It's Mueller Time!

[Uncensored2008]

Justice. The investigation.

BTW, obstructing an investigation can be considered a tacit admission of guilt.

Yes, a fact finder could infer that a defendant taking steps to obstruct an investigation did so because the defendant was guilt -- OF THE UNDERLYING CRIME.

If, however, there is no underlying crime, that is also probative as to whether the defendant, acting to end the investigation, had corrupt intent. It really make the case for LACK of corrupt intent when ending a wasteful investigation into NON-crimes is your job---like the President.

.

126 undisclosed meetings. "I love it". Flynn lied, manafort lied, gates lied, papadoulos lied, Cohen lied... All intelligence agencies and the report all agree Russia weighed in on tRump's side... tRump just recently said if offered information my a foreign government he would take it... WikiLeaks coordinated email dumps...

How much more do you need?

2 yrs
$25mil
No conspiracy no obstruction
How much more do you need?
Even CNN says the Republicans won

You're a smart guy, why don't you read the report? That's not what it says.

Too late.
They've become rhetorical kamikazes. They've passed the the failsafe point and no longer have enough fuel to get back.

Does it hurt to be as mentally retarded as you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's shocking someone THAT clueless about what was in the Report was in charge of that investigation!

AND it is clear that Rosenstein appointed Mueller specifically because he is suffering from dementia and was easy for the Stalinists to control.

 

[SAYIT]

You can't answer the SIMPLE question then, which means you KNOW that Mueller NEVER stated a single charge of a crime in the 448 page report. You continue your torrential flow of bullshit because you are a partisan jackass.

You have NOTHING to show for your bullcrap, and you do this video thing from a man who stated over and over that his testimony is BASED on his 448 page report. The Exoneration statement is bogus crap for a reason that amazingly eludes a lot of Dumbocrats. It made you go sniffing for a lot of crap piles left by partisan hacks,, while ignoring that there was NEVER crime discovered and posted anywhere in the 448 page report.

You are one stupid little boy who can't understand that being exonerated means you have to be accused/Indicted/charged with something legally binding first. Mueller was charged to FIND any conspiracy crimes against Trump, and report it to the AG, but he NEVER posted a single charge in his 448 page report. YOU never showed where in the 448 page report of a charge, which means you have NOTHING to maintain your mentally ill beliefs that Trump is guilty of a conspiracy.

Here from Merriam-Webster:

Exonerate

1 : to relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship
2 : to clear from accusation or blame

Since he was NEVER charged with anything by Mueller in his 448 page report, there is nothing to exonerate, since Trump was never charged with anything beyond partisan hate claims.

You have NOTHING real to run on stupid little boy!

You can't answer the SIMPLE question then, which means you KNOW that Mueller NEVER stated a single charge of a crime in the 448 page report. You continue your torrential flow of bullshit because you are a partisan jackass.

Of course I know that Mueller didn't bring charges, dope. Everyone knows that. The entire world knows that.
Why? How?
Because Mueller told us he couldn't bring charges, dope.

Except that isn't what Mueller said when he corrected his earlier testimony. In fact, he said the opposite of what you claim:

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Mueller issues clarification, takes back bombshell statement about indicting Trump

Right, he did not make a determination as to whether Trump committed a crime or did not commit a crime, because of the OLC rule.

he replaced: he didn't ''charge'' the president with a crime because of the OLC memo

with he didn't ''determine'' or ''make a determination'' whether the president committed a crime or NOT, due to the OLC memo.

nope, you should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.

BTW, I can't help your ignorance of the law.

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

I watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?

I know what he was correcting and I know thru ALL of his other comments in the hearing on it, what he was talking about and what he needed to correct.

He did not want the public to think he did not CHARGE the president with a crime due to the OLC memo, because he never made the determination, one way or the other, due to the OLC memo guidelines. He also said and confirmed this was not an exoneration either.... he said they did not make any determination....

period... end of story.

Incorrect again. Mueller did not have the authority to charge the POTUS but did have the authority to determine CRIMINALITY which - after his 2 yr witch-hunt - he not only failed to do, he SPECIFICALLY stated "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

What do you suppose he meant by that?

Case closed.

 

[SAYIT]

Legally meaningless. We don't charge or even smear anyone who has not been found to have committed a crime and in his correction yesterday Mueller admitted the OLC reg did not impede his ability to conclude that a crime had been committed. He just didn't find any.

Prosecutorial witch-hunts neither seek nor proclaim anyone's exoneration.

In terms of obstruction, Mueller did not report trump has not been found to have committed a crime. That's where your argument goes off the rails when you have to make up shit that isn't there.

Mueller could not make a case for obstruction.

LOLOL

Just how brain-dead are you? Mueller could not make a case because a sitting president can't be indicted, not because he didn't commit a crime.

In fact, Mueller's implication is that trump did commit obstruction of justice. It's now in Congress' hands to take action on it, if they so choose. And as I said earlier, I hope they don't. I hope they leave it up to the American electorate to decide trump's fate next year.

Pelosi keeps protecting Trump. What are YOU going to do about it?

Pelosi is waiting for election results next year. Senate is the key.

A Repub clean sweep has been assured by the words and actions of Pelosi and her party. The best the Democrat Socialist Party can do is avoid a Repub super majority in the Senate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Mueller told you why as well. A long time ago.

Hold your breath.

Well, Weissman did - turns out Mueller never even read the fucking thing.

So what did the hack say the reason for no charges was?

Oh, that's right:
{
Accordingly, the Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other US. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related contacts described in Section IV above.

The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge that any individual affiliated with the Trump Campaign acted as an agent of a foreign principal within the meaning of FARA or, in terms of Section 951, subject to the direction or control of the government of Russia, or any official thereof. In particular, the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafott, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian government or at its direction, control, or request during the relevant time period.1232
}

 

[Dragonlady]

I can believe he wasn't involved in the money laundering. That time, anyway. But I find it hard to believe he had nothing to do with how the case was disposed of. Someone in Moscow called in a favor..
It's clear as day. We will probably never prove it.

LOL. You do know your fantasies are just fantasies, right?

The Mueller Investigation was seriously constrained by the authorizing Memo issued by the Justice Department when they appointed the Special Counsel...

That's according to you but is exactly the opposite of what Mueller said.

Money laundering wasn't mentioned once in the investigation or in the report, and that's because Mueller didn't look into money laundering. He wasn't allowed. That was an area the Southern District of New York was looking into, but it seems all of the Trump investigations in the SDNY have been shut down. For now.

The Authorizing Memo for the Mueller Investigation sought to prevent a Ken Starr type of investigation which was simply a $100 million 6 1/2 year fishing expedition, which started out as the Whitewater Investigation, a real estate deal in Arkansas, which saw a number of Clinton business associates indicted, and then picked up and investigated every Repulican lie and rumour that was out there: Filegate, Travelgate, Paula Jones, Vince Foster's suicide, Juanita Broaddrick, and finally, Monica Lewinsky.

Republicans didn't want to open up Trump to this kind of stream of consciousness investigation, and with Trump's business history, and public record, who knows what an investigator might turn up, so the Republicans limited Mueller to the Russian intererence, the Trump Campaign's connections to Russia, and Trump's obstruction of the Russian investigation. Everything else was off-limits, which is why the SDNY handled the Cohen prosecution.

Mueller has referred a number of cases which were outside the scope of his investigation to a number of federal jurisdictions throughout the US.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I can believe he wasn't involved in the money laundering. That time, anyway. But I find it hard to believe he had nothing to do with how the case was disposed of. Someone in Moscow called in a favor..
It's clear as day. We will probably never prove it.

LOL. You do know your fantasies are just fantasies, right?

The Mueller Investigation was seriously constrained by the authorizing Memo issued by the Justice Department when they appointed the Special Counsel...

That's according to you but is exactly the opposite of what Mueller said.

Money laundering wasn't mentioned once in the investigation or in the report, and that's because Mueller didn't look into money laundering. He wasn't allowed. That was an area the Southern District of New York was looking into, but it seems all of the Trump investigations in the SDNY have been shut down. For now.

The Authorizing Memo for the Mueller Investigation sought to prevent a Ken Starr type of investigation which was simply a $100 million 6 1/2 year fishing expedition, which started out as the Whitewater Investigation, a real estate deal in Arkansas, which saw a number of Clinton business associates indicted, and then picked up and investigated every Repulican lie and rumour that was out there: Filegate, Travelgate, Paula Jones, Vince Foster's suicide, Juanita Broaddrick, and finally, Monica Lewinsky.

Republicans didn't want to open up Trump to this kind of stream of consciousness investigation, and with Trump's business history, and public record, who knows what an investigator might turn up, so the Republicans limited Mueller to the Russian intererence, the Trump Campaign's connections to Russia, and Trump's obstruction of the Russian investigation. Everything else was off-limits, which is why the SDNY handled the Cohen prosecution.

Mueller has referred a number of cases which were outside the scope of his investigation to a number of federal jurisdictions throughout the US.

He was allowed to look into anything he wanted, it was a witch hunt, there were no limits as the persecution of Stone for Tax Evasion (what the fuck does THAT have to do with the Russians) demonstrated.

Mueller is a clown, a puppet. But Weissman was out to overthrow the president, he had no intent to investigate anything, this was an attempted coup, nothing less. He never allowed ANYTHING that might harm the democrats or expose the treason that the Clinton/Obama cabal had engaged in be exposed. That's WHY Steele was never interviewed, Simpson was never interviewed, Brennan, Clapper, Obama, et al were never interviewed.

Nothing but treason from day one.

 

[WEATHER53]

Pushing the charade is losing steam

What the Dems might do, loathsome as they are is push for Mueller Never
having been competent thus a do over.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Except he did. LOL.

"As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

yep...

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Meaning there was not enough to indict. It is basic English. If there were enough they would and would impeach. That was what happened with Starr and Clinton. Again your fellow Leftists agree. You're an outlier.

No, it doesn't mean that. Mueller even explained he couldn't indict trump because trump is the sitting president and a sitting president can't be indicted. Not surprisingly, you're just not bright enough to understand.

Nope. He came back and stated there was not enough evidence. Keep trying.

LOLOL

No worries. Your derangement is noted, laughed at, and summarily discarded.

Talking down to me? LOL you chicken shit.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Except he did. LOL.

"As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

yep...

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Meaning there was not enough to indict. It is basic English. If there were enough they would and would impeach. That was what happened with Starr and Clinton. Again your fellow Leftists agree. You're an outlier.

Nope, not at all....

He did not make any determination on criminality or the lack of criminality, when it came to the president, because he was not allowed to make an indictment, even if he did find colossal evidence that he committed a crime..... thus, he was not going to make a definitive decision that us in the public would see....

if you had watched the hearing, Mueller made that very clear... and thru the congressional questioning it became clear that the president likely committed obstruction of an official hearing, multiple times.... but Mueller was not going to hand down that determination, express such, out loud...

it is up to Congress to handle it in other constitutional means if they deem such is necessary, so that we do not become a lawless Nation, where the president, is above the law and constitution.

It's Mueller Time!

It’s up to the AG. This is tiresome. You see what you want to see.

It's up to the [current] Attorney General. Should trump lose the next election, the new Attorney General will rise to his/her own determinations, at which time, Trump will no longer be shielded by being a sitting president. Meanwhile, it's up to the current Congress what to do for now within their powers.

And that would be? Step up, Fawn. You pussy.

 

[WEATHER53]

Of course I know that Mueller didn't bring charges, dope. Everyone knows that. The entire world knows that.
Why? How?
Because Mueller told us he couldn't bring charges, dope.

Except that isn't what Mueller said when he corrected his earlier testimony. In fact, he said the opposite of what you claim:

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Mueller issues clarification, takes back bombshell statement about indicting Trump

Right, he did not make a determination as to whether Trump committed a crime or did not commit a crime, because of the OLC rule.

he replaced: he didn't ''charge'' the president with a crime because of the OLC memo

with he didn't ''determine'' or ''make a determination'' whether the president committed a crime or NOT, due to the OLC memo.

nope, you should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.

BTW, I can't help your ignorance of the law.

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

I watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?

I know what he was correcting and I know thru ALL of his other comments in the hearing on it, what he was talking about and what he needed to correct.

He did not want the public to think he did not CHARGE the president with a crime due to the OLC memo, because he never made the determination, one way or the other, due to the OLC memo guidelines. He also said and confirmed this was not an exoneration either.... he said they did not make any determination....

period... end of story.

Incorrect again. Mueller did not have the authority to charge the POTUS but did have the authority to determine CRIMINALITY which - after his 2 yr witch-hunt - he not only failed to do, he SPECIFICALLY stated "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

What do you suppose he meant by that?

Case closed.

I am going to guess that means he is innocent of AND exhonerated from having committed a crime.

 

[WEATHER53]

yep...

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Meaning there was not enough to indict. It is basic English. If there were enough they would and would impeach. That was what happened with Starr and Clinton. Again your fellow Leftists agree. You're an outlier.

Nope, not at all....

He did not make any determination on criminality or the lack of criminality, when it came to the president, because he was not allowed to make an indictment, even if he did find colossal evidence that he committed a crime..... thus, he was not going to make a definitive decision that us in the public would see....

if you had watched the hearing, Mueller made that very clear... and thru the congressional questioning it became clear that the president likely committed obstruction of an official hearing, multiple times.... but Mueller was not going to hand down that determination, express such, out loud...

it is up to Congress to handle it in other constitutional means if they deem such is necessary, so that we do not become a lawless Nation, where the president, is above the law and constitution.

It's Mueller Time!

It’s up to the AG. This is tiresome. You see what you want to see.

It's up to the [current] Attorney General. Should trump lose the next election, the new Attorney General will rise to his/her own determinations, at which time, Trump will no longer be shielded by being a sitting president. Meanwhile, it's up to the current Congress what to do for now within their powers.

And that would be? Step up, Fawn. You pussy.

In this case the deer in question may never become a doe.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Pushing the charade is losing steam

What the Dems might do, loathsome as they are is push for Mueller Never
having been competent thus a do over.

You have to wonder if that was the plan all along.

But then it was Weissman and the other Stalinists who actually crafted the Dossier.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

 

[JoeMoma]

The best option is to save impeachment and use it if Trump gets re-elected and the Senate tips blue. It's really too late for this term.

Impeachment of Trump after he wins 2020 (assuming he does) will be a big mistake unless there is new groundbreaking evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. The voters will have already given the Mueller due consideration and cast their votes accordingly.

 

[NotYourBody]

The best option is to save impeachment and use it if Trump gets re-elected and the Senate tips blue. It's really too late for this term.

Impeachment of Trump after he wins 2020 (assuming he does) will be a big mistake unless there is new groundbreaking evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. The voters will have already given the Mueller due consideration and cast their votes accordingly.

I don't think it will be the Mueller investigation that gets him in the end. There are still ongoing investigations into many aspects of Trumps shady dealings.

 

[Foxfyre]

President Trump engages in hyperbole, humor that the MSM takes literally, misspeaks, gets facts wrong now and then. But he has kept faith with the American people, and nothing President Trump has ever done so far is even remotely anything like the lies told by Clinton or Obama or Hillary, etc.

I have to vehemently disagree with you on this. Trump does not have a sense of humor at all. NONE.

He is the most thin-skinned precious little flower that has ever held the oval office. He cannot handle even the mildest criticism.

I think most things he has done are pretty horrific. Far worse than any other president of my entire lifetime.

It's all a matter of which side of the fence you sit on. I am a target of his policies.

Since I think he can be funny as the dickens I strongly disagree that he has no sense of humor. I think everything he has done for America and Americans is turning out great. I love his policies. That's exactly why I voted for him actually. So we'll just have to disagree.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I sort of remember the incident you described but didn't really pay attention to it.
I don't listen to talk radio.

You have a lot of excuses. It’s a podcast. Give it 30 minutes.

No.

Well then. Remain ignorant. Such is your right.

LOL...
Happy to avoid your kind of brain rot.

You have proven to be an uninformed ignorant Leftist. My case is closed.

You have proven to be an uninformed ignorant Leftist. My case is closed.

I sort of remember the incident you described but didn't really pay attention to it.
I don't listen to talk radio.

You have a lot of excuses. It’s a podcast. Give it 30 minutes.

No.

Well then. Remain ignorant. Such is your right.

LOL...
Happy to avoid your kind of brain rot.

You have proven to be an uninformed ignorant Leftist. My case is closed.

You have proven to be an uninformed ignorant Leftist. My case is closed.

I have proven to be your better.
You're right to move on.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?

I know what he was correcting and I know thru ALL of his other comments in the hearing on it, what he was talking about and what he needed to correct.

He did not want the public to think he did not CHARGE the president with a crime due to the OLC memo, because he never made the determination, one way or the other, due to the OLC memo guidelines. He also said and confirmed this was not an exoneration either.... he said they did not make any determination....

period... end of story.

Here's my take away...

Mueller was very clear, he said he would not seek indictment on trump because a sitting president can't be indicted according to the OLC's opinion on that matter. Had there been no evidence to support a criminal charge on obstruction, Mueller would have cleared him of any wrong doing, just as he did regarding conspiring with Russia's election hacking. But he didn't clear trump of obstruction because hd found evidence of obstruction.

In other words, he could clear the president when the evidence supports clearing him since that would not result in an indictment of a sitting president. That's exactly what Mueller did in volume one of his report.

But if the evidence shows a crime may have been committed, then Mueller could neither clear trump, nor could he seek indictment because trump is a sitting president and sitting presidents can't be indicted. That's exactly what Mueller did in volume two of his report.

Clearing trump of conspiracy proves trump did not collude with Russia. Not clearing trump of obstruction, and including possible evidence of obstruction in his report, proves trump may have obstructed justice.

It's now up to the Congress to decide the next step.

I think Mueller said there was not sufficient evidence of collusion with Russia to prove a crime. I believe he mentioned that Trump seemed to know what WikiLeaks would do before Wikileaks did it.

so?

So, Mueller did not say there was NO COLLUSION, he said there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump feloniously conspired with non-Americans to flip an election, but there is evidence sufficicient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he feloniously conspired to obstruct justice. And Trump lies about what Mueller said.

Wrong. The report said there was no evidence.

Wrong. The report said there was no evidence

Of what?
A point?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

prosecutors would have serious difficulty proving "corrupt intent" on any of the alleged "obstructive acts".

not really hard though, Trump made it clear when he asked McGahn to lie about Trump asking him to fire Mueller and to create a false memo about it... when he tried to have Don McGann cover up his initial firing of Mueller request.... that was... consciousness of guilt, corrupt intent.

That's not what the report said.

The fourth instance revolves around Mr. Trump's reaction to Mueller's appointment. Upon hearing the news that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had tasked Mueller with investigating the Russia matter in May 2017, the president privately declared it was "the end of his presidency." Mr. Trump then demanded Sessions' resignation, although he did not accept it at the time, and told aides Mueller had conflicts of interest that should preclude him from acting as the special counsel.

It was then reported in June that Mueller was investigating Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice, prompting the president to publicly attack Mueller and the Justice Department. Within days of the first report, he told McGahn to tell Rosenstein that Mueller had conflicts of interest and must be removed.

McGahn ignored the request, explaining that he would rather resign.

"In the same meeting, the president also asked McGahn why he had told the special counsel about the president's efforts to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the president," the report states. "McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the president to be testing his mettle."


He didn't ask him to deny anything. He asked him why he (the White House Counsel) breached the attorney-client communication privilege in telling the Special Counsel about their discussion regarding the removal of the Special Counsel for having a conflict of interest.

So, asking your own lawyer why he breached privilege is now an obstructive act?

.

the white-house gave McGahn permission to testify, thus he did.


And this explains what I was referring to...

Trump ordered former White House counsel to lie, Mueller confirms

Robert Mueller confirmed former White House counsel Don McGahn was pressured to lie by the White House about whether he was ever asked by Donald Trump to fire the former special counsel while testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

"The president told the White House staff secretary, Rob Porter, to try to pressure [Don] McGahn to make a false denial. Is that correct?" Democrat Karen Bass asked Mr Mueller.


"That's correct,” he replied.


The former special counsel’s public testimony on Wednesday and 448-page report detailed numerous examples of alleged obstruction of justice on the part of the president. At one point, the report notes how Mr Trump told Mr Porter he would fire the former White House counsel if he refused to craft a statement claiming he was never directed to fire Mr Mueller.

“If he doesn’t write a letter, then maybe I’ll have to get rid of him,” Mr Trump said, according to the report.

Trump has the right to fire him. a replacement would be provided and the investigation would continue. so there is no obstruction. it's why no obstruction was actually called out in the report.

No, he doesn't.

28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.​

You rightards are absolutely ineducable. That's what you get for dumbing yourself down by relying on sites like gatewaypundit and infowars.

You dumbfuck. Mueller's an OPPORTUNIST

Yes, who took the opportunity created by Trump's firing of Comey.

Good call, buddy..........
..