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

[Weatherman2020]

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!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

And yet Pelosi REFUSES to impeach. YOUR party leader is letting the treasonous orange man walk free.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

 

[bripat9643]

Funny to hear Left Tards bitch about “Rule of Law” then advocate for open borders and Sanctuary Cities!

They also support violence against Trump supporters.

 

[The Original Tree]

I found Russian Collusion for you.

So he's guilty until proven innocent? Trump haters are fundamentally unamerican. They reject fundamental American values, like the principles of justice.

Trump supporters fundamentally hate the Constitution and the rule of law. You show that every day you post you hate and bike against the left.

What evidence do you have for that claim? What have I said that is hostile to the Constitution to the Constitution or the rule of law? Do you accept the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty?

Right now, it's not up to either of us to determine that. It's up to Congress. We get our licks in November of 2020. Ask me again then.

The principle that people are innocent until proven guilty is up to Congress?

You should shut your fucking yap before you make a total fool of yourself.

Whoops! Too late!

Since you choose to be childish, let's go for it. Make me shut my yap. I dare you. I double dog dare you. Now you have to do it, you have been double dog dared.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

There is no evidence of obstruction, moron. None.

Even Mueller in his report stated there was NO INTENT so there was no crime.... But hey, The leftards want to try this.... Its going to be a massive bitch slapp...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

And yet Pelosi REFUSES to impeach. YOUR party leader is letting the treasonous orange man walk free.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

I don't see any impeachable offenses at this time for Trump. At least anything that can be proven. What I see is a gullible greedy person that wanted to become president so bad that he overlooked some really shady things and didn't question where some things came from. In order to be impeached, it has to be an impeachable offense. Being stupid isn't an impeachable offense. Better for her to just ride herd over him for the next 20 months.

 

[dudmuck]

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!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

There is no evidence of obstruction, moron. None.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's redacted final report explicitly chose not to decide if President Donald Trump had committed criminal obstruction of justice. But Mueller's detailed factual findings paints a damning portrait of a president repeatedly trying — sometimes successfully, and sometimes not — to hinder, if not derail, the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

There is no evidence of obstruction, moron. None.

Even Mueller in his report stated there was NO INTENT so there was no crime.... But hey, The leftards want to try this.... Its going to be a massive bitch slapp...
View attachment 257001

No, he didn't say there was no intent. He said there was intent. But there was nothing actionable and he stated why that was. Trump intended to obstruct big time but his staff ignored his directives. But since there were nothing actionable (actually what was) then what you think would have been obstruction of justice never happened. But he did make public threats and hinted at other things with the intent to obstruct witnesses. Guiliani isn't out of the woods on that one either. The President will probably get away with it but Guiliani may be in serious trouble. Polosi is a cagey one. She won't play into Trumps bag of tricks and go for Impeachment as long as Trumps boy toy is in charge of the senate.

 

[dudmuck]

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!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

And yet Pelosi REFUSES to impeach. YOUR party leader is letting the treasonous orange man walk free.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

Make alot of noise about it. Elizabeth Warren did it. Give her time to get the unredacted report.
If Mueller testifies, it'll make Comey Day look like a highschool football game.

 

[bripat9643]

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!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

And yet Pelosi REFUSES to impeach. YOUR party leader is letting the treasonous orange man walk free.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

I don't see any impeachable offenses at this time for Trump. At least anything that can be proven. What I see is a gullible greedy person that wanted to become president so bad that he overlooked some really shady things and didn't question where some things came from. In order to be impeached, it has to be an impeachable offense. Being stupid isn't an impeachable offense. Better for her to just ride herd over him for the next 20 months.

Thanks for admitting that the Mueller report totally exonerated Trump. Your opinion of him as a person is of no interest to anyone with a brain. My opinion of you is far lower. You're a sleazy, lying dishonest piece of shit.

 

[Siete]

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


if you weren't a RW mental midget you would know Mueller CAN'T INDICT A POTUS - (Trump or any other POTUS)

DERP-DERP-DERP

 

[The Original Tree]

Too Bad it’s all opinion and he just didn’t have the balls to indict The President for
Crimes Mueller couldn’t find.

Let’s be honest here. Mueller was bullying everyone he was interviewing. PreDawn raids etc. charging people with petty process crimes when Mueller was able to trip someone up.

But he cannot find a single thing after 2,500
Subpoenas, 500 Interrogations, and $40 Million Dollars and armed with a completely biased investigation team in which half had to be fired and came under criminal investigation for attempting a bloodless COUP.

Yet he cannot find a single thing to charge The President with?

It’s his job to Indict People, even on stupid shit he comes across that have nothing at all to do with his original mandate.

I might add, The American Public still have not been shown documentation on Mueller’s Investigative Mandate and scope of Investigation. We also have never seen the report in Clinton’s Investigation.

And to make matters worse he not only Stated “No Collusion” after 400 pages of garbage investigative work, he totally wimps out, goes yellow and states...I can’t find Obstruction...maybe Congress can?

That is a WTF moment that tells everyone this was nothing but a political witch hunt that failed due to the difficulty of trying to frame an innocent 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!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

There is no evidence of obstruction, moron. None.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's redacted final report explicitly chose not to decide if President Donald Trump had committed criminal obstruction of justice. But Mueller's detailed factual findings paints a damning portrait of a president repeatedly trying — sometimes successfully, and sometimes not — to hinder, if not derail, the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

 

[dudmuck]

Too Bad it’s all opinion and he just didn’t have the balls to indict The President for
Crimes Mueller couldn’t find.

Let’s be honest here. Mueller was bullying everyone he was interviewing. PreDawn raids etc. charging people with petty process crimes when Mueller was able to trip someone up.

But he cannot find a single thing after 2,500
Subpoenas, 500 Interrogations, and $40 Million Dollars and armed with a completely biasedinvestigation team in which half had to be fired and came under criminal investigation for attempting a bloodless COUP.

Yet he cannot find a single thing to charge The President with?

It’s his job to Indict People, even on stupid shit he comes across that have nothing at all to do with his original mandate.

I might add, The American Public still has not been shown documentary us on Mueller’s Investigative Mandate and scope of Investigation.

And to make matters worse he not only Stated “No Collusion” after 400 pages of garbage investigative work, he totally wimps out, goes yellow and states...I can’t find Obstruction...maybe Congress can?

That is a WTF moment that tells everyone this was nothing but a political we h hunt that failed due to the difficulty of trying to frame an innocent 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!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

There is no evidence of obstruction, moron. None.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's redacted final report explicitly chose not to decide if President Donald Trump had committed criminal obstruction of justice. But Mueller's detailed factual findings paints a damning portrait of a president repeatedly trying — sometimes successfully, and sometimes not — to hinder, if not derail, the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Mueller's key findings
● Mueller rejects the argument that the president is shielded from obstruction laws.
●Trump, when told of appointment of special counsel Mueller, said: “This is the end of my presidency.”
● “Substantial evidence” supports Comey over Trump in account of Flynn meeting.
●Trump campaign attempted to obtain Hillary Clinton’s private emails.
● Campaign expected to benefit from stolen information released by the Russians.
● Mueller probe spawned 14 other investigations, including two unidentified cases that remain ongoing.
● Putin stepped up outreach to Trump after election.
● Special counsel team concluded Trump intended to obstruct probe in tweeting support for Manafort.
● Mueller appears to kick obstruction question to Congress.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

There is no evidence of obstruction, moron. None.

Even Mueller in his report stated there was NO INTENT so there was no crime.... But hey, The leftards want to try this.... Its going to be a massive bitch slapp...
View attachment 257001

No, he didn't say there was no intent. He said there was intent. But there was nothing actionable and he stated why that was. Trump intended to obstruct big time but his staff ignored his directives. But since there were nothing actionable (actually what was) then what you think would have been obstruction of justice never happened. But he did make public threats and hinted at other things with the intent to obstruct witnesses. Guiliani isn't out of the woods on that one either. The President will probably get away with it but Guiliani may be in serious trouble. Polosi is a cagey one. She won't play into Trumps bag of tricks and go for Impeachment as long as Trumps boy toy is in charge of the senate.

The implosion coming is going to be grand...

 

[Gornoodle]

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!

Nope. Mueller operated under the idea that a sitting president cannot be indicted. That is why he handed Trumpian crimes to the other investigators.He gave info to 14 groups who are doing the work now.

 

[The Original Tree]

“No Collusion”

“No Indictment”

Pole Smoker

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


if you weren't a RW mental midget you would know Mueller CAN'T INDICT A POTUS - (Trump or any other POTUS)

DERP-DERP-DERP

 

[Siete]

Too Bad it’s all opinion and he just didn’t have the balls to indict The President for
Crimes Mueller couldn’t find.

Let’s be honest here. Mueller was bullying everyone he was interviewing. PreDawn raids etc. charging people with petty process crimes when Mueller was able to trip someone up.

But he cannot find a single thing after 2,500
Subpoenas, 500 Interrogations, and $40 Million Dollars and armed with a completely biased investigation team in which half had to be fired and came under criminal investigation for attempting a bloodless COUP.

Yet he cannot find a single thing to charge The President with?

It’s his job to Indict People, even on stupid shit he comes across that have nothing at all to do with his original mandate.

I might add, The American Public still has not been shown documentary us on Mueller’s Investigative Mandate and scope of Investigation.

And to make matters worse he not only Stated “No Collusion” after 400 pages of garbage investigative work, he totally wimps out, goes yellow and states...I can’t find Obstruction...maybe Congress can?

That is a WTF moment that tells everyone this was nothing but a political we h hunt that failed due to the difficulty of trying to frame an innocent 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!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

There is no evidence of obstruction, moron. None.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's redacted final report explicitly chose not to decide if President Donald Trump had committed criminal obstruction of justice. But Mueller's detailed factual findings paints a damning portrait of a president repeatedly trying — sometimes successfully, and sometimes not — to hinder, if not derail, the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

incidental powers, belonging to the executive department, which are necessarily implied from the nature of the functions, which are confided to it - Among these, must necessarily be included the power to perform them, without any obstruction or impediment whatsoever. The President cannot, therefore, be liable to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of the duties of his office . a sitting president may not be indicted,


...

 

[The Original Tree]

Outright lie since Mueller himself said No American Colluded with Russia or committed any crimes. Rosenstein said this also.

Why do you lie?

Please list the crimes Mueller stated Trump Committed.

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!

Nope. Mueller operated under the idea that a sitting president cannot be indicted. That is why he handed Trumpian crimes to the other investigators.He gave info to 14 groups who are doing the work now.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Too Bad it’s all opinion and he just didn’t have the balls to indict The President for
Crimes Mueller couldn’t find.

Let’s be honest here. Mueller was bullying everyone he was interviewing. PreDawn raids etc. charging people with petty process crimes when Mueller was able to trip someone up.

But he cannot find a single thing after 2,500
Subpoenas, 500 Interrogations, and $40 Million Dollars and armed with a completely biasedinvestigation team in which half had to be fired and came under criminal investigation for attempting a bloodless COUP.

Yet he cannot find a single thing to charge The President with?

It’s his job to Indict People, even on stupid shit he comes across that have nothing at all to do with his original mandate.

I might add, The American Public still has not been shown documentary us on Mueller’s Investigative Mandate and scope of Investigation.

And to make matters worse he not only Stated “No Collusion” after 400 pages of garbage investigative work, he totally wimps out, goes yellow and states...I can’t find Obstruction...maybe Congress can?

That is a WTF moment that tells everyone this was nothing but a political we h hunt that failed due to the difficulty of trying to frame an innocent 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!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

There is no evidence of obstruction, moron. None.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's redacted final report explicitly chose not to decide if President Donald Trump had committed criminal obstruction of justice. But Mueller's detailed factual findings paints a damning portrait of a president repeatedly trying — sometimes successfully, and sometimes not — to hinder, if not derail, the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Mueller's key findings
● Mueller rejects the argument that the president is shielded from obstruction laws.
●Trump, when told of appointment of special counsel Mueller, said: “This is the end of my presidency.”
● “Substantial evidence” supports Comey over Trump in account of Flynn meeting.
●Trump campaign attempted to obtain Hillary Clinton’s private emails.
● Campaign expected to benefit from stolen information released by the Russians.
● Mueller probe spawned 14 other investigations, including two unidentified cases that remain ongoing.
● Putin stepped up outreach to Trump after election.
● Special counsel team concluded Trump intended to obstruct probe in tweeting support for Manafort.
● Mueller appears to kick obstruction question to Congress.

And not one of those items shows intent to obstruct.. Just wow...

 

[The Original Tree]

You are obviously the butt of many a gay joke.

The 2020 election is over if you pole smokers keep trying to push lies and misinformation on the public.

Merman Discovered!

Here is my advice to You. Start using anal lube so you won’t be so butt hurt the next morning.

Too Bad it’s all opinion and he just didn’t have the balls to indict The President for
Crimes Mueller couldn’t find.

Let’s be honest here. Mueller was bullying everyone he was interviewing. PreDawn raids etc. charging people with petty process crimes when Mueller was able to trip someone up.

But he cannot find a single thing after 2,500
Subpoenas, 500 Interrogations, and $40 Million Dollars and armed with a completely biased investigation team in which half had to be fired and came under criminal investigation for attempting a bloodless COUP.

Yet he cannot find a single thing to charge The President with?

It’s his job to Indict People, even on stupid shit he comes across that have nothing at all to do with his original mandate.

I might add, The American Public still has not been shown documentary us on Mueller’s Investigative Mandate and scope of Investigation.

And to make matters worse he not only Stated “No Collusion” after 400 pages of garbage investigative work, he totally wimps out, goes yellow and states...I can’t find Obstruction...maybe Congress can?

That is a WTF moment that tells everyone this was nothing but a political we h hunt that failed due to the difficulty of trying to frame an innocent 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!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

There is no evidence of obstruction, moron. None.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's redacted final report explicitly chose not to decide if President Donald Trump had committed criminal obstruction of justice. But Mueller's detailed factual findings paints a damning portrait of a president repeatedly trying — sometimes successfully, and sometimes not — to hinder, if not derail, the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

incidental powers, belonging to the executive department, which are necessarily implied from the nature of the functions, which are confided to it - Among these, must necessarily be included the power to perform them, without any obstruction or impediment whatsoever. The President cannot, therefore, be liable to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of the duties of his office . a sitting president may not be indicted,


...

 

[Siete]

Outright lie since Mueller himself said No American Colluded with Russia or committed any crimes. Rosenstein said this also.

Why do you lie?

Please list the crimes Mueller stated Trump Committed.

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!

Nope. Mueller operated under the idea that a sitting president cannot be indicted. That is why he handed Trumpian crimes to the other investigators.He gave info to 14 groups who are doing the work now.

you're too stupid to know you're stupid.