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

[impuretrash]

Why in the hell do you moonbats keep saying you need the redacted report? You keep saying the report says he’s guilty, SO STOP PROTECTING TRUMP SND IMPEACH HIM OR SHUT UP.

We don't want him impeached. This is just too much fun. We need to keep him around to torture for the next 20 months or so and watch all of you strumpets heads explode over and over. We'll take pictures for facebook.

We don't want him impeached.

Oh, so you’ve been lying and spewing bullshit for two years.

Got it.

And you know this how? You have no idea the damage that would do to the nation. Of course, like Trump, you don't give a rats ass about the Nation. You only think out Trump and the Strumpets. Screw America then.

Now you're worried about damaging the nation? After two years of non-stop hysteria and demonization of all 60 million Americans who voted for Trump? Sorry but it's already broken beyond all repair.

You started breaking it at least 10 years ago. And you finished the job in the last 2 years. You broke it, you were supposed to fix it. You just broke it even worse. Now, get out of the way and let someone else try and fix it and let them without your stupid meddling.

The fuck are you talking about? What did I do 10 years ago?

 

[Clipper]

Actually, Mueller said that because he couldn't prove Trump's intent or motive, he wasn't able to bring charges against him, but he also said that the report does not exonerate him either.

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!

No, it's up to Congress & it's their Constitutional responsibility to provide oversight & to look at the evidence on whether or not a sitting POTUS should be impeached, or not impeached. Notice I said "a president", so don't jump down my throat & sling that Trump coup bullshit. There's a hell of a lot of evidence which says Trump should be impeached whether you like it or not. Your party impeached Clinton over a blowjob, which is a hell of a lot less damaging then what Trump has done, again whether you & your party like it or not. As far as I'm concerned if the Dems dont impeach Trump they're shirking their own responsibilities & they're letting Trump off the hook.

 

[Eyepublius]

The DOJ rules DID NOT allow or authorize S/C Mueller to indict T-rump: Mueller played by the rules ... Barr did not - plain and simple. That is now in the House DEMS hands ... they can draw up the Articles of Impeachment ... we shall see.

 

[easyt65]

No, it's up to Congress & it's their Constitutional responsibility to provide oversight & to look at the evidence on whether or not a sitting POTUS should be impeached, or not impeached.

Ok, let's look at the EVIDENCE.

No evidence of a crime existed warranting an initial investigation.

No evidence of a crime existed warranting the appointment of a Special Counsel.

No evidence of Russian collusion involving the President or any of his team was found.

The liberal / Democrat / snowflake false accusations of such were substantiated.

No indictment and / or prosecution made during the ILLEGAL investigation had anything to do with Collusion or obstruction.

Mueller reported he could not substantiate those claims.
- Mueller chose those words specifically to AVOID saying that the President and his team were INNOCENT of those charges. As a prosecutor he knows damn well that THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OF GUILT AND THE INABILITY TO PROVE GUILT MEANS THE INDIVIDUAL / INDIVIDUALS ARE INNOCENT!

At NO time in his report did Mueller state the reason he was NOT indicting the President was because not legally do so.

The reason he did not indict or otherwise say Trump Obstructed Justice is because he found no evidence that President Trump did so.

President Trump ranted and vented, maybe even said he wanted the illegal investigation to go away, but the FACT is President Trump did not Obstruct Justice.

President Trump & his WH turned over THOUSANDS of documents to Mueller. He did NOT attempt to delete thousands of official subpoenaed documents, like Hillary did. He did NOT use Bleachbit to try to wipe his hard drive, like Hillary did.

He cooperated, ordered the GOP to allow the investigation to run its course. It did. Mueller found NOTHING illegal.

If Mueller had found anything he would have indicted him.

In the aftermath of their failed coup attempt, the Democrats have actually issued a subpoena demanding the US AG BREAK US LAW by violating US law that prohibits the release of Grand Jury information and tax information ... While the FBI criminally refuses to comply with 2 separate FOIA requests that will expose embarrassing and possibly criminal information.

Democrats insist that because in his frustration Trump WANTED to fire Mueller - but did not do so - he committed Obstruction ... Of a criminal investigation.

WANTING to do something and DOING it are 2 different things.

You snowflakes make sure you let me know when Democrats pass that THOUGHT CRIME Bill!

 

[bripat9643]

Why in the hell do you moonbats keep saying you need the redacted report? You keep saying the report says he’s guilty, SO STOP PROTECTING TRUMP SND IMPEACH HIM OR SHUT UP.

We don't want him impeached. This is just too much fun. We need to keep him around to torture for the next 20 months or so and watch all of you strumpets heads explode over and over. We'll take pictures for facebook.

We don't want him impeached.

Oh, so you’ve been lying and spewing bullshit for two years.

Got it.

And you know this how? You have no idea the damage that would do to the nation. Of course, like Trump, you don't give a rats ass about the Nation. You only think out Trump and the Strumpets. Screw America then.

Now you're worried about damaging the nation? After two years of non-stop hysteria and demonization of all 60 million Americans who voted for Trump? Sorry but it's already broken beyond all repair.

You started breaking it at least 10 years ago. And you finished the job in the last 2 years. You broke it, you were supposed to fix it. You just broke it even worse. Now, get out of the way and let someone else try and fix it and let them without your stupid meddling.

Your messiah Obama broke it, moron. Of course, democracy always fails. Demagogues like Obama always kill it.

 

[bripat9643]

The DOJ rules DID NOT allow or authorize S/C Mueller to indict T-rump: Mueller played by the rules ... Barr did not - plain and simple. That is now in the House DEMS hands ... they can draw up the Articles of Impeachment ... we shall see.

What rules did Bob Barr break?

 

[easyt65]

The DOJ rules DID NOT allow or authorize S/C Mueller to indict T-rump: Mueller played by the rules ... Barr did not - plain and simple. That is now in the House DEMS hands ... they can draw up the Articles of Impeachment ... we shall see.

Quote me Mueller's report saying he did not indict Trump because could not legally do so, and provide the link.

You can't. He did not say it.

No evidence.
No crime.

No collusion.

No Obstruction.

Snowflakes say he THOUGHT about firing Mueller. It didn't happen.

Let me know when Democrats pass that THOUGHT Crime Bill.

 

[bripat9643]

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!

No, it's up to Congress & it's their Constitutional responsibility to provide oversight & to look at the evidence on whether or not a sitting POTUS should be impeached, or not impeached. Notice I said "a president", so don't jump down my throat & sling that Trump coup bullshit. There's a hell of a lot of evidence which says Trump should be impeached whether you like it or not. Your party impeached Clinton over a blowjob, which is a hell of a lot less damaging then what Trump has done, again whether you & your party like it or not. As far as I'm concerned if the Dems dont impeach Trump they're shirking their own responsibilities & they're letting Trump off the hook.

There's no evidence, shit for brains. No collusion, no obstruction, no evidence.

What has Trump done that is "damaging," win the Presidency? You turds simply can't point out any basis for impeaching him. Revenge is he real reason. You make that clear every time you whine about Clinton.

 

[Nosmo King]

yes--I don't know why that's so hard for the lefties to understand??
--o yeah--they just HATE Trump so bad, they are obsessed with getting rid of him even if they have to lie/cheat/steal

Mueller didn't indict Trump because the OLC guidelines say he cannot indict a sitting president. It's up to congress to prosecute.

Damn! Those sticky guidelines and the rule of law. Those are something Trump and Trumpians and where ever you get your information from should really look into, especially the rule of law stuff!

It's like telling four year olds stuff. It never sinks in on the first soz n passes.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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...

you didnt see the one about trump's manafort tweeting?

Ric Simmons, law professor, Ohio State University
After reading the full report, it is much harder to understand why Mueller determined that there was insufficient evidence to believe that the president was guilty of obstruction of justice. The primary reason seems to be lack of evidence that the president had a “corrupt intent.” But in reviewing the 10 episodes in which the president may have obstructed justice, the report concludes numerous times that there is “substantial evidence” that the president acted with the intent to impede ongoing criminal investigations, or that a “reasonable inference” is that the president acted with such an intent.

Furthermore, the report noted that the president refused to cooperate with the investigation with regard to answering questions on potential obstruction of justice charges, and that the Mueller team declined to issue a subpoena in order to pursue the issue. But if the question of the president’s intent was unresolved, and thus the question of whether the president was guilty of obstruction remained unresolved, a subpoena of the president would be a critical next step in the investigation.

While there may have been good reasons not to pursue a subpoena against the president, this omission in the investigation leaves open a very significant question regarding whether the president is guilty of obstruction charges.

BEfore you can issue a subpoena, you have to establish that a crime was committed. Mueller never demonstrated any such thing. There is no evidence that the President intended to obstruct the investigation, and he in fact never took any action in that regard. How can you establish intent to obstruct if he never obstructed? You Trump hating turds apparently believe having impure thoughts about some woman in the office makes you guilty of rape.

 

[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.

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...

you didnt see the one about trump's manafort tweeting?

Ric Simmons, law professor, Ohio State University
After reading the full report, it is much harder to understand why Mueller determined that there was insufficient evidence to believe that the president was guilty of obstruction of justice. The primary reason seems to be lack of evidence that the president had a “corrupt intent.” But in reviewing the 10 episodes in which the president may have obstructed justice, the report concludes numerous times that there is “substantial evidence” that the president acted with the intent to impede ongoing criminal investigations, or that a “reasonable inference” is that the president acted with such an intent.

Furthermore, the report noted that the president refused to cooperate with the investigation with regard to answering questions on potential obstruction of justice charges, and that the Mueller team declined to issue a subpoena in order to pursue the issue. But if the question of the president’s intent was unresolved, and thus the question of whether the president was guilty of obstruction remained unresolved, a subpoena of the president would be a critical next step in the investigation.

While there may have been good reasons not to pursue a subpoena against the president, this omission in the investigation leaves open a very significant question regarding whether the president is guilty of obstruction charges.

BEfore you can issue a subpoena, you have to establish that a crime was committed. Mueller never demonstrated any such thing. There is no evidence that the President intended to obstruct the investigation, and he in fact never took any action in that regard. How can you establish intent to obstruct if he never obstructed? You Trump hating turds apparently believe having impure thoughts about some woman in the office makes you guilty of rape.

Subpoena is just a request from a legal authority for evidence: testimony or documents.

According to his report, Mueller’s team believed it had the authority and legal justification to issue a grand jury subpoena to obtain the president’s testimony. But Mueller “chose not to do so” because of the prospect of a protracted legal challenge from Trump’s lawyers.

Separately, the House Oversight and Reform Committee: “The committee has full authority to investigate whether the president may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office,” Cummings said in a memo Friday to committee members along with a copy of the subpoena to Mazars USA LLP.

 

[harmonica]

yes--I don't know why that's so hard for the lefties to understand??
--o yeah--they just HATE Trump so bad, they are obsessed with getting rid of him even if they have to lie/cheat/steal

Mueller didn't indict Trump because the OLC guidelines say he cannot indict a sitting president. It's up to congress to prosecute.

Damn! Those sticky guidelines and the rule of law. Those are something Trump and Trumpians and where ever you get your information from should really look into, especially the rule of law stuff!

It's like telling four year olds stuff. It never sinks in on the first soz n passes.

MAGA
no indictment
hahahahahhaha

 

[Billy_Bob]

yes--I don't know why that's so hard for the lefties to understand??
--o yeah--they just HATE Trump so bad, they are obsessed with getting rid of him even if they have to lie/cheat/steal

Mueller didn't indict Trump because the OLC guidelines say he cannot indict a sitting president. It's up to congress to prosecute.

Damn! Those sticky guidelines and the rule of law. Those are something Trump and Trumpians and where ever you get your information from should really look into, especially the rule of law stuff!

It's like telling four year olds stuff. It never sinks in on the first soz n passes.

Please show me, In the Mueller report, where he made this distinction. He did not and Barr also did not. Barr did explain how there was insufficient evidence to charge in-spite of the OLC rulings. But even that is lost on you left wing fools.

Muellers NON-INDICTMENT says all it... Mueller did not have the evidence to indict or he would have.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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...

you didnt see the one about trump's manafort tweeting?

Ric Simmons, law professor, Ohio State University
After reading the full report, it is much harder to understand why Mueller determined that there was insufficient evidence to believe that the president was guilty of obstruction of justice. The primary reason seems to be lack of evidence that the president had a “corrupt intent.” But in reviewing the 10 episodes in which the president may have obstructed justice, the report concludes numerous times that there is “substantial evidence” that the president acted with the intent to impede ongoing criminal investigations, or that a “reasonable inference” is that the president acted with such an intent.

Furthermore, the report noted that the president refused to cooperate with the investigation with regard to answering questions on potential obstruction of justice charges, and that the Mueller team declined to issue a subpoena in order to pursue the issue. But if the question of the president’s intent was unresolved, and thus the question of whether the president was guilty of obstruction remained unresolved, a subpoena of the president would be a critical next step in the investigation.

While there may have been good reasons not to pursue a subpoena against the president, this omission in the investigation leaves open a very significant question regarding whether the president is guilty of obstruction charges.

BEfore you can issue a subpoena, you have to establish that a crime was committed. Mueller never demonstrated any such thing. There is no evidence that the President intended to obstruct the investigation, and he in fact never took any action in that regard. How can you establish intent to obstruct if he never obstructed? You Trump hating turds apparently believe having impure thoughts about some woman in the office makes you guilty of rape.

Subpoena is just a request from a legal authority for evidence: testimony or documents.

According to his report, Mueller’s team believed it had the authority and legal justification to issue a grand jury subpoena to obtain the president’s testimony. But Mueller “chose not to do so” because of the prospect of a protracted legal challenge from Trump’s lawyers.

Separately, the House Oversight and Reform Committee: “The committee has full authority to investigate whether the president may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office,” Cummings said in a memo Friday to committee members along with a copy of the subpoena to Mazars USA LLP.

In other words, Mueller knew his subpoena wouldn't hold up in court.

The committee does not have "full authority to investigate whether the President may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office." That's another way of saying it has the authority to go on fishing expeditions when it has no evidence that a crime has been committed. That's the way police states like Cuba operate, not the United States.

Democrats have revealed their Stalinist cloven hoof.

 

[harmonica]

yes--I don't know why that's so hard for the lefties to understand??
--o yeah--they just HATE Trump so bad, they are obsessed with getting rid of him even if they have to lie/cheat/steal

Mueller didn't indict Trump because the OLC guidelines say he cannot indict a sitting president. It's up to congress to prosecute.

Damn! Those sticky guidelines and the rule of law. Those are something Trump and Trumpians and where ever you get your information from should really look into, especially the rule of law stuff!

It's like telling four year olds stuff. It never sinks in on the first soz n passes.

Trump IS the POTUS--elected in 2016
It's like telling four year olds stuff. It never sinks in on the first [ soz n? ] passes/YEARS

 

[easyt65]

If deleting 15,000 subpoenaed official documents that were never submitted for archival, as required by both the FOIA and the Federal Records Act - constituting more than 30,000 criminal counts, was not 'Obstruction' then THINKING about firing Mueller but NOT doing it certainly was NOT 'Obstruction'!

 

[dudmuck]

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...

you didnt see the one about trump's manafort tweeting?

Ric Simmons, law professor, Ohio State University
After reading the full report, it is much harder to understand why Mueller determined that there was insufficient evidence to believe that the president was guilty of obstruction of justice. The primary reason seems to be lack of evidence that the president had a “corrupt intent.” But in reviewing the 10 episodes in which the president may have obstructed justice, the report concludes numerous times that there is “substantial evidence” that the president acted with the intent to impede ongoing criminal investigations, or that a “reasonable inference” is that the president acted with such an intent.

Furthermore, the report noted that the president refused to cooperate with the investigation with regard to answering questions on potential obstruction of justice charges, and that the Mueller team declined to issue a subpoena in order to pursue the issue. But if the question of the president’s intent was unresolved, and thus the question of whether the president was guilty of obstruction remained unresolved, a subpoena of the president would be a critical next step in the investigation.

While there may have been good reasons not to pursue a subpoena against the president, this omission in the investigation leaves open a very significant question regarding whether the president is guilty of obstruction charges.

BEfore you can issue a subpoena, you have to establish that a crime was committed. Mueller never demonstrated any such thing. There is no evidence that the President intended to obstruct the investigation, and he in fact never took any action in that regard. How can you establish intent to obstruct if he never obstructed? You Trump hating turds apparently believe having impure thoughts about some woman in the office makes you guilty of rape.

Subpoena is just a request from a legal authority for evidence: testimony or documents.

According to his report, Mueller’s team believed it had the authority and legal justification to issue a grand jury subpoena to obtain the president’s testimony. But Mueller “chose not to do so” because of the prospect of a protracted legal challenge from Trump’s lawyers.

Separately, the House Oversight and Reform Committee: “The committee has full authority to investigate whether the president may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office,” Cummings said in a memo Friday to committee members along with a copy of the subpoena to Mazars USA LLP.

In other words, Mueller knew his subpoena wouldn't hold up in court.

The committee does not have "full authority to investigate whether the President may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office." That's another way of saying it has the authority to go on fishing expeditions when it has no evidence that a crime has been committed. That's the way police states like Cuba operate, not the United States.

Democrats have revealed their Stalinist cloven hoof.

The Mueller investigation has nothing to do with democrats. Republicans assigned Mueller to this task. It was all done with Republicans in full control.

Check it out: United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform

The committee's broad jurisdiction and legislative authority make it one of the most influential and powerful panels in the House. Its chairman is one of only three in the House with the authority to issue subpoenas without a committee vote or consultation with the ranking member.[1]

In 1997, the Republican majority on the committee changed its rules to allow the chairman, Dan Burton (R-Indiana), to issue subpoenas without the consent of the committee's ranking Democrat.[9] From 1997 to 2002, Burton used this authority to issue 1,052 unilateral subpoenas, many of them related to alleged misconduct by President Bill Clinton, at a cost of more than $35 million.[10]

 

[easyt65]

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...

 

[Camp]

If deleting 15,000 subpoenaed official documents that were never submitted for archival, as required by both the FOIA and the Federal Records Act - constituting more than 30,000 criminal counts, was not 'Obstruction' then THINKING about firing Mueller but NOT doing it certainly was NOT 'Obstruction'!

Whaaa, "but, but what about Hillary"? Whaaa, call a whambulance.

 

[easyt65]

The Mueller investigation has nothing to do with democrats.

You are a lying sack of shit!

Mueller was workingg with Obama's FBI, DOJ, and Steele before the official investigation ever began. Mueller's team consisted of all Democrats, all Trump hating Democrat Party and Hillary donors. The lawyer who work for the Clinton Foundation is even one of the members of Mueller's team. Mueller is comey's Mentor and friends with Rosenstein.

The investigation began because Hillary Clinton colluded with foreign spies and Russians, purchased a propaganda field document and gave it to the FBI, who's in with the CIA, DOJ, and NSA, engaged in FISA Court Abuses, perjury, and deceiving both the Court and Congress in order to get an illegal investigation started to investigate a crime that never happened and had no evidence. In doing this, they also got Mueller appointed as special counsel.

All of this has everything to do with the Democrats, their inability to accept the 2016 election, and the attempted overthrow of the elected president of the United States.

STFU already with your lies. The evidence is out, the crimes have been proven, and the Democrats attempted yet failed coup was exposed.