Osama bin Laden's declassified letters:

[Hawkeye]

Declassified letters reveal 'isolated' bin Laden

Documents released by the United States portray Osama bin Laden as an isolated terrorist leader worried about the future of Al Qaeda and losing support of Muslims.

The 17 previously classified files are a fraction of the thousands found on computers and hard drives seized by US Navy Seals from the Pakistan compound where bin Laden was hiding.

...

In another document the terrorist leader calls for US president Barack Obama to be targeted, but not vice-president Joe Biden.

"Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the US into a crisis," bin Laden wrote.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-...uments/3990374

[crockett]

If We Had Confidence That the President Did Not Commit a Crime, We Would Have Said So’
Mueller

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by crockett

If We Had Confidence That the President Did Not Commit a Crime, We Would Have Said So’
Mueller

The Mueller Report is public. Everybody can read it.

Results:

No collusion. No obstruction. No crimes.



PS: Osama bin Laden wanted Joe Biden alive because of all the damage he would do as President.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

The Mueller Report is public. Everybody can read it.

Results:

No collusion. No obstruction. No crimes.



PS: Osama bin Laden wanted Joe Biden alive because of all the damage he would do as President.

Clearly you didn't read it..

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by crockett

Clearly you didn't read it..

I read every word.

Results:

No collusion. No obstruction. No crimes.

[RedFred]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

The Mueller Report is public. Everybody can read it.

Results:

No collusion. No obstruction. No crimes.



PS: Osama bin Laden wanted Joe Biden alive because of all the damage he would do as President.

Clearly you take advice on who to support from bin Laden.

[RedFred]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

I read every word.

Results:

No collusion. No obstruction. No crimes.

Clearly you have a reading comprehension disability.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by RedFred

Clearly you have a reading comprehension disability.

The Mueller report is clear:

No collusion. No obstruction. No crimes.




Thank you for your service, Mr. Mueller. Enjoy retirement.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by RedFred

Clearly you have a reading comprehension disability.

He's full on retard

Hawkete aka Onwebcam aka Wehateporn aka Huey aka ghjghj etc. etc etc.

[VRPdommy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

I read every word.

Results:

No collusion. No obstruction. No crimes.

Sorry,
The results were Obstruction that he can not prosecute. He along with everyone in the DOJ believe that you can not indite a sitting POTUS. That issue was left for Congress to take up for only they have the power to prosecute crimes of a sitting POTUS.

If you are reading anything else, it is wishful thinking and a lack of understanding for words or you didn't actually read it.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

He's full on retard

Hawkete aka Onwebcam aka Wehateporn aka Huey aka ghjghj etc. etc etc.

Here's the report:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf




Summary:

No collusion, No obstruction, No crimes.

[OneHungLo]

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

Sorry,
The results were Obstruction that he can not prosecute. He along with everyone in the DOJ believe that you can not indite a sitting POTUS. That issue was left for Congress to take up for only they have the power to prosecute crimes of a sitting POTUS.

If you are reading anything else, it is wishful thinking and a lack of understanding for words or you didn't actually read it.

Mueller Report Findings: No Collusion, Can't Exonerate On Obstruction.

Since when does "can't exonerate" mean he's guilty?

Under what legal standard do we operate like that?

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by OneHungLo

Mueller Report Findings: No Collusion, Can't Exonerate On Obstruction.

Since when does "can't exonerate" mean he's guilty?

Under what legal standard do we operate like that?

They couldn't find anything. No collusion, no obstruction, and no crimes.

So now they're playing Talmudic word games. That's all they have.

[RedFred]

"If we had confidence Trump DID NOT commit a crime, we would have said so"

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by RedFred

"If we had confidence Trump DID NOT commit a crime, we would have said so"

See?

Talmudic word games. That's all they have.

Plus childish name calling.

[RedFred]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

See?

Talmudic word games. That's all they have.

Plus childish name calling.

What kind of loser spends his whole day defending a criminal President??

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by RedFred

What kind of loser spends his whole day defending a criminal President??

Here's the report:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf




Summary:

No collusion, No obstruction, No crimes.

[VRPdommy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Here's the report:

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf




Summary:

No collusion, No obstruction, No crimes.

It does not say no obstruction. READ IT !

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

It does not say no obstruction. READ IT !

[OneHungLo]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

See?

Talmudic word games. That's all they have.

Plus childish name calling.

Bingo.



Dems have much bigger problems to worry about.

[VRPdommy]

Originally Posted by OneHungLo

Mueller Report Findings: No Collusion, Can't Exonerate On Obstruction.

Since when does "can't exonerate" mean he's guilty?

Under what legal standard do we operate like that?

You are reading Barr, not Mueller.
If you guys can'r read it, why talk about it. You can't fool those of us that have.
So who are you trying to convince... yourself ?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

I read every word.

Results:

No collusion. No obstruction. No crimes.

No you only read what Barr wrote dumb fuck..

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by VRPdommy

You are reading Barr, not Mueller.
If you guys can'r read it, why talk about it. You can't fool those of us that have.
So who are you trying to convince... yourself ?

Here's the Mueller report. I've read it.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf




Summary:

No collusion, No obstruction, No crimes.

[PR_Glen]

Originally Posted by OneHungLo

Mueller Report Findings: No Collusion, Can't Exonerate On Obstruction.

Since when does "can't exonerate" mean he's guilty?

Under what legal standard do we operate like that?

well at least you can read and what you said is correct, that doesn't imply guilt, but he also said the onus was on congress to decide that. the op couldn't even figure that part out... he just keeps repeating his leaders nonsense.

good on you.

[RedFred]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Here's the Mueller report. I've read it.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf




Summary:

No collusion, No obstruction, No crimes.

[Hawkeye]

Any of you Leftists could immediately end this conversation by pointing to evidence of collusion, obstruction, or any other crimes.

I've given you the complete Mueller report many times.




Except there is no evidence of collusion, obstruction, or any other crime.

Which is why the only thing you can do is insult me or change the subject.

[RedFred]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Any of you Leftists could immediately end this conversation by pointing to evidence of collusion, obstruction, or any other crimes.

I've given you the complete Mueller report many times.




Except there is no evidence of collusion, obstruction, or any other crime.

Which is why the only thing you can do is insult me or change the subject.

[VRPdommy]

9. The President Attempts to Have K.T. McFarland Create a Witness Statement Denying that he Directed Flynn's Discussions with Kislyak On February 22, 2017, Priebus and Bannon told McFarland that the President wanted her to resign as Deputy National Security Advisor, but they suggested to her that the Administration could make her the ambassador to Singapore.252 The next day, the President asked Priebus to have McFarland draft an internal email that would confirm that the President did not direct Flynn to call the Russian Ambassador about sanctions.253 Priebus said he told the President he would only direct McFarland to write such a letter if she were comfortable with it.254 Priebus called McFarland into his office to convey the President's request that she memorialize in writing that the President did not direct Flynn to talk to Kislyak.255 McFarland told Priebus she did not know whether the President had directed Flynn to talk to Kislyak about sanctions, and she declined to say yes or no to the request.256 Priebus understood that McFarland was not comfortable with the President's request, and he recommended that she talk to attorneys in the White House Counsel's Office.257 McFarland then reached out to Eisenberg.258 McFarland told him that she had been fired from her job as Deputy National Security Advisor and offered the ambassadorship in Singapore but that the President and Priebus wanted a letter from her denying that the President directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak.259 Eisenberg advised McFarland not to write the requested letter.260 As documented by McFarland in a contemporaneous "Memorandum for the Record" that she wrote because she was concerned by the President's request: "Eisenberg . .. thought the requested email and letter would be a bad idea-from my side because the email would be awkward. Why would T be emailing Priebus to make a statement for the record? But it would also be a bad idea for the President because it looked as if my ambassadorial appointment was in some way a quid pro quo."261 Later that evening, Priebus stopped by McFarland' s office and told her not to write the email and to forget he even me ntioned it.262 Around the same time, the President asked Priebus to reach out to Flynn and let him know that the President still cared about him.263 Priebus called Flynn and said that he was checking in and that Flynn was an American hero. 264 Priebus thought the President did not want Flynn saying bad things about him.265 On March 31, 2017, following news that Flynn had offered to testify before the FBI and congressional investigators in exchange for immunity, the President tweeted, "Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!"266 In late March or early April, the President asked McFarland to pass a message to Flynn telling him the President felt bad for him and that he should stay strong.267 Analysis In analyzing the President's conduct related to the Flynn investigation, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice: a. Obstructive act. According to Corney's account of his February 14, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office, the President told him, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go .... I hope you can let this go." In analyzing whether these statements constitute an obstructive act, a threshold question is whether Corney's account of the interaction is accurate, and, if so, whether the President's statements had the tendency to impede the administration of justice by shutting down an inquiry that could result in a grand jury investigation and a criminal charge. After Corney's account of the President' s request to "let[] Flynn go" became public, the President publicly disputed several aspects of the story. The President told the New York Times that he did not "shoo other people out of the room" when he talked to Corney and that he did not remember having a one-on-one conversation with Comey.268 The President also publicly denied that he had asked Corney to "let[] Flynn go" or otherwise communicated that Corney should drop the investigation ofFlynn.269 In private, the President denied aspects of Corney's account to White House advisors, but acknowledged to Priebus that he brought Flynn up in the meeting with Corney and stated that Flynn was a good guy.270 Despite those denials, substantial evidence corroborates Corney's account.

[VRPdommy]

First, Corney wrote a detailed memorandum of his encounter with the President on the same day it occurred. Corney also told senior FBI officials about the meeting with the President that day, and their recollections of what Corney told them at the time are consistent with Corney's account.271 Second, Corney provided testimony about the President's request that he " let[] Flynn go" under oath in congressional proceedings and in interviews with federal investigators subject to penalties for lying under 18 U.S.C. § I 00 l . Corney's recollections of the encounter have remained consistent over time. Third, the objective, corroborated circumstances of how the one-on-one meeting came to occur support Corney's description of the event. Corney recalled that the President cleared the room to speak with Corney alone after a homeland security briefing in the Oval Office, that Kushner and Sessions lingered and had to be shooed out by the President, and that Priebus briefly opened the door during the meeting, prompting the President to wave him away. While the President has publicly denied those details, other Administration officials who were present have confirmed Corney's account of how he ended up in a one-on-one meeting with the President.272 And the President acknowledged to Priebus and McGahn that he in fact spoke to Corney about Flynn in their one-on-one meeting. Fourth, the President's decision to clear the room and, in particular, to exclude the Attorney General from the meeting signals that the President wanted to be alone with Corney, which is consistent with the delivery of a message of the type that Corney recalls, rather than a more innocuous conversation that could have occurred in the presence of the Attorney General. Finally, Corney's reaction to the President's statements is consistent with the President having asked him to "let[] Flynn go." Corney met with the FBI leadership team, which agreed to keep the President' s statements closely held and not to inform the team working on the Flynn investigation so that they would not be influenced by the President' s request. Corney also promptly met with the Attorney General to ask him not to be left alone with the President again, an account verified by Sessions, FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki, and Jody Hunt, who was then the Attorney General's chief of staff. A second question is whether the President's statements, which were not phrased as a direct order to Corney, could impede or interfere with the FBI's investigation of Flynn. While the President said he "hope[d]" Corney could "let[] Flynn go," rather than affirmatively directing him to do so, the circumstances of the conversation show that the President was asking Corney to close the FBl's investigation into Flynn. First, the President arranged the meeting with Corney so that they would be alone and purposely excluded the Attorney General, which suggests that the President meant to make a request to Corney that he did not want anyone else to hear. Second, because the President is the head of the Executive Branch, when he says that he " hopes" a subordinate will do something, it is reasonable to expect that the subordinate will do what the President wants. Indeed, the President repeated a version of"let this go" three times, and Corney testified that he understood the President's statements as a directive, which is corroborated by the way Corney reacted at the time. b. Nexus to a proceeding. To establish a nexus to a proceeding, it would be necessary to show that the President could reasonably foresee and actually contemplated that the investigation of Flynn was likely to lead to a grand jury investigation or prosecution. At the time of the President's one-on-one meeting with Corney, no grand jury subpoenas had been issued as part of the FBI's investi ation into Fl nn. But Fl nn's lies to the FBI violated federal criminal law, , and resulted in Flynn's prosecution for violating 18 U .S.C. § 100 I. By the time the President spoke to Corney about Flynn, DOJ officials had informed McGahn, who informed the President, that Flynn' s statements to senior White House officials about his contacts with Kislyak were not true and that Flynn had told the same version of events to the FBI. McGahn also informed the President that Flynn' s conduct could violate 18 U.S.C. § l 001. After the Vice President and senior White House officials reviewed the underlying information about Flynn's calls on February 10, 2017, they believed that Flynn could not have forgotten his conversations with Kislyak and concluded that he had been lying. In addition, the President's instruction to the FBI Director to "let[] Flynn go" suggests his awareness that Flynn could face criminal exposure for his conduct and was at risk of prosecution. c. Intent. As part of our investigation, we examined whether the President had a personal stake in the outcome of an investigation into Flynn-for example, whether the President was aware of Flynn' s communications with Kislyak close in time to when they occurred, such that the President knew that Flynn had lied to senior White House officials and that those lies had been passed on to the public. Some evidence suggests that the President knew about the existence and content of Flynn's calls when they occurred, but the evidence is inconclusive and could not be relied upon to establish the President's knowledge. In advance of Flynn's initial call with Kislyak, the President attended a meeting where the sanctions were discussed and an advisor may have mentioned that Flynn was scheduled to talk to Kislyak. Flynn told McFarland about the substance of his calls with Kislyak and said they may have made a difference in Russia's response, and Flynn recalled talking to Bannon in early January 2017 about how they had successfully " stopped the train on Russia's response" to the sanctions. It would have been reasonable for Flynn to have wanted the President to know of his communications with Kislyak because Kislyak told Flynn his request had been received at the highest levels in Russia and that Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to the request, and the President was pleased by the Russian response, calling it a " [g]reat move." And the President never said publicly or internally that Flynn had lied to him about the calls with Kislyak. But McFarland did not recall providing the President-Elect with Flynn's read-out of his calls with Kislyak, and Flynn does not have a specific recollection of telling the President-Elect directly about the calls. Bannon also said he did not recall hearing about the calls from Flynn. And in February 2017, the President asked Flynn what was discussed on the calls and whether he had lied to the Vice President, suggesting that he did not already know. Our investigation accordingly did not produce evidence that established that the President knew about Flynn' s discussions of sanctions before the Department of Justice notified the White House of those discussions in late January 2017. The evidence also does not establish that Flynn otherwise possessed information damaging to the President that would give the President a personal incentive to end the FBI' s inquiry into Flynn' s conduct. Evidence does establish that the President connected the Flynn investigation to the FBI's broader Russia investigation and that he believed, as he told Christie, that terminating Flynn would end "the whole Russia thing." Flynn's firing occurred at a time when the media and Congress were raising questions about Russia's interference in the election and whether members of the President's campaign had colluded with Russia. Multiple witnesses recalled that the President viewed the Russia investigations as a challenge to the legitimacy of his election.

[VRPdommy]

The President paid careful attention to negative coverage of Flynn and reacted with annoyance and anger when the story broke disclosing that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Just hours before meeting one-on-one with Corney, the President told Christie that firing Flynn would put an end to the Russia inquiries. And after Christie pushed back, telling the President that firing Flynn would not end the Russia investigation, the President asked Christie to reach out to Corney and convey that the President liked him and he was part of "the team." That afternoon, the President cleared the room and asked Corney to "let[] Flynn go." We also sought evidence relevant to assessing whether the President' s direction to Corney was motivated by sympathy towards Flynn. In public statements the President repeatedly described Flynn as a good person who had been harmed by the Russia investigation, and the President directed advisors to reach out to Flynn to tell him the President "care[d]" about him and felt bad for him. At the same time, multiple senior advisors, including Bannon, Priebus, and Hicks, said that the President had become unhappy with Flynn well before Flynn was forced to resign and that the President was frequently irritated with Flynn. Priebus said he believed the President's initial reluctance to fire Flynn stemmed not from personal regard, but from concern about the negative press that would be generated by firing the National Security Advisor so early in the Administration. And Priebus indicated that the President's post-firing expressions of support for Flynn were motivated by the President's desire to keep Flynn from saying negative things about him. The way in which the President communicated the request to Corney also is relevant to understanding the President's intent. When the President first learned about the FBI investigation into Flynn, he told McGahn, Bannon, and Priebus not to discuss the matter with anyone else in the White House. The next day, the President invited Corney for a one-on-one dinner against the advice of an aide who recommended that other White House officials also attend. At the dinner, the President asked Corney for " loyalty" and, at a different point in the conversation, mentioned that Flynn had judgment issues. When the President met with Corney the day after Flynn's termination-shortly after being told by Christie that firing Flynn would not end the Russia investigation-the President cleared the room, even excluding the Attorney General, so that he could again speak to Corney alone. The President's decision to meet one-on-one with Corney contravened the advice of the White House Counsel that the President should not communicate directly with the Department of Justice to avoid any appearance of interfering in law enforcement activities. And the President later denied that he cleared the room and asked Corney to " let[] Flynn go"-a denial that would have been unnecessary if he believed his request was a proper exercise of prosec utorial discretion.

Finally, the President's effort to have McFarland write an internal email denying that the President had directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak highlights the President' s concern about being associated with Flynn's conduct. The evidence does not establish that the President was trying to have McFarland lie. The President's request, however, was sufficiently irregular that McFarland-who did not know the full extent of Flynn' s communications with the President and thus could not make the representation the President wanted-felt the need to draft an internal memorandum documenting the President's request, and Eisenberg was concerned that the request would look like a quid pro quo in exchange for an ambassadorship. C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation Overview In early March 2017, the President learned that Sessions was considering rec using from the Russia investigation and tried to prevent the recusal. After Sessions announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed anger at Sessions for the decision and then privately asked Sessions to "unrecuse." On March 20, 2017, Corney publicly disclosed the existence of the FBI's Russia investigation. In the days that followed, the President contacted Corney and other intelligence agency leaders and asked them to push back publicly on the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort in order to "lift the cloud" of the ongoing investigation.