It's Mueller Time!

[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.

Don't fret, The report said a lot of shit you will never understand.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

MUELLER SEEKED THE TRUTH...AND SENT IT LOOSE!

Sought.


Sought


Lord...facepalm.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

That's what you libs do, by relying on leftist sites like Media Matters, publications like the New York Times & Washington Post, and OMMISION media like CNN, MSNBC, PBS, etc

You guys are the most information-deprived people in America. You don't know anything. Just today I had to correct one who knew nothing of Trump's economic achievements (see Post # 2050). Then another who knew nothing about Islamization.

Economics achievements?

Like taking his empties to the machine?
I wonder how he does that without getting the limo all sticky. I hate that.
The bonus though is getting the double mac deal. Sometimes even a crunch wrap or two.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

That's what you libs do, by relying on leftist sites like Media Matters, publications like the New York Times & Washington Post, and OMMISION media like CNN, MSNBC, PBS, etc

You guys are the most information-deprived people in America. You don't know anything. Just today I had to correct one who knew nothing of Trump's economic achievements (see Post # 2050). Then another who knew nothing about Islamization.

Nope.
He's right. You dopes ignored the report when it came out while we did our homework.you thought it better to ridicule. Not unlike today.
So now, you dopes have no frame of reference for this testimony because Mueller destroyed your narrative like a god damned tsunami.

Yall are some floundering bitches as a result.


Good job.....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

That's what you libs do, by relying on leftist sites like Media Matters, publications like the New York Times & Washington Post, and OMMISION media like CNN, MSNBC, PBS, etc

You guys are the most information-deprived people in America. You don't know anything. Just today I had to correct one who knew nothing of Trump's economic achievements (see Post # 2050). Then another who knew nothing about Islamization.

Tell me where you get your information. I'm curious.

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.

That's what you libs do, by relying on leftist sites like Media Matters, publications like the New York Times & Washington Post, and OMMISION media like CNN, MSNBC, PBS, etc

You guys are the most information-deprived people in America. You don't know anything. Just today I had to correct one who knew nothing of Trump's economic achievements (see Post # 2050). Then another who knew nothing about Islamization.

Tell me where you get your information. I'm curious.

Tell me where you get your information. I'm curious.

Oh...from at least two sources. Does that make you bi-curious?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And Mueller's report cleared trump of colluding with Russia and I did, and do, indeed accept that.

LOL ... and yet from the other side of your mouth comes:

In fact, Mueller's implication is that trump did commit obstruction of justice...

And Mueller's report cleared trump of colluding with Russia and I did, and do, indeed accept that.

LOL ... and yet from the other side of your mouth comes:

In fact, Mueller's implication is that trump did commit obstruction of justice...

LOL ... and yet from the other side of your mouth comes:

Two different points, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL

No, the case is not closed. Even you know this as demonstrated by your usd of an ellipsis in place of the actual words which followed -- "it also does not exonerate him"

Meaning Mueller did not conclude the president didn't commit a crime because no crime was committed; but because his report made no determination whether or not a crime was committed. And he's repeatedly said the reason he offered no such opinion is because of the OLC's opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted, not because trump didn't break the law

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?

Let her.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Again, no shit, dope.
Tell that to Trump. That's his dopey narrative. Not mine.

Little advice stupid fuck, pick up your teeth and ooze off to your safe space. Stop sticking your mouth in the path of his on coming foot, you fucking retard.

I found this narrative in the trash? I think you lost it.

Totally discredited.

What a fucking retard.

I'm not sure who is more retarded. Trump for continuing his narrative after being so thoroughly discredited or you for running behind him and repeating it.

I would think it's you. You have a choice whereas Trump is sort of stuck with it lest he admit defeat.

Do you have to declare your posts as in kind contributions to the Trump 2020 campaign?

Nope. I have only one thing to declare.....that you are a.......wait for it..........

A dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

Truthfully?
It hurts me to realize that in the time we find ourselves, there are so many grown people in places of great authority who have completely sold out to cynical surrender.

Not American greatness.

Plenty to go around.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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?

Let her.

Your dream lays in smoldering ruins. Move on.

 

[SweetSue92]

It's hilarious now that the title of this thread is "IT'S MUELLER TIME!!"

....yeah. That didn't turn out as planned, did it??

 

[easyt65]

10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

The article's author is a liar, and you are an idiot to keep citing this moron. How many times do people have to play back / re-post Mueller's own words from his testimony before Congress, during which time he clearly stated he and his team did NOT FIND EVIDENCE to declare he obstructed Justice or to indict him? Every time you declare that he DID obstruct justice in the face of Mueller's own words you sound as feeble and as confused as Mueller did much of the time during his testimony.

 

[protectionist]

Economics achievements?

Like taking his empties to the machine?
I wonder how he does that without getting the limo all sticky. I hate that.
The bonus though is getting the double mac deal. Sometimes even a crunch wrap or two.

Like I said >> "You guys are the most information-deprived people in America. You don't know anything." Even when you post a quote that referred to them.

Is that how deep your programming is ? Some kind of mind control ?

 

[SAYIT]

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.

The Mueller witch-hunt is now a plus for Trump and like impeachment, the "still ongoing" witch-hunts are all politically motivated and DNC/MSM/TDS driven. Just as we were aware of his foibles and quirks in 2016, we will be well aware of everything and the shady nature of those responsible for it.

Keep in mind, he is the incumbent, has done a pretty good job, and he gets to run not only on our success & prosperity, but against the Democrat Socialist Party.

BOOM!!!

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL

You're such a dumb shit. He said he wasn't going to determine criminality because trump couldn't be indicted.

There were two charges he was investigating and there were two volumes to his report, one volume for each charge. Volume one was about collusion/conspiracy while volume two was about obstruction of justice.

The two volumes did not reach the same conclusions. Volume one was clear, no evidence of criminality. Volume two was also clear, evidence of criminality. Also clear was Mueller's decision to not indict because a sitting president can't be indicted.

 

[protectionist]

Nope.
He's right. You dopes ignored the report when it came out while we did our homework.you thought it better to ridicule. Not unlike today.
So now, you dopes have no frame of reference for this testimony because Mueller destroyed your narrative like a god damned tsunami.

Yall are some floundering bitches as a result.

Good job.....

You are very happy in your obliviousness, Ignorance is bliss.

EARTH TO HS: It was a SCAM, you nitwit. Mueller (OBVIOUSLY) was nothing but a prop to make it look authentic (as evidenced by his ignorance of the "report")
A bunch of Democrat lawyers got rich stealing taxpayers money ($35 Million), and you're still blabbering about the whole thing as if it was a real investigation.

You're dumb.

Wanna buy a bridge ?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

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.

My better? In your dreams, Leftist.

 

[easyt65]

It's hilarious now that the title of this thread is "IT'S MUELLER TIME!!" ....yeah. That didn't turn out as planned, did it??

ON THE CONTRARY, it was most definitely 'Mueller Time'.

Nadler and Schiff told us that Mueller's testimony was going to bust this investigation wide open, to expose all of the nasty little secrets and prove crime was committed, that Mueller's testimony would expose new facts and take it to another level.

It DID.

We learned that Mueller was / is a slower-thinking, less-than-sharp, often dazed / confused, feeble old man who was never up to the task of running this investigation, aside from the fact that he had so many conflicts of interest in this case he never should have been allowed to be Special Counsel.

We learned that Mueller was completely ignorant of the basic facts, such as his team was comprised of DNC/Hillary supporters and donors, that not 1 but 2 of the lawyers on his team were Hillary Clinton's personal / Foundation lawyers. He testified that he had no idea this was the case...despite the fact that those 2 lawyers were part of / in his own law firm. Mueller did not do any of the hiring of the members of his own team - again, he had no clue who was on his team. At least 90% of Mueller's team had political / personal / professional conflicts of interest and should NEVER have been allowed to be on his team.

We learned Mueller was oblivious to the major / most important parts of the 'witch hunt': The Dossier, Steele, Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS... (When asked, he couldn't even remember it was Reagan who appointed him back in the day.)

You can bet he was unaware of all of the evidence of the FBI's initial illegal investigation that proved their was no collusion / evidence to warrant an investigation or the appointment of a Special Counsel. You can bet he was never told Hillary paid for the Dossier, that his protégé and other criminal Obama agency directors illegally used the report to commit FISA Court abuses. Weissmann, as it turns out, was playing his own little game of 'Weekend At Roberts' (Bernies'), but Mueller was still alive.

We learned that Andrew Weissmann was the REAL Special Counsel, who did all of the hiring and ran the entire show. Weissmann was the crooked little bastard who was at Hillary's 2016 election HQ the night of the election, waiting to join the celebration after her victory. Weissmann is a career-long corrupt prosecutor who put tens of thousands of Americans out of work, knowingly put innocent people in jail, lost a case to the USSC 9 - 0, and is a notorious, unabashed, unapologetic Clinton supporter.

We learned that Comey absolutely F*ED his mentor! Comey played a large part in leading his old mentor - the lamb - to the slaughter.

We learned Mueller was USED.

We learned this entire thing was part of the over-all Obama-Hillary deal to put her in the WH.

We learned the Obama administration, whose crimes / scandals were already chronicled, committed Obstruction to protect Hillary from prison and then blew 'Watergate' out of the water by perpetrating the largest scandal - case of treason - in US history.

 

[Faun]

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.

When you talk like an idiot you get treated like an idiot. Mueller never said there is not enough evidence to indict. Not once. Not in his report and not in his testimony. Those are your words, not his.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

When you talk like an idiot you get treated like an idiot. Mueller never said there is not enough evidence to indict. Not once. Not in his report and not in his testimony. Those are your words, not his.

If there were enough evidence he would. Stating there was not enough to find a crime is the same thing. You pussy. Honestly. You’re a pussy. A wimp. A coward. If there was a smidgeon of wrongdoing he would have been impeached and the Leftists on MSNBC and CNN would not be crying.