Topic: NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW—MUELLER FIRING RAPID RESPONSE (Read 425 times)

More off-topic posting, the shame; the funny bit is his source is literally banned for being russian propaganda. But nah, Tecshare isn't russian asset meant to derail converstation

@ThePatriot143 gone

But nah, you can look up the trump inauguration for yourself, shit was pretty tiny. The camera's public access so I mean you can check yourself instead of relying on that photoshopped russian propaganda. I watched the shit live waiting for someone to do something about the atrocity.



but the protests was fun, I think ours dispersed pretty early, at 6 PM.

I just got home.

Quite a crowd.

This isn't from my event, but another event that took place:




Nearly as large as Trump's inauguration and that's just one of the tens of thousands of cities across the nation.

If this case is not justify as it suppose to be then the state have to prepare for the injustice outbreak. Even the way the case is going the masses shouldn't relent. What good for the goose is good for the gander. Exemption in law should in any way be accepted.

You want him to isolate himself? Serious man, politics is complicated business. If you don't even know the definitions of the words you use how do you expect anyone to take your opinion seriously?

Nothing is wrong with Whitaker, and this is little more than a protectionism strategy for the Democrats hoping their golden children will not be brought up on charges for the laundry list of crimes they have been accumulating under dem control.

Whitaker must recluse!

The short version is that Donald Trump has just replaced his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, with a man named Matt Whitaker, who has previously shown himself to be extremely hostile to the Mueller investigation (the probe into whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election). This is a big deal, and many people are of the opinion that it's the first step in Trump attempting to shut down the Russia probe. The planned protests are in opposition to this.

For the longer version, let's start with the basics:

**Who's Jeff Sessions, and what does he have to do with Russia?**

Jeff Sessions was Trump's Attorney General, a Cabinet-level position which made him head of the Justice Department. He was a very, *very* early supporter of Trump; back when he was in the Senate, he was the first Senator to endorse Trump when most people thought his campaign for the White House was either a joke or a total non-starter. (Trump would later claim that [the *only* reason he nominated Sessions for the role of AG was because of his loyalty in the early days](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-sessions-was-given-attorney-general-job-only-because-of-his-loyalty-during-campaign/2018/08/23/47d7c20c-a6c7-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d66d7faaa9e1); figuring out how true that is is left as an exercise for the reader.) This would later prove to be important, because shortly after Trump was elected, serious concerns began to be raised about whether or not the Trump campaign had knowingly colluded with Russia in order to influence the election in a way that would be against the law. (There were other issues, including the reason why Trump fired the head of the FBI, James Comey -- and whether that was an attempt at obstructing an investigation into his connections with Russia -- but that's the main thrust of it. Other loops have dealt with the topic in more detail.) As head of the DOJ, Sessions was in charge of any investigation that would take place. This caused a lot of uproar because it was viewed by many that Sessions would have a conflict of interest; in short, because he was so close to the Trump campaign, Sessions was viewed as being incapable of being impartial in the way that Department of Justice officials are expected to be. (There was also the not-so-minor issue of him *maybe* [lying under oath](https://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/did-sessions-lie/) about meetings with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.) As such, he recused himself from the investigation, passing all decisionmaking down to the next man in line, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

This didn't sit well with Trump. We'll be getting to that.

**So what happened with the Russia probe?**

The investigation began in May 2017, and was headed up by former FBI Director Robert Mueller. Mueller is a registered Republican, but he was generally considered to be a solid pick, favoured by Democrats and Republicans alike. He has a reputation for being completely unimpeachable, so the idea was that he would be unbiased and throrough in his investigation. Trump was less thrilled, and almost immediately began painting a picture of the Mueller investigation as an unfair attack on him; by mid-June, he was calling it a 'Witch Hunt' on Twitter, which has become sort of a rallying cry whenever the topic is brought up. Again, going into massive amounts of detail on what the Mueller investigation discovered would take post after post, but the short version is that it has led to several indictments of Trump campaign staff and twelve Russian nationals, with several likely plea deals that have -- as yet -- not been revealed to the public. As Paul Waldman in the *Washington Post* put it: ['If this is a ‘witch hunt,’ it sure is finding a lot of witches'](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/07/13/if-this-is-a-witch-hunt-it-sure-is-finding-a-lot-of-witches/?utm_term=.b301cce5f6ed).

As time wore on, the Trump administration began claiming that the Mueller probe wasn't moving fast enough. Throughout the summer, Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani claimed over and over again that Mueller had to ensure that the investigation released its report by the time the midterms rolled around ([despite Mueller making no such claims, and there being no such rule](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/09/politics/rudy-giuliani-fact-check-mueller-investigation-russia/index.html)). Efforts by the Trump administration to downplay the Russia probe mounted throughout 2018 as it became [increasingly more polarising](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-russia-investigation-isnt-less-popular-its-just-more-polarizing/), with Democrats becoming more in favour and Republicans becoming more opposed. As they did, Trump's attacks on Jeff Sessions became [more and more prominent.](https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-tweets-comments-150cf9a2-1a96-4a27-88aa-e000bb285a09.html) As early as July 2017, Trump was making comments about how he was opposed to Sessions recusing himself from the matter -- ["Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else."](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-sessions-russia.html) -- and floating the question of just what would happen if he fired Sessions. However, warned of political backlash, he didn't, instead increasingly turning on his earliest supporter. In July of 2018, he tweeted:

>[The Russian Witch Hunt Hoax continues, all because Jeff Sessions didn’t tell me he was going to recuse himself...I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined...and Sessions knew better than most that there was No Collusion!](https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1003962584352030720)

Sessions hit back repeatedly during this time, asserting that he did [the right thing by recusing himself](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-sessions-trump/sessions-pushes-back-at-trump-vows-justice-department-impartiality-idUSKCN1GC2VN):

>“We have initiated the appropriate process that will ensure complaints against this department will be fully and fairly acted upon if necessary,” Sessions said in a statement. He said the department “will continue to do its work in a fair and impartial manner according to the law and Constitution.”

Then things went quiet.

**The Midterms, and what happened next.**

Generally speaking, no one likes to rock the boat too much before any sort of election; as we found out in 2016 with James Comey and Hillary Clinton's emails, any major announcement -- regardless of how well-intentioned -- can have a serious impact on voting habits, and the departments in question tend to be focused (at least in theory) on remaining impartial. After a busy summer, the Mueller investigation seemed to grind to a halt. (It's important to note that it was still working away behind the scenes, but the major arrests of the summer -- Manafort and Cohen, who technically weren't under the auspices of the Russia probe but who were arrested based on information found as a result of it -- gave way to an eerie silence from that front.) Similarly, Trump's desire to fire Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein (he repeatedly asserted his right to do both, and there was [a whole thing in September](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/26/donald-trump-rod-rosenstein-meeting-delay) where it seemed, briefly, that Trump was likely to fire the Deputy AG) quieted down too, as Republicans warned him [that it would be a very bad look just before the election.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-23/republican-allies-warn-trump-now-s-not-time-to-fire-rosenstein) However, expectations that one or both of them wouldn't last much longer than November 6th (the date of the midterms) were high. This turned out to be more true than anyone could have predicted.

All of which brings us to the election. While the Republicans kept the Senate, the Democrats took control of the House, which gives them a lot more capability in terms of oversight; in one fell swoop, Trump's near-total control over the US's political system took a massive hit. Democrats immediately promised action, including suggestions that they might force Trump to reveal his tax returns, and promising protection for the Mueller probe should Trump try to shut it down.

One day later, Jeff Sessions resigned from his role as Attorney General.

It's important to note here that 'resigned' is a very particular piece of terminology. Make no mistake, Sessions was pushed out non-voluntarily; he didn't exactly leave the post of his own free will, but was asked to by the President. (Actually Chief of Staff John Kelly; for a man whose catchphrase was 'You're Fired!', Trump doesn't like doing the deed himself.) Sessions's resignation letter makes that much pretty clear; it begins ['At your request, I am submitting my resignation.'](https://www.vox.com/world/2018/11/7/18072940/jeff-sessions-resignation-letter) (There also seemed to be some rebuke to Trump and a restatement that Sessions feels did nothing wrong: 'Most importantly, in my time as Attorney General we have restored and upheld the rule of law — a glorious tradition that each of us has a responsibility to safeguard. We have operated with integrity and have lawfully and aggressively advanced the policy agenda of this administration.') Either way, Sessions was gone.

**That brings us up to today. For what happens next, why it matters that Sessions resigned rather than being fired, and what these protests are about -- I promise, I didn't forget -- you can click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/9v5yz1/whats_the_deal_with_the_protests_for_thursday_nov/e99u7v8/).**

....
Also, are you even capable of forming your own words and thoughts or do you now consider "The Fresno Bee" to be your own critical thought?

"NO PUPPET, NO PUPPET, YOU'RE THE PUPPET"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/13/politics/trump-asked-russians-to-get-clinton-emails-they-immediately-started-trying-/index.html

When all the evidence is so plain, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

You trash sources unless they're from "your" side.

https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/op-ed/article219558065.html

Refuted.

An eloquent retort as usual. Care to refute any of the points? Pick one I would be happy to source it.

in summary;

"CLINTON BAD TRUMP GOOD!!!"

"CLINTON HAX INVESTIGATION!!! FAKE IVNESTIGATION! BAD THINGS WERE BURIED"

"TRUMP INVESTIGATION ALL HOAX, NO FINDING OF EVIDENCE! NO LINKS!"

just making sure that's clear. cause so far, all you've done is rant without providing so called "evidence" for ANY of your claims.

The pot calling the kettle black. Nah, Mueller investigation's found absolutely nothing, so it needs shut down, obviously, right?


That summarize your world views enough?

Thank you for providing my sources for me! If you bother even reading what you posted you will see 2 things...

Several people they picked up surrounding Trump whom they dug to the bottom of the barrel to manufacture charges over, none of which have anything to do with Russia BTW. Then you have a handful of Russians that supposedly did all this hacking, that have NOTHING to do with Trump.

This is how lazy people like you are, and how willing you are to have your bias confirmed. You are too lazy to completely read even your own posts which prove your OWN ARGUMENT wrong!

But investigate that dirty Clinton more! WITCH HUNT AGAINST TRUMP, LEGIT INVESTIGATION AGAINST CLINTON.

U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr. (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)

Paul J. Manafort, Jr., of Alexandria, Va., pleaded guilty on September 14, 2018, to a superseding criminal information filed today in the District of Columbia, which includes conspiracy against the United States (conspiracy to commit money laundering, tax fraud, failing to file Foreign Bank Account Reports and Violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and lying and misrepresenting to the Department of Justice) and conspiracy to obstruct justice (witness tampering). A status report with regard to sentencing was scheduled for Nov. 16, 2018.

====
 

U.S. v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al (1:18-cr-215, District of Columbia)

A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment on July 13, 2018, against 12 Russian nationals for their alleged roles in computer hacking conspiracies aimed at interfering in the 2016 U.S. elections. The indictment charges 11 of the defendants with conspiracy to commit computer crimes, eight counts of aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money. Two defendants are charged with a separate conspiracy to commit computer crimes.

====

U.S. v. Konstantin Kilimnik (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)

A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned a third superseding indictment on June 8, 2018, against Konstantin Kilimnik, of Moscow, Russia. Kilimnik is charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice and obstruction of justice.

===

 

U.S. v. Richard W. Gates III (1:17-cr-201, District of Columbia)

Richard W. Gates III of Richmond, Va., pleaded guilty on Feb. 23, 2018, to a superseding criminal information that includes: count one of the indictment, which charges conspiracy against the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 (which includes conspiracy to violate 26 U.S.C. 7206(1), 31 U.S.C. 5312 and 5322(b), and 22 U.S.C. 612, 618(a)(1), and 618(a)(2)), and a charge of making false statements to the Special Counsel’s Office and FBI agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.

====

U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort, Jr., and Richard W. Gates III (1:18-cr-83, Eastern District of Virginia)

Paul J. Manafort, Jr., of Alexandria, Va., and Richard W. Gates III, of Richmond, Va., were indicted by a federal grand jury on Feb. 22, 2018, in the Eastern District of Virginia. The indictment contains 32 counts: 16 counts related to false individual income tax returns, seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts, five counts of bank fraud conspiracy, and four counts of bank fraud. On March 1, 2018, the court granted a motion to dismiss without prejudice the charges against Gates, following his guilty plea in a related case in the District of Columbia (1:17-cr-201). On Aug. 21, 2018, a federal jury found Manafort guilty on eight counts: counts 1-5, subscribing to a false individual income tax return for tax years 2010-2014; count 12, failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts for year 2012; count 25, bank fraud; and count 27, bank fraud. The court declared a mistrial on 10 counts (counts 11, 13-14, 24, 26, 28-32). As part of his plea agreement on Sept. 14, 2018, Manafort admitted his guilt of the remaining counts against him in this case.

====
 

U.S. v. Alex van der Zwaan (1:18-cr-31, District of Columbia)

Alex van der Zwaan, of London, pleaded guilty on Feb. 20, 2018, to making false statements to FBI agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. Van der Zwaan was sentenced on April 3, 2018, to serve 30 days in prison and pay a $20,000 fine.

===

U.S. v. Internet Research Agency, et al (1:18-cr-32, District of Columbia)

A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment on Feb. 16, 2018, against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities accused of violating U.S. criminal laws in order to interfere with U.S. elections and political processes. The indictment charges all of the defendants with conspiracy to defraud the United States, three defendants with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants with aggravated identity theft.

===
 

U.S. v. Richard Pinedo, et al (1:18-cr-24, District of Columbia)

Richard Pinedo, of Santa Paula, Calif., pleaded guilty on Feb. 12, 2018, to identity fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028. On Oct. 10, 2018, Pinedo was sentenced to serve six months in prison, followed by six months of home confinement, and ordered to complete 100 hours of community service.

===
 

U.S. v. Michael T. Flynn (1:17-cr-232, District of Columbia)

Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn (Ret.), of Alexandria, Va., pleaded guilty on Dec. 1, 2017, to making false statements to FBI agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.

===
 

U.S. v. George Papadopoulos (1:17-cr-182, District of Columbia)

George Papadopoulos, of Chicago, Illinois, pleaded guilty on Oct. 5, 2017, to making false statements to FBI agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. The case was unsealed on Oct. 30, 2017. On Sept. 7, 2018, Papadopoulos was sentenced to serve 14 days in prison, pay a $9,500 fine, and complete 200 hours of community service.