Did anyone interfere with your investigation? Mueller...No.

[Kilroy2]

Does the Mueller report exonerate Trump? We asked 12 legal experts.

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map

Mueller words himself and he believes that he can be tried for Obstruction of Justice

Mueller
"we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,”

game over

Wrong! He can be indicted after he leaves office via the Mueller report.

for what? a crime that was determined Trump didn't commit?

The report or testimony by Mueller never said Trump did not commit a crime.

Mueller
"we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,”


innocent till proven guilty
it was determined no crime was committed and because you are innocent till proven guilty Trump remained innocent

Well you started out good but in the middle

"It was determined no crime was committed is not what he said"

Innocent until proven guilty is correct

Your logic is too put the two together and assume there was no crime.

Just because there has been no trial does not mean that there was no crime

Mueller clearly said that trump was exonerated in the collusion
but he could NOT exonerate him in obstruction

This does not prove Trump innocent in obstruction but he is afford this luxury until a trial can be had .

I know you all still believe OJ is guilty but in fact the criminal suit he was found not guilty and there for innocent.

 

[Faun]

No. But impeachment is not always the right thing to do. It places a huge strain on the country and should be reserved for serious offenses, IMO.

Ok, what do you think your options are then?

Simple.... let America render a "verdict" next year in the election.

 

[Faun]

Mueller
"we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,”

game over

Wrong! He can be indicted after he leaves office via the Mueller report.

for what? a crime that was determined Trump didn't commit?

The report or testimony by Mueller never said Trump did not commit a crime.

Mueller
"we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,”


innocent till proven guilty
it was determined no crime was committed and because you are innocent till proven guilty Trump remained innocent

Well you started out good but in the middle

"It was determined no crime was committed is not what he said"

Innocent until proven guilty is correct

Your logic is too put the two together and assume there was no crime.

Just because there has been no trial does not mean that there was no crime

Mueller clearly said that trump was exonerated in the collusion
but he could NOT exonerate him in obstruction

This does not prove Trump innocent in obstruction but he is afford this luxury until a trial can be had .

I know you all still believe OJ is guilty but in fact the criminal suit he was found not guilty and there for innocent.

OJ was found to be not guilty. Not quite the same thing as innocent.

 

[Faun]

What an idiotic comparison. The FISA application was based on the dossier, moron. If it's fake, there is no basis for the warrant. There was no other evidence presented that would have justified a warrant. If there had been, they would not have had to use the FAKE dossier. IOW, stupid, the entire case for collusion was based on a fucking LIE.

The Dossier is not fake. The FBI corroborated its accuracy.

No they didn't......it was a fake dossier that they then broke the law when they used it to get FISA warrants......

No they didn't......it was a fake dossier that they then broke the law when they used it to get FISA warrants...... Do you have any idea how absolutely useless and inaccurate, this statement is? It doesn't say anything, it doesn't argue anything, but what it does say, is that you failed to prove me wrong. You people are nothing but cry babies without arguing anything down. I can't find any factual rebuttals so I'll just say "No they didn't" and pout like a crying baby. You are pitiful. View attachment 271201

Keep in mind, it's from the same idiot who thinks Putin gave Hillary $145 million and thinks the investigation into collusion with Russian was a hoax

That one's not playing with a full deck, if ya know what I mean?

You simply can't help the low 2 digit IQ ABNORMALS

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Apr 23, 2015 · Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation ... Now, after Russia's annexation of Crimea and aggression in ... many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance

Thanks for proving your compadre to be completely nuts, just as I claimed. There's a absolutely nothing in the article you linked stating Putin gave Hillary $145 million.

cc: 2aguy

 

[Faun]

Oh, they will care should the Russians decide to aid Democrats this time around. That's what it will take.

The problem is that all this bad stuff done & said by Trump is already known & trey don't care. I mean, there was the tape of a 13 year old & they didn't care.

No one said it better than trump himself... he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose support.

It's a cult.

And this is what mueller was trying to hide...


Beyond his purview

Turchie holds that the testimony of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees this past Wednesday confirmed the existence of a hostile intelligence operation against Donald Trump (video below). Suffice it to say that Turchie takes up issues of fact that have come within our purview on several occasions.

Kim Strassel brings Mueller’s testimony within the purview of her weekly Wall Street Journal column today. She scopes out “What Mueller was trying to hide.” The Journal posts Strassel’s column online together with the video below.
---

Strassel continues with this quotable quote:

The most notable aspect of the Mueller report was always what it omitted: the origins of this mess.

Christopher Steele’s dossier was central to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe, the basis of many of the claims of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet the Mueller authors studiously wrote around the dossier, mentioning it only in perfunctory terms. The report ignored Mr. Steele’s paymaster, Fusion GPS, and its own ties to Russians. It also ignored Fusion’s paymaster, the Clinton campaign, and the ugly politics behind the dossier hit job.

Mr. Mueller’s testimony this week put to rest any doubt that this sheltering was deliberate. In his opening statement he declared that he would not “address questions about the opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the so-called Steele Dossier.” The purpose of those omissions was obvious, as those two areas go to the heart of why the nation has been forced to endure years of collusion fantasy.

I got only as far as the silly part about it being a hoax. There was no hoax. It was not a hoax that Russia hacked us -- that was real. It was not a hoax that trump was surrounded by people with ties to Russia -- that was real. It was not a hiax that some of those people had direct contact with some of the Russian hackers and Wikileaks -- that was real. It was not a hoax that it needed to be investigated -- that too was real.

Since the day Mueller was appointed Special Counsel, trump was doing everything he could to marginalize Mueller. Extending to labeling his investigation as a Russia-collusion Hoax, knowing full well his cult members would run with it. Y'all are nothing if not faithful servants.

The hoax was that Trump conspired, colluded or cooperated with the Russians to tamper with the election. It didn't happen despite what you and the media wanted to believe.

That doesn't make it a hoax. If that were the case, then every investigation ever that failed to result in an indictment is a hoax, and that's just ludicrous. Every trial they fails to result in a conviction is a hoax.

 

[S.J.]

No. But impeachment is not always the right thing to do. It places a huge strain on the country and should be reserved for serious offenses, IMO.

Ok, what do you think your options are then?

Simple.... let America render a "verdict" next year in the election.

Finally we agree on something. We can also let them render a "verdict" on the Democrats who have done nothing but investigate while finding NOTHING. I look forward to it.

 

[Faun]

No. But impeachment is not always the right thing to do. It places a huge strain on the country and should be reserved for serious offenses, IMO.

Ok, what do you think your options are then?

Simple.... let America render a "verdict" next year in the election.

Finally we agree on something. We can also let them render a "verdict" on the Democrats who have done nothing but investigate while finding NOTHING. I look forward to it.

Republicans investigated Benghazi 8 times and came up with nothing. If you think unfruitful investigations are a bar on the minds of Americans, you're only fooling yourself.

 

[S.J.]

Wrong! He can be indicted after he leaves office via the Mueller report.

for what? a crime that was determined Trump didn't commit?

The report or testimony by Mueller never said Trump did not commit a crime.

Mueller
"we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,”


innocent till proven guilty
it was determined no crime was committed and because you are innocent till proven guilty Trump remained innocent

Well you started out good but in the middle

"It was determined no crime was committed is not what he said"

Innocent until proven guilty is correct

Your logic is too put the two together and assume there was no crime.

Just because there has been no trial does not mean that there was no crime

Mueller clearly said that trump was exonerated in the collusion
but he could NOT exonerate him in obstruction

This does not prove Trump innocent in obstruction but he is afford this luxury until a trial can be had .

I know you all still believe OJ is guilty but in fact the criminal suit he was found not guilty and there for innocent.

OJ was found to be not guilty. Not quite the same thing as innocent.

It's "presumed innocent until proven guilty", not "presumed not guilty until proven guilty".

 

[Kilroy2]

Wrong! He can be indicted after he leaves office via the Mueller report.

for what? a crime that was determined Trump didn't commit?

The report or testimony by Mueller never said Trump did not commit a crime.

Mueller
"we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,”


innocent till proven guilty
it was determined no crime was committed and because you are innocent till proven guilty Trump remained innocent

Well you started out good but in the middle

"It was determined no crime was committed is not what he said"

Innocent until proven guilty is correct

Your logic is too put the two together and assume there was no crime.

Just because there has been no trial does not mean that there was no crime

Mueller clearly said that trump was exonerated in the collusion
but he could NOT exonerate him in obstruction

This does not prove Trump innocent in obstruction but he is afford this luxury until a trial can be had .

I know you all still believe OJ is guilty but in fact the criminal suit he was found not guilty and there for innocent.

OJ was found to be not guilty. Not quite the same thing as innocent.

In a court of law not guilty is innocent as is innocent until proven guilty

still at the higher level on judgment day there may be another verdict

but that is above my pay grade

 

[S.J.]

No. But impeachment is not always the right thing to do. It places a huge strain on the country and should be reserved for serious offenses, IMO.

Ok, what do you think your options are then?

Simple.... let America render a "verdict" next year in the election.

Finally we agree on something. We can also let them render a "verdict" on the Democrats who have done nothing but investigate while finding NOTHING. I look forward to it.

Republicans investigated Benghazi 8 times and came up with nothing. If you think unfruitful investigations are a bar on the minds of Americans, you're only fooling yourself.

See you at the polls.

 

[Faun]

for what? a crime that was determined Trump didn't commit?

The report or testimony by Mueller never said Trump did not commit a crime.

Mueller
"we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,”


innocent till proven guilty
it was determined no crime was committed and because you are innocent till proven guilty Trump remained innocent

Well you started out good but in the middle

"It was determined no crime was committed is not what he said"

Innocent until proven guilty is correct

Your logic is too put the two together and assume there was no crime.

Just because there has been no trial does not mean that there was no crime

Mueller clearly said that trump was exonerated in the collusion
but he could NOT exonerate him in obstruction

This does not prove Trump innocent in obstruction but he is afford this luxury until a trial can be had .

I know you all still believe OJ is guilty but in fact the criminal suit he was found not guilty and there for innocent.

OJ was found to be not guilty. Not quite the same thing as innocent.

In a court of law not guilty is innocent as is innocent until proven guilty

still at the higher level on judgment day there may be another verdict

but that is above my pay grade

Not guilty ≠ innocent.

Innocent means you didn't do it.

Not guilty means a court could not prove you did it.

 

[lantern2814]

Right. And if their evidence is tainted it's ALL thrown out. That's basic law 101.

No it is not.

If you are in court charged with murder and one witness is discovered to be lying, that witness's testimony is thrown out. Not the entire case.

How fucking stupid are you people?

What an idiotic comparison. The FISA application was based on the dossier, moron. If it's fake, there is no basis for the warrant. There was no other evidence presented that would have justified a warrant. If there had been, they would not have had to use the FAKE dossier. IOW, stupid, the entire case for collusion was based on a fucking LIE.

The Dossier is not fake. The FBI corroborated its accuracy.

Um, yeah it is, moron. That's not even in dispute (except by idiots like you).

If you thought you had an argument, you don't. Because you didn't provide a rebuttal. So your cry baby "um, yeah it is moron", is an answer coming from a losing ignoramus, which is you. If you can't prove me wrong, then get lost.

Just when we think idiots like you can't get any dumber. Mueller's job was to investigate "Russian interference". He then FAILED to do so when finding evidence of Hillary's involvement with Russians. Claiming "outside his purview". Perjury. There was NOTHING preventing him from coming to a conclusion of whether a crime was committed. He could not, then cowardly tried to say he found no evidence to exonerate. Not his job. He has no evidence, thus no charge. Per his own words, he was not obstructed. There goes that charge too. Period. End of book. Game over. You lose.

 

[BWK]

for what? a crime that was determined Trump didn't commit?

The report or testimony by Mueller never said Trump did not commit a crime.

Mueller
"we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,”


innocent till proven guilty
it was determined no crime was committed and because you are innocent till proven guilty Trump remained innocent

Well you started out good but in the middle

"It was determined no crime was committed is not what he said"

Innocent until proven guilty is correct

Your logic is too put the two together and assume there was no crime.

Just because there has been no trial does not mean that there was no crime

Mueller clearly said that trump was exonerated in the collusion
but he could NOT exonerate him in obstruction

This does not prove Trump innocent in obstruction but he is afford this luxury until a trial can be had .

I know you all still believe OJ is guilty but in fact the criminal suit he was found not guilty and there for innocent.

OJ was found to be not guilty. Not quite the same thing as innocent.

In a court of law not guilty is innocent as is innocent until proven guilty

still at the higher level on judgment day there may be another verdict

but that is above my pay grade

There wasn't going to be a court of law unless the OLC rule is challenged. How can people be this damn ignorant?

 

[BWK]

for what? a crime that was determined Trump didn't commit?

The report or testimony by Mueller never said Trump did not commit a crime.

Mueller
"we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,”


innocent till proven guilty
it was determined no crime was committed and because you are innocent till proven guilty Trump remained innocent

Well you started out good but in the middle

"It was determined no crime was committed is not what he said"

Innocent until proven guilty is correct

Your logic is too put the two together and assume there was no crime.

Just because there has been no trial does not mean that there was no crime

Mueller clearly said that trump was exonerated in the collusion
but he could NOT exonerate him in obstruction

This does not prove Trump innocent in obstruction but he is afford this luxury until a trial can be had .

I know you all still believe OJ is guilty but in fact the criminal suit he was found not guilty and there for innocent.

OJ was found to be not guilty. Not quite the same thing as innocent.

It's "presumed innocent until proven guilty", not "presumed not guilty until proven guilty".

Again, this is a vegetable answer.

 

[RealDave]

for what? a crime that was determined Trump didn't commit?

The report or testimony by Mueller never said Trump did not commit a crime.

Mueller
"we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,”


innocent till proven guilty
it was determined no crime was committed and because you are innocent till proven guilty Trump remained innocent

Well you started out good but in the middle

"It was determined no crime was committed is not what he said"

Innocent until proven guilty is correct

Your logic is too put the two together and assume there was no crime.

Just because there has been no trial does not mean that there was no crime

Mueller clearly said that trump was exonerated in the collusion
but he could NOT exonerate him in obstruction

This does not prove Trump innocent in obstruction but he is afford this luxury until a trial can be had .

I know you all still believe OJ is guilty but in fact the criminal suit he was found not guilty and there for innocent.

OJ was found to be not guilty. Not quite the same thing as innocent.

It's "presumed innocent until proven guilty", not "presumed not guilty until proven guilty".

Presumed innocent is used in legal situations in a court of law.

It in no wat means that people are innocent if they are not prosecuted or not convicted.

How fuvking stupid are you?

 

[BWK]

No it is not.

If you are in court charged with murder and one witness is discovered to be lying, that witness's testimony is thrown out. Not the entire case.

How fucking stupid are you people?

What an idiotic comparison. The FISA application was based on the dossier, moron. If it's fake, there is no basis for the warrant. There was no other evidence presented that would have justified a warrant. If there had been, they would not have had to use the FAKE dossier. IOW, stupid, the entire case for collusion was based on a fucking LIE.

The Dossier is not fake. The FBI corroborated its accuracy.

Um, yeah it is, moron. That's not even in dispute (except by idiots like you).

If you thought you had an argument, you don't. Because you didn't provide a rebuttal. So your cry baby "um, yeah it is moron", is an answer coming from a losing ignoramus, which is you. If you can't prove me wrong, then get lost.

Just when we think idiots like you can't get any dumber. Mueller's job was to investigate "Russian interference". He then FAILED to do so when finding evidence of Hillary's involvement with Russians. Claiming "outside his purview". Perjury. There was NOTHING preventing him from coming to a conclusion of whether a crime was committed. He could not, then cowardly tried to say he found no evidence to exonerate. Not his job. He has no evidence, thus no charge. Per his own words, he was not obstructed. There goes that charge too. Period. End of book. Game over. You lose.

Are you physically brain dead? Give me the quotes from Mueller proving Hillary was involved with the Russians. You can't. You're a liar who made that up. Hillary was not involved, therefore there can be no charge. "Could not" means "cannot. " How unbelievably stupid does one have to be not to understand that. Meghan McCain tried the same stupid stunt; Trump turds, stop being stupid.

 

[BWK]

The report or testimony by Mueller never said Trump did not commit a crime.

Mueller
"we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,”


innocent till proven guilty
it was determined no crime was committed and because you are innocent till proven guilty Trump remained innocent

Well you started out good but in the middle

"It was determined no crime was committed is not what he said"

Innocent until proven guilty is correct

Your logic is too put the two together and assume there was no crime.

Just because there has been no trial does not mean that there was no crime

Mueller clearly said that trump was exonerated in the collusion
but he could NOT exonerate him in obstruction

This does not prove Trump innocent in obstruction but he is afford this luxury until a trial can be had .

I know you all still believe OJ is guilty but in fact the criminal suit he was found not guilty and there for innocent.

OJ was found to be not guilty. Not quite the same thing as innocent.

It's "presumed innocent until proven guilty", not "presumed not guilty until proven guilty".

Presumed innocent is used in legal situations in a court of law.

It in no wat means that people are innocent if they are not prosecuted or not convicted.

How fuvking stupid are you?

They are being willfully stupid. A fifth grader could get the logic. It's all the defense they have left. Round and round with the same circle jerk logic that makes them look like total idiots.

 

[BWK]

No. But impeachment is not always the right thing to do. It places a huge strain on the country and should be reserved for serious offenses, IMO.

Ok, what do you think your options are then?

Simple.... let America render a "verdict" next year in the election.

Finally we agree on something. We can also let them render a "verdict" on the Democrats who have done nothing but investigate while finding NOTHING. I look forward to it.

Wrong!

 

[RealDave]

No. But impeachment is not always the right thing to do. It places a huge strain on the country and should be reserved for serious offenses, IMO.

Ok, what do you think your options are then?

Throw that fast assed piece of shit out of office in the 2020 election.

I think Iran, NK, Europe,. Mexico,, and Canada should all put out anti-Trump propaganda like Trump had the Russians do for him.

I wonder if Turtle head McCionnell would do something then.

 

[RealDave]

What an idiotic comparison. The FISA application was based on the dossier, moron. If it's fake, there is no basis for the warrant. There was no other evidence presented that would have justified a warrant. If there had been, they would not have had to use the FAKE dossier. IOW, stupid, the entire case for collusion was based on a fucking LIE.

The Dossier is not fake. The FBI corroborated its accuracy.

No they didn't......it was a fake dossier that they then broke the law when they used it to get FISA warrants......

No they didn't......it was a fake dossier that they then broke the law when they used it to get FISA warrants...... Do you have any idea how absolutely useless and inaccurate, this statement is? It doesn't say anything, it doesn't argue anything, but what it does say, is that you failed to prove me wrong. You people are nothing but cry babies without arguing anything down. I can't find any factual rebuttals so I'll just say "No they didn't" and pout like a crying baby. You are pitiful. View attachment 271201

Keep in mind, it's from the same idiot who thinks Putin gave Hillary $145 million and thinks the investigation into collusion with Russian was a hoax

That one's not playing with a full deck, if ya know what I mean?

You simply can't help the low 2 digit IQ ABNORMALS

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Apr 23, 2015 · Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation ... Now, after Russia's annexation of Crimea and aggression in ... many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance

The bulk of that money was donated by a man who had sold out his uranium interests years before. There are 9 people that needed to give approval, what did the other 8 get?

Our Uranium in question was owned by a Canadian company. So you claim Hillary sold Canadian owned uranium?