What is the difference between Trump saying he'd accept foreign information

[anatta]

It’s over.

Schiff is threatening a subpoena if Mueller doesn't testify.
Either way it's going to end with a thud/dud

[domer76]

It’s over.

“So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.”

[domer76]

Based on what Dumber Domer is saying, Trump should have said he would have given them $50 for the information.

You still don’t get it, you fucking moron.

How does an illiterate cunt of your level even make it through the day?

[Darth Omar]

“So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.”

Yet, it’s over lol.

[domer76]

Yet, it’s over lol.

“So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.”

[Darth Omar]

“So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.”

Yet, by every indication, it appears to be over lol.

And in fact, the tide may be preparing to turn.

[domer76]

Yet, by every indication, it appears to be over lol.

And in fact, the tide may be preparing to turn.

“So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.”

[Darth Omar]

“So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.”

Some of Mullet’s ‘facts’ seem a little shaky these days lol.

Do you think he or Weissmann will be indicted, finally?

[domer76]

Some of Mullet’s ‘facts’ seem a little shaky these days lol.

Do you think he or Weissmann will be indicted, finally?

Which ones, Trump tard?

[canceled.2021.2]

You still don’t get it, you fucking moron.

How does an illiterate cunt of your level even make it through the day?

Oh I get it.

If Trump had paid the Russians for dirt on Hillary using a law firm as a cut out who then hired a foreign national to do it, you would have had no problem with it right? All legal?

So in 2020, all Trump has to do in order to get dirt on his opponent is the following

1) Hire a law firm
2) Law firm hires a foreign national
3) The foreign national goes to a foreign country to get dirt
4) Log it as "legal services"
5) Use it as a predicate for an FBI investigation
6) Get a FISA warrant to spy on the campaign

All legal and fine according to you

[domer76]

Oh I get it.

If Trump had paid the Russians for dirt on Hillary using a law firm as a cut out who then hired a foreign national to do it, you would have had no problem with it right? All legal?

So in 2020, all Trump has to do in order to get dirt on his opponent is the following

1) Hire a law firm
2) Law firm hires a foreign national
3) The foreign national goes to a foreign country to get dirt
4) Log it as "legal services"
5) Use it as a predicate for an FBI investigation
6) Get a FISA warrant to spy on the campaign

All legal and fine according to you

I've quoted the law to you uncountable times, cunt. When do you think you'll understand it?

"Working hand-in-hand with a foreign power for information intended to influence an election is different than hiring a private firm that then hired somebody who had been a former intelligence agent," said Karen Greenberg, director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.

"Everybody does opposition research," she added. "The issue here is the foreign government."

“While Russia’s meddling was intended to help Trump win, Steele was contracted by Fusion GPS to find out more about Trump’s ties to Russia. "That has nothing to do with a candidate soliciting something from a foreign power," former CIA intelligence agent Glenn Carle said.

"One is collecting intelligence and the other is an active measure by a foreign power to achieve a political end of some sort," Carle said. "There’s no comparison at all."”

https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...view-and-why-/

"While it is illegal to accept contributions from foreign nationals for political campaigns (as Trump suggested he would do), “paying a foreign national fair market value for opposition research is generally not illegal,” as former chief counsel for the Federal Election Commission Lawrence Noble told The Washington Post. “It is considered a commercial transaction, which is not a contribution.”

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...he-2020/223924

FEC Chair

Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election," she said in a statement.

I can't dumb it down any more, illiterate cunt. Find someone to explain it to you.

Fucking idiot.

[Darth Omar]

Oh I get it.

If Trump had paid the Russians for dirt on Hillary using a law firm as a cut out who then hired a foreign national to do it, you would have had no problem with it right? All legal?

So in 2020, all Trump has to do in order to get dirt on his opponent is the following

1) Hire a law firm
2) Law firm hires a foreign national
3) The foreign national goes to a foreign country to get dirt
4) Log it as "legal services"
5) Use it as a predicate for an FBI investigation
6) Get a FISA warrant to spy on the campaign

All legal and fine according to you

He would be jumping straight-legged and spitting wooden nickels lol.

[domer76]

He would be jumping straight-legged and spitting wooden nickels lol.

One more time, illiterate taintstain.

"Working hand-in-hand with a foreign power for information intended to influence an election is different than hiring a private firm that then hired somebody who had been a former intelligence agent," said Karen Greenberg, director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.

"Everybody does opposition research," she added. "The issue here is the foreign government."

“While Russia’s meddling was intended to help Trump win, Steele was contracted by Fusion GPS to find out more about Trump’s ties to Russia. "That has nothing to do with a candidate soliciting something from a foreign power," former CIA intelligence agent Glenn Carle said.

"One is collecting intelligence and the other is an active measure by a foreign power to achieve a political end of some sort," Carle said. "There’s no comparison at all."”

https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...view-and-why-/

"While it is illegal to accept contributions from foreign nationals for political campaigns (as Trump suggested he would do), “paying a foreign national fair market value for opposition research is generally not illegal,” as former chief counsel for the Federal Election Commission Lawrence Noble told The Washington Post. “It is considered a commercial transaction, which is not a contribution.”

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...he-2020/223924

FEC Chair

Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election," she said in a statement.

[Darth Omar]

One more time, illiterate taintstain.

"Working hand-in-hand with a foreign power for information intended to influence an election is different than hiring a private firm that then hired somebody who had been a former intelligence agent," said Karen Greenberg, director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.

"Everybody does opposition research," she added. "The issue here is the foreign government."

“While Russia’s meddling was intended to help Trump win, Steele was contracted by Fusion GPS to find out more about Trump’s ties to Russia. "That has nothing to do with a candidate soliciting something from a foreign power," former CIA intelligence agent Glenn Carle said.

"One is collecting intelligence and the other is an active measure by a foreign power to achieve a political end of some sort," Carle said. "There’s no comparison at all."”

https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...view-and-why-/

"While it is illegal to accept contributions from foreign nationals for political campaigns (as Trump suggested he would do), “paying a foreign national fair market value for opposition research is generally not illegal,” as former chief counsel for the Federal Election Commission Lawrence Noble told The Washington Post. “It is considered a commercial transaction, which is not a contribution.”

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...he-2020/223924

FEC Chair

Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election," she said in a statement.

I bet you can spin a steaming pile of shit into a bowl of rice pudding lol.