anyway because a LIE is all Trump gave you to believe in and the truth is nowhere in Trump's words. WOW!!!

I gave you a challenge and this is what you came up with, WOW!!! That would never hold water. Sorry Steve, try again maybe you will find that statement or I should say that LIE Trump what's all of you gaslighted supporters to believe.

Since I was doing some reading, I thought that I would inform you about this question that you asked me.

YOUR QUESTION: " Ron?), does that mean you've grown some balls and support impeaching the President? "

MY REPLY: We are not there yet!

Now Back To My QUESTIONS:

Let us get back to my direct question that I have asked you, that you willfully ducked answering.

1. Steve, So, you can not find in the Mueller Report, that is right in front of you right now, that states the information contain with in it, that completely exonerates Trump?

What is the matter Steve, where is your answer?

Once again Steve, you will never find or prove that LYING information contain with in it completely exonerates Trump because it is NOT THERE in Mueller's report, Have You found it yet to support Trump's claim of Victory yet, Steve?

Answer that question on your next reply.


That is a LIE which I have shown you time after time and time again, which is impossible for you to find or prove because it never happened but you keep on trying to tell that LIE of Trump's anyway because a LIE is all Trump gave you to believe in and the truth is nowhere in Trump's words. WOW!!!

I gave you a challenge and this is what you came up with, WOW!!! That would never hold water. Sorry Steve, try again maybe you will find that statement or I should say that LIE Trump what's all of you gaslighted supporters of his, to believe.

Steve, It is up to 8000 Falsehood's Trump Told and I would almost bet, that you would tell me TWO LIES Trump told his supporters and the American people, now can you?

"Gaslighted" supporters are not my business Ron. Let me know when you've got something I should worry about.

Pay Attention Steve:

1. Steve, So, you can not find in the Mueller Report, that is right in front of you right now, that states the information contain with in it, that completely exonerates Trump?

What is the matter Steve, where is your answer?

Once again Steve, you will never find or prove that LYING information contain with in it completely exonerates Trump because it is NOT THERE in Mueller's report, Have You found it yet to support Trump's claim of Victory yet, Steve?

Ron, I see that you buy that BS that the report does not exonerate Trump.

Both BARR and Trump said it exonerate Trump and you believe it too as a gaslighted supporter of Trump. Now that you have the Mueller report in front of you, can you show me and the people here on Black In America, where in that report is that proof, that both BARR and Trump said The Mueller Report exonerate Trump?

I would love to see it on your next reply, can you do that?

I see that you have bought into some BULL💩 yourself, if you can't prove your point!

HARRY, YOUR WORDS: Dumb ass Mr. Ron I’m going to ask you this question to help you to think analytically and rationally, what is another word synonymous to exoneration? The answer is cleared or discharged!

What makes you dumb and stupid Mr. Ron you are looking for the specific word exonerated in Mueller’s report and the word exonerated is in Mueller’s report in disguise or camouflage and that’s why you couldn’t see it. You are FU*KING DUMB!

MY REPLY: HARRY, let's see if you can find where The Mueller Report, completely exonerates or uses another word that is used that is synonymous to exoneration of Trump in this report? Can you do that on your very next reply?

I guess Harry is still LOOKING. LOL!!!

So start the impeachment proceedings Ron. Your outrage over exoneration means nothing. It's like Harry says, just plain stupid.

HARRY, Is this all you got after asking you to point out in The Mueller Report, that I put right in front of you, if you can find where The Mueller Report, completely exonerates or uses other words that is used that is synonymous to exoneration of Trump in this report? Can you do that on your very next reply?

Then you dumb ass goes a start another BLOCKED blog, which you know I can't reply to this BULL💩 of yours.

YOUR WORDS: I refuse to go on and on with Mr. Ron about Trump’s exoneration or not exonerated! (4 hits)

Mr. Ron believes that if he does not see the specific word exonerated then in his mind Trump was not exonerated by the Mueller’s report. I said that Mueller’s report exonerated the president since Mueller could not charge the president what else is left but the fact that the report exonerated Pres. Trump.

MY REPLY: HARRY, did you read this report? Because if you had read this report, you would not have replied with this baseless, moronic, Kitty like response! Also You would have responded on this blog, to what you seen.

HARRY, you would have read the Mueller report, which is much more direct and more ambiguous then this BULL💩 of yours.

In FACT, Mueller’s team found “multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.” And in many cases, Trump was kept out of further legal hot water by his staff’s unwillingness to carry out his directives, such as when his White House counsel refused to fire Mueller. Mueller pointedly wrote in the introduction to the section of the report dealing with obstruction that the report did not “exonerate” Trump. Mueller also wrote that he didn’t try to come to a conclusion about the president’s innocence or guilt because of a longstanding Justice Department policy that prevents a sitting president from being charged and put on trial — which he saw himself as bound by.
The report also said that although there were many contacts between members of the Trump campaign and people affiliated with the Russian government, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the campaign was involved in a criminal conspiracy with Russia.

Now that may not fall under the criminal statutes but Trump action may well fall under the ethical rules for dealing with Russia which is no ally to The United States of America.

HARRY, you are welcome to come on this OPEN blog to talk about this issue and you don't have to start another CLOSED blog to explain yourself.

HARRY, did you read The Muller Report so, you can back up what you said about the exoneration of Trump?

Steve, if you agree with HARRY, where in the Mueller Report that clearly exonerates TRUMP, if what I said was stupid.

Then where are your FACTS in The Mueller report that BARR said exonerates TRUMP?

OMG... You don't think that Trump's newly appointed AG LIED for Trump, to The American People, do you Steve?

I think that Donald Trump is a FREE man Ron.

Steve, the Question was: Steve, if you agree with HARRY, where in the Mueller Report that clearly exonerates TRUMP, if what I said was stupid.

Then where are your FACTS in The Mueller report that BARR said exonerates TRUMP?

I did not ask you a thing about Trump's Freedom, I also asked you this question as well: OMG... You don't think that Trump's newly appointed AG LIED for Trump, to The American People, do you Steve?

Steve, is this all you got: "I think that Donald Trump is a FREE man Ron."

Now get back to my questions two question Steve, on your next reply, can you do that?

Mr. Ron I will not comment on any of your blogs until you apologize for deleting my comment I made on your blo.

HARRY, I will made that agreement with you only if you stop that kiddy like name calling and that you address the subject matter, agree?

If not we have nothing, do you understand me, you will talk to me with respect.

Ron, Robert Mueller is a liar. It's not his business to say the word "EXONERATE". The fact that he brought no charges means the President IS exonerated. Period, end of story. Quit your CRYING and impeach the President. Now that you have accused he is HAPPY to defend himself.

YOUR WORDS STEVE: Ron, Robert Mueller is a liar.

MY REPLY: What did Mueller Lie about Steve?

YOUR WORDS STEVE: The fact that he brought no charges means the President IS exonerated.

MY REPLY: Steve, did you read my comments on this issue? "Mueller also wrote that he didn’t try to come to a conclusion about the president’s innocence or guilt because of a longstanding Justice Department policy that prevents a sitting president from being charged and put on trial — which he saw himself as bound by." You did see that comment I made, didn't you? I stand by those words.

Mueller Report is a road map for Congress to make that decision to make that charge. That is the reason why I am waiting for the unredacted Mueller Report to come out.

Steve, I am not CRYING for the impeachment of The President but it looks like you are. Keep your panties on Steve, I don't want to see your behind. LOL...

I've been telling you for THREE DAYS now Ron, what Mueller's lie is. Do you not see it?

All of volume 2 is garbage Ron. I got to this sentence, realized what a whopper of a lie it is, and quit reading.

"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgement that the President committed crimes."

YOUR MUELLER REPORT IS WORTHLESS, TIME TO HANG IT UP.

Wednesday, April 24th 2019 at 4:17PM
Steve Williams | delete

HARRY, I am asking you for "RESPECT: do you understand that?

MY REPLY: Steve, did you read my comments on this issue? "Mueller also wrote that he didn’t try to come to a conclusion about the president’s innocence or guilt because of a longstanding Justice Department policy that prevents a sitting president from being charged and put on trial — which he saw himself as bound by." You did see that comment I made, didn't you? I stand by those words.

Mueller left a blue print of obstruction, wrong doings that Trump allegedly committed to congress to deal with, once we get the unredacted Mueller Report and know the full knowledge of the Mueller Report, then another step can be taken but we are not there yet.

Sorry boys.

Mueller acted as a partisan, not an impartial investigator. He accuses the President of crimes but gives the President no opportunity of defense, even though he acknowledges that is something to be avoided at all costs.

That is the job of Congress to determine the innocence or guilt of the president once the full unredacted Mueller report is given to the oversight committees.

Steve, did you read my comments on this issue? "Mueller also wrote that he didn’t try to come to a conclusion about the president’s innocence or guilt because of a longstanding Justice Department policy that prevents a sitting president from being charged and put on trial — which he saw himself as bound by." You did see that comment I made, didn't you? I stand by those words.

You never did answer those two questions, why not?

Ron, you need to start impeachment proceedings NOW. You have LOST on the Mueller report.

U.S. Department of Justice Atten1e:y· '>lork Preettet // Moy Cefttttift Material Preteetee Ul'leer Fee. R. Criffl.. P. 6(e)

INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I

This report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), which states that, "[a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he ... shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel] reached."

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.

In late July 2016, soon after WikiLeaks's first release of stolen documents, a foreign government 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.

That fall, two federal agencies jointly announced that the Russian government "directed recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including US political organizations," and, "[t]hese thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process." After the election, in late December 2016, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia for having interfered in the election. By early 2017, several congressional committees were examining Russia's interference in the election.

Within the Executive Branch, these investigatory efforts ultimately led to the May 2017 appointment of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III. The order appointing the Special Counsel authorized him to investigate "the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election," including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Ron, you need to start impeachment proceedings NOW. You have LOST on the Mueller report.

Monday, April 29th 2019 at 4:42PM
Steve Williams | delete

From the very first page of this report begins to describes the scope of the Mueller report, let's take a look.


U.S. Department of Justice

INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I

This report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), which states that, "[a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he ... shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel] reached."

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.

In late July 2016, soon after WikiLeaks's first release of stolen documents, a foreign government 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.

That fall, two federal agencies jointly announced that the Russian government "directed recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including US political organizations," and, "[t]hese thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process." After the election, in late December 2016, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia for having interfered in the election. By early 2017, several congressional committees were examining Russia's interference in the election.

Within the Executive Branch, these investigatory efforts ultimately led to the May 2017 appointment of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III. The order appointing the Special Counsel authorized him to investigate "the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election," including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

As we've seen, Russia has had a HUGE victory over the United States, and has yet to have a reason to STOP celebrating their victory!!!

I wonder why?

Because of people who won't accept the 2016 election.

Are you saying that the Russians helped Trump get elected?

Russia added their own tiny bit of propaganda to our voluminous reams of native propaganda. The Trump voters came out and ignored it all and voted for a true leader. Russia made no difference in the election results.

Corney's public announcement of the FBT's Russia investigation, is nevertheless relevant to understanding what motivated the President's other actions towards the investigation.

The evidence shows that the President was focused on the Russia investigation's implications for his presidency- and, specifically, on dispelling any suggestion that he was under investigation or had links to Russia. In early March, the President attempted to prevent Sessions's recusal, even after being told that Sessions was following DOJ conflict-of-interest rules. After Sessions recused, the White House Counsel's Office tried to cut off further contact with Sessions about the matter, although it is not clear whether that direction was conveyed to the President. The President continued to raise the issue of Sessions's recusal and, when he had the opportunity, he pulled Sessions aside and urged him to unrecuse. The President also told advisors that he wanted an Attorney General who would protect him, the way he perceived Robert Kennedy and Eric Holder to have protected their presidents. The Pr.esident made statements about being able to direct the course of criminal investigations, saying words to the effect of, "You're telling me that Bobby and Jack didn't talk about investigations? Or Obama didn't tell Eric Holder who to investigate?"

After Corney publicly confirmed the existence of the FBT's Russia investigation on March 20, 2017, the President was "beside himself' and expressed anger that Corney did not issue a statement correcting any misperception that the President himself was under investigation. The President sought to speak with Acting Attorney General Boente directly and told McGahn to contact Boente to request that Corney make a clarifying statement. The President then asked other intelligence community leaders to make public statements to refute the suggestion that the President had links to Russia, but the leaders told him they could not publicly comment on the investigation. On March 30 and April I I, against the advice of White House advisors who had informed him that any direct contact with the FBI could be perceived as improper interference in an ongoing investigation, the President made personal outreaches to Corney asking him to "lift the cloud" of the Russia investigation by making public the fact that the President was not personally under investigation.

Evidence indicates that the President was angered by both the existence of the Russia investigation and the public reporting that he was under investigation, which he knew was not true based on Corney's representations. The President complained to advisors that if people thought Russia helped him with the election, it would detract from what he had accomplished.

Other evidence indicates that the President was concerned about the impact of the Russia investigation on his ability to govern. The President complained that the perception that he was under investigation was hurting his ability to conduct foreign relations, particularly with Russia. The President told Coats he "can't do anything with Russia," he told Rogers that "the thing with the Russians" was interfering with his ability to conduct foreign affairs, and he told Corney that "he was trying to run the country and the cloud of this Russia business was making that difficult."

Trump was worried about how this report would make him look.

D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney

Overview

Corney was scheduled to testify before Congress on May 3, 2017. Leading up to that testimony, the President continued to tell advisors that he wanted Corney to make public that the President was not under investigation. At the hearing, Corney declined to answer questions about the scope or subjects of the Russia investigation and did not state publicly that the President was not under investigation. Two days later, on May 5, 2017, the President told close aides he was going to fire Corney, and on May 9, he did so, using his official termination letter to make public that Corney had on three occasions informed the President that he was not under investigation. The President decided to fire Corney before receiving advice or a recommendation from the Department of Justice,. but he approved an initial public account of the termination that attributed it to a recommendation from the Department of Justice based on Corney's handling of the Clinton email investigation. After Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein resisted attributing the firing to his recommendation, the President acknowledged that he intended to fire Corney regardless of the DOJ recommendation and was thinking of the Russia investigation when he made the decision. The President also told the Russian Foreign Minister, "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off ..... I'm not under investigation."

Steve, you can find this information on page 60 and 60 of The Mueller Report.

It reads like a thorough investigation, don't it Steve?

It WAS a thorough investigation Ron, and it came up with nothing.

It came up with a blueprint to follow to get to the Truth, when the unredacted Mueller report is giving to congress.

So what are you waiting for Ron? Impeach 45.

Keep your panties on man. We don't have the complete unredacted report yet.

That is right and good for them to reject Attorney General William Barr offer of a less-redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, good for them.

They are entitled to see the full Mueller Report ASAP.

And when are they going to get that Ron?

And wwhat makes them entited? Show me where in the special prosecutor regulations they are entitled. They are in no way entitled to see ANYTHING!!!

Real soon, then step two will take place.

That doesn't work with me Ron. Either keep up the conversation or don't. Don't expect me to remember where we were after a week with no response.

What is the matter Steve, you can't review the record, things that you said?

Steve, The Mueller Report shows you and the country has been attract by Russia and why. It looks like The Trump White House have been avoiding at every turn to release the unredacted parts of report.

This is what Mueller said:

After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.

Ron, are you saying the question of obstruction involves difficult issues?

YES!!!

Why do you think BARR is protecting Trump and not letting the unredacted report be seen by Congress oversight committees?

Ron, if the question of obstruction involves difficult issues, and this superstar Mueller couldn't bring himself to indict, why is it so EASY for 700 prosecutors to declare they OBVIOUSLY could indict the President, and that with ONLY the redacted report to go on. Why is that Ron???

Steve, did you understand my reply to you?

Why do you think BARR is protecting Trump and not letting the unredacted report be seen by Congress oversight committees?

We need to see all of the FACTS in The Mueller Report, that all. Is anything wrong with that, Steve?

You DON'T "need to see all of the FACTS in The Mueller Report" Ron.

Why not Steve? Don’t you want the American people to know the truth about Trump?

Mueller made his decision, no conspiracy, no coordination, no obstruction. President Trump has decided, case closed and we all stand behind him. Me, every everyday supporter, Bill Barr, Steven Mnuchin, Don Jr., everyone Ron and we will not be dissuaded.

You have truly been GASLIGHTED Steve. You have the Mueller Report, right in front of you and you still wont read it.

Yes!!! Mueller decided to follow the law, which he could not indict a sitting president, he left that for Congress to do.

Not think about it Steve, if The Mueller favored Trump with "no conspiracy, no coordination, no obstruction," to use your words, then why don't he want the people of The United States to see that unredacted part of The Mueller Report, that said: "no conspiracy, no coordination, no obstruction?"

Trump should be looking at The Mueller Report as some "GOOD NEWS" if the Mueller Report does what it do for the prestige and the credibility of Trumps claim of "no conspiracy, no coordination, no obstruction?" Don't you think so, STEVE?

Show me where in the report to find: "Mueller decided to follow the law, which he could not indict a sitting president, he left that for Congress to do."

In a report of its findings, Mueller’s team said that choice was driven in large part by a long-standing legal opinion at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that a sitting president should not be indicted, even if the charges remained sealed.

Mueller's team concluded that also meant they could not accuse the president of a crime, even in secret internal documents, the report said.

Show me WHERE Ron. IN the report.

A volume/page number will do fine. TIA.

That is more the reason why congress need to see the unreacted copy of The Mueller Report, don't you want to read it?

No Ron, the conclusion you're defending doesn't depend on removing the redactions.

That is the way, The People of The United States 🇺🇸 of America will know the truth Steve, what is wrong with that?

Mueller knows what the unredacted report says and Mueller could not make a case for indicting the President. That's all I need to know Ron. Now read the report and you will see where Mueller states that his decision to not indict was because of "difficult issues".

So, you really don’t want to know the full story on what’s in The Mueller Report say about Trump, don’t you?

Don’t you know that there is more about the Russian attack on this country in that report or don't you give a damn?

Hey Steve, Do you still feel this way.: So, you really don’t want to know the full story on what’s in The Mueller Report say about Trump, do you?

What are you talking about Ron?

Do you really want to see the unredacted parts of this report that is right in front of you? That is what I mean.

I don't want to see the unredacted report Ron. The real benefit of the Mueller report is that it forces you to impeach, and that assures the President will serve a second term. Thank you.

You don't want to see the unredacted Mueller report because Trump and his family involvement with the Russians and wrong doings maybe under all of that ink and you don't want to see that, at all. WOW!!!

Are you talking about harm to ongoing matter? Why do you want to harm an ongoing matter Ron?

Let’s get to the truth. Let’s see who’s in The White House.

You've gotten all you're going to get from the report. There's rumors you may get some underlying evidence but Schiff doesn't seem at all sure.

More news is coming to the American people, everyday, time will tell.

In the meantime you can take the opportunity to go on Amazon, pick your favorite edition of the report, and study it.

The report is too unwieldy in electronic form. I paid under 7 bucks for it. It and all of the printed editions are as issued by the Department of Justice. You can rest assured they are ALL of them, REDACTED.

This Mueller Report is in a PDF format.

Thank you, that is what I asked...

I'm sure it looks great on a 19 inch screen. I also found out they disallow copying which normally is a major advantage.

Now this PDF format for The Mueller Report is made visible so, the people of the United States can read it. Steve, have you read this report yet?

Every time I start to read it I put it down in disgust Ron. I'm disgusted at its partisan overtones, its lack of objectivity. That's because Mueller is a witness and should never have been appointed as prosecutor.

A witness. a witness to what Steve?

A witness to a meeting with Rosenstein and the President. It's covered at the beginning of section E. in volume 2. Apparently you haven't read the report Ron.

YOUR REPLY: A witness to a meeting with Rosenstein and the President. It's covered at the beginning of section E. in volume 2. Apparently you haven't read the report Ron.

You did not say who was a witness to a meeting with Rosenstein and the President. now from what I read, in the Mueller report which did highlights Rosenstein's role as witness Rosenstein and also oversaw investigation.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report raises fresh questions about Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's dual roles as both witness in and supervisor of the special counsel investigation into possible obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump.

The report, a redacted version of which the Justice Department released Thursday, disclosed a previously unknown episode in which Rosenstein, resisted Trump's efforts to get him to take the blame for the firing of FBI Director James Comey.

That event was examined as a key piece of Mueller's investigation of Trump's possible obstruction of justice, meaning Rosenstein was an important witness in a criminal probe he oversaw beginning in early 2017.

On the night of May 9, 2017, hours after Trump fired Comey, officials in the White House press office called the Justice Department to say the White House "wanted to put out a statement saying that it was Rosenstein's idea to fire Comey," according to the report.

I said this only just this morning Ron. What name do you see there?

That's because Mueller is a witness and should never have been appointed as prosecutor.

Friday, May 31st 2019 at 9:27AM
Steve Williams | delete

Mueller is a witness to what Steve?