I don't understand why people assume she would run. She didn't really appear to like the white house experience much outside of the perks and social benefits, and she's never been aggressively politically active outside of some activist advocacy. They are now wealthy and have pretty much open access anywhere in their progressive leftist social circles, so they have little to gain by enduring the whitehoue again.

It's wishful thinking by progressive leftists much as with the Clinton's.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I don't understand why people assume she would run. She didn't really appear to like the white house experience much outside of the perks and social benefits, and she's never been aggressively politically active outside of some activist advocacy. They are now wealthy and have pretty much open access anywhere in their progressive leftist social circles, so they have little to gain by enduring the whitehoue again.

It's wishful thinking by progressive leftists much as with the Clinton's.

---

I am completely with you on this. How in the hell people arrive at the conclusion that Michelle Obama's popularity translates into political capital for a Presidential run baffles me. She has NOTHING to list as achievements and by comparison to Barry, Michelle makes him look like a veritable Socrates. Any credentials of feminism she holds are purely positional and not based on any accomplishment or court cases that she argued.

I certainly don't have my finger on the pulse of millenials but I can just imagine their lack of enthusiasm for the woman whose policies made it necessary for Donald Trump to Make School Lunches Great Again after eight years of portion sizes that would make AOC cry if those meager meal sizes were given to illegal aliens in detention.

Barack Obama was very accomplished at code switching his speech style and talking points between different audiences. I don't think Michelle can do that. She could not make it through a Presidential debate, epsecially against Trump, without being drawn into some screed about whitey or whiteness. Michelle stood to Barack's left not as a sign of respect for the office of President but to leave no doubt that she was farther left politically than the Marxist Messiah himself.

For Michelle Obama to declare a run for thw White House would be a screaming admission from the DNC that "we got nothing". Even those prone to vote for a candidate purely based on the absence of a Y chromosome there is a significant number that will be asking themselves, "can't they nominate a woman with a qualification for being in the White House that is stronger than having lived there before and picked out the China patterns and the rainbow decorations for the Kwanzaa tree?"

Quote:

---

Even those prone to vote for a candidate purely based on the absence of a Y chromosome there is a significant number that will be asking themselves, "can't they nominate a woman with a qualification for being in the White House that is stronger than having lived there before and picked out the China patterns and the rainbow decorations for the Kwanzaa tree?"

---

That was good enough to get Hillary a Senate seat.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Even those prone to vote for a candidate purely based on the absence of a Y chromosome there is a significant number that will be asking themselves, "can't they nominate a woman with a qualification for being in the White House that is stronger than having lived there before and picked out the China patterns and the rainbow decorations for the Kwanzaa tree?"

---

That was good enough to get Hillary a Senate seat.

---

Indeed it did and that was supposed to groom her for the run for the Presidency. She failed twice. The point I was trying to make whas that there are feminists whose single issue for voting is a Democrat two X chromosomes but if the best idea the DNC leadership can come up with is running another former Democrat First Lady the have to ask themselves whether they are really more interested in voting for a woman or voting for a candidate that can win.

Quote:

---

The point I was trying to make whas that there are feminists whose single issue for voting is a Democrat two X chromosomes but if the best idea the DNC leadership can come up with is running another former Democrat First Lady the have to ask themselves whether they are really more interested in voting for a woman or voting for a candidate that can win.

---

Two words: Tom Perez. Yes he is that dumb and incompetent.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/450490-unmasker-in-chief-samantha-power-spewed-anti-trump-bias-in-government

Quote:

---

.....It turns out that Power -- the diplomat whose authority inexplicably was used to unmask hundreds of Americans' names in secret intelligence reports during the 2016 election -- engaged in similar Trump-bashing on her official government email, according to documents unearthed by an American Center for Law and Justice lawsuit. The conservative legal group is run by Trump defense attorney Jay Sekulow.

The discovery could add a new dimension -- a question of political bias -- to a long-running congressional investigation into why Power's authority was used to unmask hundreds of Americans' names in secret National Security Agency intercepts during the 2016 election...
.....
One thing clear from Power's emails is an effort to turn a burgeoning Russia scandal against Trump during her final days in office.

For example, when a reporter emailed that he was working on a story advancing the Trump-Russia collusion theory, she asked Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, to assist. "Sounds serious. Can you follow up, Ben?" she emailed.

And on Jan. 17, 2017, three days before she and Obama left office, Power worked into the wee hours of the morning to make her final speech, one that would warn Trump might have the wrong formula for addressing Russia aggression.....

---

Legal query for our barristers regarding 1512 (c) (2). from the Epoch Times article "Tracing the Beginnings of the Dems "obstruction" strategy".

It appears to me that 1512 (c) (2) has a broad opening to be considered a thought crime, plus it's being considerred being used on the Comey firing. First of all, everything I've read that's reputable has stated the President has the executive authority to fire the head of the FBI, among many others, which I'm sure is correct. Secondly, if 1512 (c) (2) were used to impeach someone, President, judge, or others, for thought crimes, doesn't that open a massive gap to impeach nearly anyone the Dems want to?

Assuming my words above are correct, how did the damned thing get passed in Congress, who was President, and how has SCOTUS not ruled against 1512 (c) (2)?

I wanted to put this out yesterday, but life got in the way me paying attention to the Democratic party sniffing the butts of every dictator in the world.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/27/house-intelligence-giorgi-rtskhiladze-schiff-mueller/

Quote:

---

• The House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday interviewed a Georgian-American businessman mentioned in the special counsel's report.
• Giorgi Rtskhiladze told The Daily Caller News Foundation that he spent eight hours with the committee, which asked about his business contacts with Michael Cohen and the Trump Organization.
• Rtskhiladze has filed a complaint with the Justice Department regarding the special counsel's report, which misquoted text messages he exchanged with Cohen about an unsubstantiated sex tape of Donald Trump.

The Democrat-controlled House Intelligence Committee continued its investigation of President Donald Trump on Tuesday by interviewing Giorgi Rtskhiladze, a Georgian-American businessman mentioned in the special counsel's report because of his contacts with former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen......

---

More evidence of selective editing & disinformation by Team Mueller.

Is someone keeping track of all the specific errors in this official government document that have been identified so far?

fasthorses05 said:

---

Legal query for our barristers regarding 1512 (c) (2). from the Epoch Times article "Tracing the Beginnings of the Dems "obstruction" strategy".

It appears to me that 1512 (c) (2) has a broad opening to be considered a thought crime, plus it's being considerred being used on the Comey firing. First of all, everything I've read that's reputable has stated the President has the executive authority to fire the head of the FBI, among many others, which I'm sure is correct. Secondly, if 1512 (c) (2) were used to impeach someone, President, judge, or others, for thought crimes, doesn't that open a massive gap to impeach nearly anyone the Dems want to?

Assuming my words above are correct, how did the damned thing get passed in Congress, who was President, and how has SCOTUS not ruled against 1512 (c) (2)?

I wanted to put this out yesterday, but life got in the way me paying attention to the Democratic party sniffing the butts of every dictator in the world.

---

It's pretty simple actually. It is the broadest of the obstruction statutes because it does not specifically require and actual "proceeding", such as a grand jury investigation. It is arguable that just the forseeability of such a proceeding in the future. (And yet, even with that broad of an interpretation, Mueller declined to make a charging decision.)

In relation to Comey's firing, Trump had been told repeatedly that he was not under investigation. So how could he intend to obstruct something that he had no knowledge of nor could forsee a future grand jury investigation?

Further, as Barr has explained, 1512(c)(2) hits a stumbling block called Article II of the Constitution when applying it to the President. His powers and duties to run the Executive Branch includes plenary power to fire members of his own administration.

Couple the fact that Trump was not under investigation and his plenary power to fire Executive Branch members and there is no evidence of a corrupt intent. In addition, Comey's own bad acts, including his lambasting Hillary while declining to refer charges and then the later discovery of his memos including classified information being unlawfully disseminated provided ample reason to support his termination.

As for the legislative history of 18 USC 1512(c)(2), it was modified by Sarbanes-Oxley, passed in 2002, in the wake of Enron, Worldcom and other corporate scandals.The broad language was used to apply to corporate accounting and reporting requirements where no proceeding is ongoing. Fudge the reports? Obstruction of justice.

(Overkill IMO but it is what it is.) Challenges to Sarbanes-Oxley have been on narrow and different grounds other than the application of 1512(c)(2) as contemplated here, AFAIK.

Very long but quite interesting article on the timeline between Comey's firing and Mueller's appointment. Contains these suggested question for Mueller.

Quote:

---

On May 16, 2017, were you applying to become FBI Director?
Why did you go to the White House?
When did Rod Rosenstein contact you about going to the White House?
When did Rod Rosenstein first contact you about becoming special counsel?
Did you speak to any members of the DOJ or FBI prior to going to the White House?
Were there conversations about a possible 'special counsel position' prior to May 16th, 2017?
Were you aware President Trump was under investigation prior to your conversation of May 16th, with President Trump?
Were you aware of the nature of the investigation, prior to May 16, 2017?
Were you aware of the possibility of being appointed 'special counsel'?
Did you take any recording devices into the Oval Office meeting?
Did you own the cell phone you left in the Oval Office on May 16, 2017?
Between the afternoon Oval Office meeting and the next day announcement to the Gang-of-Eight by Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe, when exactly did you agree to become special counsel?
How did Rod Rosenstein contact you between May 16, 2017 and early morning May 17, 2017, about becoming special counsel?
Did you immediately agree to become special counsel when asked?
How much time transpired between Rosenstein asking you to become special counsel and your acceptance of the position?

---

Read the rest

"Overkill" is the perfect word. Actually, it applies to 1512 (c) (2), and Sarbanes-Oxley. I always thought that damned law woud have unintended consequences, which I'm sure it has, I'm just not aware of them. When people ***** about CEO salaries, I often think about the substansial risks the CEO's have due to that damned law.

I got a kick out of the words "simple really". The results of my thinking regarding law is often "simple really", but It turns out to be wrong because of some other statute, law, corrolary, etc.. I have the ability here to have these things explained, so as usual, I'm grateful, but I still think 1512 (c) (2) is a BS wide-open, law that has been, and will be used to corral people on obstruction.

I don't know if it's passed SCOTUS muster, but if we're going to keep it, it should be reigned in, or have it's edges rounded!

Quote:

---

I got a kick out of the words "simple really". The results of my thinking regarding law is often "simple really", but It turns out to be wrong because of some other statute, law, corrolary, etc.. I have the ability here to have these things explained, so as usual, I'm grateful, but I still think 1512 (c) (2) is a BS wide-open, law that has been, and will be used to corral people on obstruction.

---

Completely agree. Might be why Mueller didn't feel comfortable going down that road and Barr just slammed the door on it.

So, anyone who was aware of that stuff and still signed off on the veracity of it could be guilty of criminal acts regarding submitting false documents, possibly?

I know just about every time I sign a submission to a federal agency there is language that criminalizes my knowing falsification of contents of that document.

I'm guessing because this is a report and not a form, it can contain all sorts of false information without specific consequence.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

So, anyone who was aware of that stuff and still signed off on the veracity of it could be guilty of criminal acts regarding submitting false documents, possibly?

---

Certainly as to FISA and Article III search warrants, yes.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

So, anyone who was aware of that stuff and still signed off on the veracity of it could be guilty of criminal acts regarding submitting false documents, possibly?

I know just about every time I sign a submission to a federal agency there is language that criminalizes my knowing falsification of contents of that document.

I'm guessing because this is a report and not a form, it can contain all sorts of false information without specific consequence.

---

The report itself is not a sworn document, nor was it prepared for submission to a court. It was prepared for the AG, per federal regulations.

That having been said, there were multiple documents that have been submitted to courts involving Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, Gates, Van der Zwann, Roger Stone, etc. that likely contain misleading or factually incorrect statements.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/here-s-how-robert-mueller-s-testimony-congress-will-work-n1022236

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON After months of negotiations, former special counsel Robert Mueller has agreed to testify before the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees on July 17, but his willingness still comes with some parameters, according to a congressional aide with knowledge of the arrangement with Mueller's office.

There will be two open sessions with Mueller and two closed sessions with his staff.

The House Judiciary Committee will have to choose which of its members are able to ask Mueller questions during its open session. Unlike the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Judiciary Committee is quite large, almost double in size, so only 22 of its 41 members will be present for the open session, the aide said

...

Judiciary Committee members who do not get to ask questions of Mueller will still be able to attend a closed session with Mueller's staff following the open testimony, where they will be able to ask about material that was redacted from the public eye.

Each member of the Intelligence Committee will be able to ask Mueller questions for five minutes in the open session before following up in a similar closed session.

In the closed sessions, the Intelligence Committee will have access to the unredacted version of volume I of the Mueller report, which focuses on the question of collusion and conspiracy with the Russian government, while the Judiciary Committee will have access to the unredacted version of volume II, which focuses on obstruction of justice.

Neither committee will have access to any information that is redacted for purposes of protecting information provided to the grand jury.

Although there will be no transcript of the closed sessions, they are not considered classified, so members may discuss what they heard.

---

drcrinum said:

---

Why closed sessions if not classified and no transcripts? Sounds suspicious to me.

---

So basically don't believe anything from either side that comes out after this - it will all be gossip and unverified.

drcrinum said:

---

Why closed sessions if not classified and no transcripts? Sounds suspicious to me.

---

You're so honest, crinum. If politician is running something like this, it's highly likely to be suspicious. If a Democrat House is running it, it's 100%, guaranteed to be suspicious.

Actually, it's 100% guaranteed to be corrupt. The comments coming out of the closed session will be astoundingly different without a transcript. The Right will come closest to the truth, but the Left will say that "when Mueller saw that Trump had two horns, red scaly skin, a pitchfork, and a bifurcated tail", he knew he had to become special counsel. Satan reference brought to you by "Oh Brother Where Art Thou"!!

Republicans should secretly tape the closed sessions.

aggiehawg said:

---

Republicans should secretly tape the closed sessions.

---

I thought the same thing. Are there any republicans from TX that will be in the hearing that we can hammer over this?

will25u said:

---

---

our government is a f'ing farce.

Gohmert is on the Judiciary Committee. Forgot Ratcliffe.

Will (puke) Hurd and Mike Conaway are on Intelligence Committee.

None of Muller's targets or interviewees got the luxury of no transcripts and mo recording in a closed session. I take it that Nadler and Schiff have abandoned the thought of "no one is above the law"?

Obviously, Mueller is worried about a perjury trap.

Need to be careful on that, if you point out how bad the report is, than the Democrats will go, "See it was a bad investigation, obviously there was collusion but Mueller was so incompetent he couldn't find it we need to continue the investigation in congress."

BQ78 said:

---

Need to be careful on that, if you point out how bad the report is, than the Democrats will go, "See it was a bad investigation, obviously there was collusion but Mueller was so incompetent he couldn't find it we need to continue the investigation in congress."

---

They won't have 40 million dollars, 18 lawyers, 40 FBI agents and multiple grand juries. How would Congress possibly be any more thorough than Mueller?

Patentmike said:

---

Obviously, Mueller is worried about a perjury trap.

---

Totally triggers me that Mueller can dictate testimony terms while Hope Hicks can be grilled for 8 hrs. I hope Graham isn't this accommodating when he subpoenas Mueller's bony ass before the Senate judiciary..