If Mueller would have 'had the goods' on Trump he would have indicted him.

[easyt65]

Trump has been proven INNOCENT due to a LACK OF EVIDENCE RESULTING IN NO INDICTMENT.

You can hold on to your wet dream, but the only ones getting indicted will be the Trump-hating conspirayors.

 

[Cecilie1200]

He did NOT.

NO EVIDENCE
NO CRIME
NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION
NO OBSTRUCTION...

THUS...

NO INDICTMENTS FOR COLLUSION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR COLLUSION
NO INDICTMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION.

'Nuff time wasted.

'Nuff said.

NEXT!

Read the report troll. The only reason Mueller didn’t charge Trump is because the DOJ can’t indict a sitting President. The decision to charge Trump lies with Congress, not the DOJ.

Barr doesn’t have the authority to clear Trump.

Riiiiiight. That's why the report had so many places it said things like "did not identify evidence", "did not establish . . . coordination and collusion", and "evidence was not sufficient": because he had the goods on Trump and just couldn't indict him!

Why don't YOU read the report, Dragontwat?

And while you're at it, why don't you try reading our laws before you try to lecture us on how OUR country works (not that anyone thinks you would have anything meaningful to say even if you did)?

CONGRESS doesn't decide to charge people with crimes. Maybe that's how it works in your back-burner country; I wouldn't know, since it's not important enough for me to bother knowing about. In THIS country, however, the Department of Justice makes decisions about charging people with federal crimes.

So yeah, if Mueller chose not to indict - and he did - then Barr DOES have the authority to clear Trump.

Looks like once again, your media told you what to think, it was wrong, and you made a fool out of yourself by preaching it as though you know something. It's almost as though you're regularly lied to, and too piss-stupid to know it or care.

Triggered! If your boy is so innocent why are you blowing your wad over it, assclown?

"OMG, if you get upset about us continuing to spew insane nonsense to continue our witch hunt, that OBVIOUSLY means you know he's guilty! Because EVERYTHING means he's guilty, because I want him to be!"

Think whatever you want while you bang your head on your padded walls. We both know the only "triggered" people are you and your rabid pals, because you didn't get what you want. Again. Still. Always.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If Mueller would have 'had the goods' on Trump he would have indicted him.

The OP is pure bullshit. Mueller states clearly in his report that DOJ policies prohibited him from indicting a sitting president while in office. Read the report.

"The report clearly states it, but I'm not going to actually quote it or tell you where. Go read all 400 pages and prove me right, because I can't!"

Or, to put it another way, your talking points memo told you that's what it said, and you charged in here to repeat it like the good little mindless tool that you are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now, that's funny. If I were to want to get rid of 15K of documents, you wouldn't find them ever. Hillary must not have tried real hard on that one.

You're talking about the criminal bitch Comey said was so stupid she did not even know she was breaking laws...

Why do you continue to defend a proven criminal who engaged in espionage and compromised national security?

How is Hillary a "proven criminal"? When and where was she legally convicted of a crime? Also, when and where was she even indicted for a potential crime?

You like to blather on and on about what a criminal Trump is. When and where was HE legally convicted, or even indicted?

 

[bripat9643]

Mueller didn't indict Trump because the OLC guidelines say he cannot indict a sitting president.

Post the exact quote from the Mueller report where HE say this, and provide the link.

You are a desperate, pathetic LIAR.

THINKING about firing Mueller but not going through with it is NOT a crime dumbass...

...Unless you can also show me the link to the 'THOUGHT CRIMES' Bill the Socialist Democrats passed...

A sitting president cannot be indicted
Mueller began by noting that the Office of Legal Counsel in the White House wrote in a 2000 memo that sitting presidents can’t be indicted because it would undermine their ability to oversee the nation’s criminal justice system. But he adds that doesn’t mean that a special counsel couldn’t investigate a presidential actions, since charges could be brought after they’ve left office.


“Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,” he wrote.

Link?

Again...THINKING about doing something and not doing it is NOT a crime...unless you can post the link to the ''THOUGHT CRIME' Bill Democrats passed.

Heat map of obstruction

Alot more than thinking.

"Conduct toward Manafort" is not a crime. Try listing actual crimes.

Your chart is just more fake news conspiracy theory horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

Mueller didn't indict Trump because the OLC guidelines say he cannot indict a sitting president.

Post the exact quote from the Mueller report where HE say this, and provide the link.

You are a desperate, pathetic LIAR.

THINKING about firing Mueller but not going through with it is NOT a crime dumbass...

...Unless you can also show me the link to the 'THOUGHT CRIMES' Bill the Socialist Democrats passed...

A sitting president cannot be indicted
Mueller began by noting that the Office of Legal Counsel in the White House wrote in a 2000 memo that sitting presidents can’t be indicted because it would undermine their ability to oversee the nation’s criminal justice system. But he adds that doesn’t mean that a special counsel couldn’t investigate a presidential actions, since charges could be brought after they’ve left office.


“Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,” he wrote.

Where does the report say that a sitting president can't be indicted?

 

[easyt65]

With the Socialist Democrats / Snowflakes, it's always the 'SSDD'!

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

 

[ABikerSailor]

It took the FBI one week to find and report recovering the 15,000+ official subpoenaed documents Hillary tried to illegally destroy...the ones that violated the FOIA and Federal Records Act.

Libtard traitors spent the last 3 years investigating and trying to evidence to come up with a definitive finding if Guilt...and they FAILED.

Their best prosecutor - their 'insurance policy' - FAILED. This is the guy who sent innocent people to jail in the past, and he couldn't take down the President.

The best he could do is leave the slightest bit of an argument for the Democrats to continue the attempted coup.

The DEMOCRATS HAVE TO CONTINUE ...if they stop their coup they give the 'floor' over to Barr and the GOP to press with investigations, indictments, and convictions for their crimes. They have to continue until the statue of limitations for their own crimes run out.

Now, that's funny. If I were to want to get rid of 15K of documents, you wouldn't find them ever. Hillary must not have tried real hard on that one. Looks to me like someone was spreading the BS pretty thick.

The facts remain that Trumps Crimes cannot be prosecuted by the Justice Department while he is a sitting President. Neither can the State ones. There are two state Grand Juries waiting patiently for him to no longer be President to level indictments. And they are patiently waiting to prosecute the whole family at the same time but need to start with Trump first. Bag him and the others fall. I wonder if he is hoping to die in his current office to prevent this from happening. If he survives past his Presidentcy, your Wonderboy will probably die in prison.

Are you sure that states can't indict a sitting president?

Now, that raises some questions. Everything has time limits. Let's say that Trump's offenses at the state level have a 10 year time limit. It's pretty well known they can't prosecute him while he is President. The DOJ has covered that 2 times in the past and would never allow it. And I surmise that the Supreme Court wouldn't either. We can't allow the opposing party to remove a sitting President that way for purely political reasons on the Federal Level and I don't see it being done at the State level either.

But, let's say, Trump's charges have a 10 year limit. He must get reelected another 4 years in order to stay out of reach until the tune expires. If he doesn't get reelected, the State now can force him in front of a grand jury and indict him as a private citizen. Then he can be tried, and if convicted, sentenced. But if he goes past the 10 years by staying President for 8 years, there is nothing the state can do about it.

Brings a big Hmmmm to the discussion.

If there is a sealed indictment, the clock doesn't start running until the indictment is opened. So, you could have a sealed indictment that is opened on the day Trump leaves office, and you would still have 10 years to prosecute.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It took the FBI one week to find and report recovering the 15,000+ official subpoenaed documents Hillary tried to illegally destroy...the ones that violated the FOIA and Federal Records Act.

Libtard traitors spent the last 3 years investigating and trying to evidence to come up with a definitive finding if Guilt...and they FAILED.

Their best prosecutor - their 'insurance policy' - FAILED. This is the guy who sent innocent people to jail in the past, and he couldn't take down the President.

The best he could do is leave the slightest bit of an argument for the Democrats to continue the attempted coup.

The DEMOCRATS HAVE TO CONTINUE ...if they stop their coup they give the 'floor' over to Barr and the GOP to press with investigations, indictments, and convictions for their crimes. They have to continue until the statue of limitations for their own crimes run out.

Now, that's funny. If I were to want to get rid of 15K of documents, you wouldn't find them ever. Hillary must not have tried real hard on that one. Looks to me like someone was spreading the BS pretty thick.

The facts remain that Trumps Crimes cannot be prosecuted by the Justice Department while he is a sitting President. Neither can the State ones. There are two state Grand Juries waiting patiently for him to no longer be President to level indictments. And they are patiently waiting to prosecute the whole family at the same time but need to start with Trump first. Bag him and the others fall. I wonder if he is hoping to die in his current office to prevent this from happening. If he survives past his Presidentcy, your Wonderboy will probably die in prison.

Are you sure that states can't indict a sitting president?

Now, that raises some questions. Everything has time limits. Let's say that Trump's offenses at the state level have a 10 year time limit. It's pretty well known they can't prosecute him while he is President. The DOJ has covered that 2 times in the past and would never allow it. And I surmise that the Supreme Court wouldn't either. We can't allow the opposing party to remove a sitting President that way for purely political reasons on the Federal Level and I don't see it being done at the State level either.

But, let's say, Trump's charges have a 10 year limit. He must get reelected another 4 years in order to stay out of reach until the tune expires. If he doesn't get reelected, the State now can force him in front of a grand jury and indict him as a private citizen. Then he can be tried, and if convicted, sentenced. But if he goes past the 10 years by staying President for 8 years, there is nothing the state can do about it.

Brings a big Hmmmm to the discussion.

If there is a sealed indictment, the clock doesn't start running until the indictment is opened. So, you could have a sealed indictment that is opened on the day Trump leaves office, and you would still have 10 years to prosecute.

At Trumps age, he would be dead by they actually got the conviction. I guess he figures in winning by default in the long run. He could tie it up for 8 of those 10 years. Are they going to lock a 80 some year old man up who has demitia?

 

[ABikerSailor]

At Trumps age, he would be dead by they actually got the conviction. I guess he figures in winning by default in the long run. He could tie it up for 8 of those 10 years. Are they going to lock a 80 some year old man up who has demitia?

Not for nothing Daryl, but if they put Bill Cosby in jail, I don't think it would be a problem putting Trump in jail if he is convicted of something.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

At Trumps age, he would be dead by they actually got the conviction. I guess he figures in winning by default in the long run. He could tie it up for 8 of those 10 years. Are they going to lock a 80 some year old man up who has demitia?

Not for nothing Daryl, but if they put Bill Cosby in jail, I don't think it would be a problem putting Trump in jail if he is convicted of something.

Anytime you are putting a 80 year old man in prison there is always some reason other than punishing the person. It's always some other reason like political or something else. Justice has little to do with it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

At Trumps age, he would be dead by they actually got the conviction. I guess he figures in winning by default in the long run. He could tie it up for 8 of those 10 years. Are they going to lock a 80 some year old man up who has demitia?

Not for nothing Daryl, but if they put Bill Cosby in jail, I don't think it would be a problem putting Trump in jail if he is convicted of something.

Anytime you are putting a 80 year old man in prison there is always some reason other than punishing the person. It's always some other reason like political or something else. Justice has little to do with it.

So................you think that sometimes people can be too old to go to jail? I don't. If they do the crime, they have to do the time, same as anyone else.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

At Trumps age, he would be dead by they actually got the conviction. I guess he figures in winning by default in the long run. He could tie it up for 8 of those 10 years. Are they going to lock a 80 some year old man up who has demitia?

Not for nothing Daryl, but if they put Bill Cosby in jail, I don't think it would be a problem putting Trump in jail if he is convicted of something.

Anytime you are putting a 80 year old man in prison there is always some reason other than punishing the person. It's always some other reason like political or something else. Justice has little to do with it.

So................you think that sometimes people can be too old to go to jail? I don't. If they do the crime, they have to do the time, same as anyone else.

I am just saying, sometimes it's a zero sum game.

 

[Nosmo King]

Mueller didn't indict Trump because the OLC guidelines say he cannot indict a sitting president.

Post the exact quote from the Mueller report where HE say this, and provide the link.

You are a desperate, pathetic LIAR.

THINKING about firing Mueller but not going through with it is NOT a crime dumbass...

...Unless you can also show me the link to the 'THOUGHT CRIMES' Bill the Socialist Democrats passed...

A sitting president cannot be indicted
Mueller began by noting that the Office of Legal Counsel in the White House wrote in a 2000 memo that sitting presidents can’t be indicted because it would undermine their ability to oversee the nation’s criminal justice system. But he adds that doesn’t mean that a special counsel couldn’t investigate a presidential actions, since charges could be brought after they’ve left office.


“Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,” he wrote.

Where does the report say that a sitting president can't be indicted?

It says so in the 2000 OLC policy statement. A Justice Department policy.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No, a sitting president cannot be indicted. It would have to wait until AFTER he left office. But then again, that is what sealed indictments are for.

Can a sitting U.S. president face criminal charges? - Reuters

In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving toward impeaching him.

“The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.

The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions,” the memo stated.

The 1973 and 2000 memos are binding on Justice Department employees, including Mueller, according to many legal experts. Mueller was appointed in May 2017 by the department’s No. 2 official Rod Rosenstein.

 

[bripat9643]

Mueller didn't indict Trump because the OLC guidelines say he cannot indict a sitting president.

Post the exact quote from the Mueller report where HE say this, and provide the link.

You are a desperate, pathetic LIAR.

THINKING about firing Mueller but not going through with it is NOT a crime dumbass...

...Unless you can also show me the link to the 'THOUGHT CRIMES' Bill the Socialist Democrats passed...

A sitting president cannot be indicted
Mueller began by noting that the Office of Legal Counsel in the White House wrote in a 2000 memo that sitting presidents can’t be indicted because it would undermine their ability to oversee the nation’s criminal justice system. But he adds that doesn’t mean that a special counsel couldn’t investigate a presidential actions, since charges could be brought after they’ve left office.


“Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,” he wrote.

Where does the report say that a sitting president can't be indicted?

It says so in the 2000 OLC policy statement. A Justice Department policy.

In other words, Mueller's report doesn't say that's a reason for not indicting Trump.

Thanks for playing!

 

[Nosmo King]

Mueller didn't indict Trump because the OLC guidelines say he cannot indict a sitting president.

Post the exact quote from the Mueller report where HE say this, and provide the link.

You are a desperate, pathetic LIAR.

THINKING about firing Mueller but not going through with it is NOT a crime dumbass...

...Unless you can also show me the link to the 'THOUGHT CRIMES' Bill the Socialist Democrats passed...

A sitting president cannot be indicted
Mueller began by noting that the Office of Legal Counsel in the White House wrote in a 2000 memo that sitting presidents can’t be indicted because it would undermine their ability to oversee the nation’s criminal justice system. But he adds that doesn’t mean that a special counsel couldn’t investigate a presidential actions, since charges could be brought after they’ve left office.


“Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,” he wrote.

Where does the report say that a sitting president can't be indicted?

It says so in the 2000 OLC policy statement. A Justice Department policy.

In other words, Mueller's report doesn't say that's a reason for not indicting Trump.

Thanks for playing!

Jayzus! If you were straightjacketed, strapped to a,chair, and had your eyelids clamped open a la Alex DeLarge in A Clockwork Orange, you could not be taught that literalism is a flaw in thinking.

 

[nat4900]

He did NOT.

NO EVIDENCE
NO CRIME
NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION
NO OBSTRUCTION...

THUS...

NO INDICTMENTS FOR COLLUSION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR COLLUSION
NO INDICTMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION.

'Nuff time wasted.

'Nuff said.

NEXT!

Eternal MORON........Mueller CANNOT ever indict a sitting president......THAT is against current DOJ policy......

Notice that Mueller indicted dozens of Trump collaborators.......

Shove the DOJ policy way, WAY up your you know where....and MAYBE that factoid will work itself to your half brain.

 

[busybee01]

He did NOT.

NO EVIDENCE
NO CRIME
NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION
NO OBSTRUCTION...

THUS...

NO INDICTMENTS FOR COLLUSION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR COLLUSION
NO INDICTMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION.

'Nuff time wasted.

'Nuff said.

NEXT!

There was no indictment because Mueller accepted the DOJ interpretation that a sitting President cannot be indicted.

Paul Manafort discussed strategy and gave polling data to a individual connected with Russian Intelligence. That gave the Russians a roadmap on where to buy pro-Trump social media ads. Roger4 Stone has ties to WikiLeaks and that means Assange or the Russians who hacked Podesta's e-mails. Clearly the Trump campaign knew the Russians were trying to help them and wanted to give the Russians some hgelp.

Mueller gave numerous instances of potential obstruction as well as instances where he ordered others to obstruct justice. Mueller said Congress needs to conduct further investigations into them.

There was NO EXONERATION.

 

[White_MAGA_Man]

He did NOT.

NO EVIDENCE
NO CRIME
NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION
NO OBSTRUCTION...

THUS...

NO INDICTMENTS FOR COLLUSION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR COLLUSION
NO INDICTMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION.

'Nuff time wasted.

'Nuff said.

NEXT!

There was no indictment because Mueller accepted the DOJ interpretation that a sitting President cannot be indicted.

Paul Manafort discussed strategy and gave polling data to a individual connected with Russian Intelligence. That gave the Russians a roadmap on where to buy pro-Trump social media ads. Roger4 Stone has ties to WikiLeaks and that means Assange or the Russians who hacked Podesta's e-mails. Clearly the Trump campaign knew the Russians were trying to help them and wanted to give the Russians some hgelp.

Mueller gave numerous instances of potential obstruction as well as instances where he ordered others to obstruct justice. Mueller said Congress needs to conduct further investigations into them.

There was NO EXONERATION.

The Mueller Report states NO American citizen colluded with Russia during the election, especially in the Trump campaign. ZERO obstruction! Trump is clean as a whistle!