http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4167334&mc=12&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37617867)

FBI+Mueller didn't fit in subject line

But even May 2017 - he's gonna wait almost 2 years to reveal evidence?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615005)

The entire Clinton investigation went 1994-2002.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615022)

i mean it was fun to embarrass Clinton, who was a shithead, but cmon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615094)

Fuck Mueller. Fuck Starr.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615180)

it is hard to believe impeachment happens on those grounds without the obstruction of something else

not following any of this tho

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615035)

Although "endeavor" might be thought of as a synonym for "attempt," the Supreme Court has concluded that "endeavor" is broader than "attempt." United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138 (1921). In Russell, the Supreme Court held:

The word of the section is "endeavor," and by using it the section got rid of the technicalities which might be urged as besetting the word "attempt," and it describes any effort or essay to accomplish the evil purpose that the section was enacted to prevent . . . . The section . . . is not directed at success in corrupting a juror but at the "endeavor" to do so. Experimental approaches to the corruption of a juror are the "endeavor" of the section.

Id. at 143. Accord Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323, 333 (1966). See also United States v. Tedesco, 635 F.2d 902 (1st Cir. 1980) (court rejected defendant's argument that an explicit offer of a bribe or a request for specific testimony was required for an endeavor to influence a witness under section 1503), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 962 (1981); United States v. Fasolino, 586 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1978) (defendant's importuning of a third party to approach a Federal judge, whom the third party knew, on a pending sentencing matter constituted an endeavor). see generally United States v. Osborn, 385 U.S. at 332-33; United States v. Lazzerini, 611 F.2d 940, 941-42 (1st Cir. 1979); United States v. Roe, 529 F.2d 629, 631-32 (4th Cir. 1975); United States v. Rosner, 485 F.2d 1213, 1228-29 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 950 (1974); United States v. Missler, 414 F.2d 1293, 1306 (4th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 913 (1970); Knight v. United States, 310 F.2d 305, 307 (5th Cir. 1962) (per curiam). The legislative history of section 1510 indicates that Congress intended to incorporate this case law into that provision. H.R.Rep. No. 658, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 3, reprinted in 1967 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1760, 1762.

It follows that an endeavor to obstruct justice need not be successful to be criminal. See, e.g., Osborn, 385 U.S. at 333; United States v. Bucey, 876 F.2d 1297, 1314 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1004 (1989); United States v. Thomas, 916 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir. 1990); United States v. Barfield, 999 F.2d 1520, 1522 (11th Cir. 1993); United States v. Wood, 6 F.3d 692, 695 (10th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, factual impossibility, which arises when the defendant solicits a third party to obstruct justice and the third party is a government informant, is not a valid defense. See United States v. Osborn, supra and United States v. Rosner, 485 F.2d at 1228-29.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615057)

the assessment i offer you leave unaddressed

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615095)

http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4167334&mc=12&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37617870)

2) Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, was indicted on a total of 25 different counts by Mueller’s team, related mainly to his past work for Ukrainian politicians and his finances. He had two trials scheduled, and the first ended in a conviction on eight counts of financial crimes. To avert the second trial, Manafort struck a plea deal with Mueller in September 2018 (though Mueller’s team said in November that he breached that agreement by lying to them).

3) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort’s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But in February he agreed to a plea deal with Mueller’s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.

4) Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty last December to making false statements to the FBI.

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller. He was sentenced to 6 months in prison and 6 months of home detention in October.

22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and has completed his sentence.

23) Konstantin Kilimnik: This longtime business associate of Manafort and Gates, who’s currently based in Russia, was charged alongside Manafort with attempting to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses in Manafort’s pending case this year.

24-35) 12 Russian GRU officers: These officers of Russia’s military intelligence service were charged with crimes related to the hacking and leaking of leading Democrats’ emails in 2016.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615202)

What's conspicuously absent here? Oh yeah, an single shred of evidence (much less an indictment) that Trump conspired with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election.

2017 libs: DRUMPF conspired with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election

2019 libs: hey at least we nailed Manafort on his taxes and indicted a bunch of random Russians who will never see the inside of a US court house.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615233)

You're drawing a conclusion where one is not in any way merited. You should really take a wait and see attitude.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615292)

Sure, maybe one of these days Mueller’s goons will reveal some super secret evidence that no one knows about.

But the facts are simple. As of today—after 3 years of investigations with unlimited resources, not a single piece of evidence has come to light that Trump conspires with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election. Which is odd because leading Democrats have bleated for years that this is the case. It’s almost like they were lying. Odd case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615363)

And as far as Manafort is concerned, how do you conspiracy theorists draw the line from 'communicating with foreign nationals with whom he had a prior business relationship' to 'coordinating with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election'?

I know that you Russia Conspiracy Theorists are a gullible bunch (you have to be in order to fall for such an outlandish conspiracy theory). But to pretend that there's actual public evidence that supports your Conspiracy Theory is some next level delusion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615822)

Author: .....;;,,.........;.;.;.;.,;,;,;.;.;,;

There is definitely evidence in public and seems to be more not yet public linking Roger Stone--the guy who begged Trump to run for POTUS for 20 years--to the leak of the emails. There's also lots of evidence of Manafort begging the Russians to work with him once he joined the campaign and ascended to Campaign Chairman, setting up secret meetings with Deripaska and passing them campaign information. I agree with the sentiment of the OP that if this really happened it's bizarre to leave Trump in place for so long, and one of the questions that will be asked after the hypothetical reveal would clearly be "what the fuck took so long?" But you guys who sit on XO all day running Trump's twitter schtick shouting "witchhunt deep state no collusion un-American!" are Officer Barbradys and literally no one is falling for it other than people who are dumb enough to listen to Alex Jones and believe everything he says (See e.g. the President).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615433)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#39182539)

Look at his mob or limelight investigations.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615285)

Either through BuzzFeed story is fake news or Mueller's investigation is a leaking POS.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#37615429)

Author: Chill Bisexual Mr. Silly (not lawman8)

That was an insane theory that has gotten more and more likely every single week over the past two months.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180534&forum_id=2#39182504)