It's Mueller Time!

[Foxfyre]

Mueller: We've got him now.
Barr: You've got him on what?
Mueller: What was the question?

 

[TheGreatSatan]

No, Mueller was not investigating Russian interference. That investigation was done by the FBI and another investigation by Horowitz on that matter is wrapping up. Mueller was investigating if trump or anyone in his campaign was working with the Eussians to hack the election; and to determine if any of them had committed obstruction of justice to try and prevent Mueller from getting to the truth.

his charter was to look for the collusion from the Eussians. (oops there? but didn't you recently rag on someone else's typo?) since that wasn't found the dems shifted their focus to OBSTRUCTION - but how can you have mueller search for OBSTRUCTION if that would have to happen after the investigation on COLLUSION had started?

ergo - it was never his charter to do that from the outset. ergo, you lied.

Who did I rag on for a typo? WTF is wrong with you?

Aside from your dementia, the initial investigation into obstruction started with the firing of Comey, which did occur prior to Mueller being assigned as Special Counsel.

god damn you can reach.

i've had my stupid limit for the weekend. later.

Maybe he's a bit old, like his hero Mueller, and can't tell up from down. Going to the mat for the communism he believes in.

^^^ another rightwing nut who thinks commies are hiding under his bed.

I think Democrats are so brainwashed they don't realize they have become communist.

 

[Foxfyre]

Poor, delusional dale. Fusion GPS was "outside [Mueller's] purview" in his investigation. You still don't understand that, huh?

That's retarded. God damn you people are stupid.

Mueller was to investigate russian interference. Russian spies paid to give dirt on Americans by campaigns is what he was supposed to find.

Democrats be like... Fusion GPS? We better not let the Iranians get that...

No, Mueller was not investigating Russian interference. That investigation was done by the FBI and another investigation by Horowitz on that matter is wrapping up. Mueller was investigating if trump or anyone in his campaign was working with the Eussians to hack the election; and to determine if any of them had committed obstruction of justice to try and prevent Mueller from getting to the truth.

his charter was to look for the collusion from the Eussians. (oops there? but didn't you recently rag on someone else's typo?) since that wasn't found the dems shifted their focus to OBSTRUCTION - but how can you have mueller search for OBSTRUCTION if that would have to happen after the investigation on COLLUSION had started?

ergo - it was never his charter to do that from the outset. ergo, you lied.

Who did I rag on for a typo? WTF is wrong with you?

Aside from your dementia, the initial investigation into obstruction started with the firing of Comey, which did occur prior to Mueller being assigned as Special Counsel.

No it didn't. Not according to Mueller himself.

What the member doesn't recall that it was the Democrats screaming for Comey to be fired. Until he was. Then it was obstruction of justice.

 

[JoeMoma]

He could have but he said he chose not to because a sitting president can't be indicted. Obviously, you'll never understand this...

You're fucking CLUELESS. The report was an internal DOJ doc. Mueller could have concluded anything he chose to. He chose "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Bend, fold, and mutilate to your heart's content but there is NOTHING ambiguous about those 11 words.

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

LOLOL

Exactly which part of, he could have but chose not to, leaves you blabbering like a wiggling bowl of jello?

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

Slight correction: We do not prosecute nor should congress prosecute anyone unless a crime has been alleged to have been committed. The conclusion of the investigation was not "Trump did not commit a crime", but it also did not conclude (allege) that he did.

so if there's no conclusion you committed a crime, then what? we let people live in limbo there til we can play pin the crime on the president?

2+ years were spend and many millions on something that came up with less action than i got on my high school prom night.the only saving grace is i spent a hell of a lot less for my nothing.

people have let their emotions rule for far too long and have justified this in their own minds to allow to others what they would NEVER allow to happen to them. i simply can't think of anyone who is willing to be the subject of social anger justice.

you know anyone?

so if we don't want to be subjected to that, why do we put others through it far too often? i'll never understand why we think it's ok to do to someone what we know is wrong by the mere fact we hate them.

I'm of the impression that the Mueller team spent a great deal of time trying to create a case for obstruction for an investigation that had no predicate. The democrats would be wise to let it go and find something to run on for 2020

 

[TheGreatSatan]

You're fucking CLUELESS. The report was an internal DOJ doc. Mueller could have concluded anything he chose to. He chose "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Bend, fold, and mutilate to your heart's content but there is NOTHING ambiguous about those 11 words.

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

LOLOL

Exactly which part of, he could have but chose not to, leaves you blabbering like a wiggling bowl of jello?

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

Slight correction: We do not prosecute nor should congress prosecute anyone unless a crime has been alleged to have been committed. The conclusion of the investigation was not "Trump did not commit a crime", but it also did not conclude (allege) that he did.

so if there's no conclusion you committed a crime, then what? we let people live in limbo there til we can play pin the crime on the president?

2+ years were spend and many millions on something that came up with less action than i got on my high school prom night.the only saving grace is i spent a hell of a lot less for my nothing.

people have let their emotions rule for far too long and have justified this in their own minds to allow to others what they would NEVER allow to happen to them. i simply can't think of anyone who is willing to be the subject of social anger justice.

you know anyone?

so if we don't want to be subjected to that, why do we put others through it far too often? i'll never understand why we think it's ok to do to someone what we know is wrong by the mere fact we hate them.

I'm of the impression that the Mueller team spent a great deal of time trying to create a case for obstruction for an investigation that had no predicate. The democrats would be wise to let it go and find something to run on for 2020

If they believe there own propaganda they would have already impeached trump. And if they believe there own polls that are made for them, then they would just go into 2020 predicting landslides everywhere.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

It hurts me more that my kids have to grow up in the world with illogical people like you living in it. PC pussies.

You mad, bro?
You seem frustrated.

He probably is, but he's also one of the more reasonable conservatives here so take it easy on the guy.

He hasn't been reasonable as far as I can tell.
He has repeatedly and perhaps deliberately misrepresented the facts.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

It hurts me more that my kids have to grow up in the world with illogical people like you living in it. PC pussies.

You mad, bro?
You seem frustrated.

He probably is, but he's also one of the more reasonable conservatives here so take it easy on the guy.

He hasn't been reasonable as far as I can tell.
He has repeatedly and perhaps deliberately misrepresented the facts.

FACTS - You Leftist Loon:

Ratcliffe: "Your report and today you said at all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So, which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "Can you repeat the last part of that question?"

Ratcliffe: "Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated, if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?"

Mueller: [Silence]

Ratcliffe: "Let me make it easier. Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "I cannot, but this is unique situation."

Ratcliffe: "Well you can't, time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because, I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist."

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Asking your attorney to falsify documents is not corrupt intent in your mind?

First, he

only in a leftist world. the real world of justice and american law, nope.

This whole thing, top to bottom, has taken HUGE SHIT on attorney-client privilege, and the entire legal profession in general.

The McGahn bullshit.

Raiding Cohen's office.

Special Counsel continuing to pursue an investigation KNOWING there is no underlying crime, in breach of a prosecutor's duty to justice.

This is what happens when people who think they are ORDAINED BY GOD to win an election GET BEAT.

.

There is no attorney client privilege extended to cover felonious activities. See crime- fraud exception.
Mcghan resigned because the president wanted him to obstruct justice.

ok, was a crime committed though? the attorney declined and trump didn't do anything. so where's the crime?

Yes. The crime was committed when Trump
"endeavored" to obstruct justice. There is nothing in the law that says it had to be successful.

Nope, not until something happened look at the comments in Wikipedia concerning it!

No lawyer would ever take it mueller knew it

Oh, well......Wikipedia. My bad.
You should read the actual statute.

These lawyers said they would take it.

About 800 ex-prosecutors say Trump would be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president

 

[iceberg]

First, he
This whole thing, top to bottom, has taken HUGE SHIT on attorney-client privilege, and the entire legal profession in general.

The McGahn bullshit.

Raiding Cohen's office.

Special Counsel continuing to pursue an investigation KNOWING there is no underlying crime, in breach of a prosecutor's duty to justice.

This is what happens when people who think they are ORDAINED BY GOD to win an election GET BEAT.

.

There is no attorney client privilege extended to cover felonious activities. See crime- fraud exception.
Mcghan resigned because the president wanted him to obstruct justice.

ok, was a crime committed though? the attorney declined and trump didn't do anything. so where's the crime?

Yes. The crime was committed when Trump
"endeavored" to obstruct justice. There is nothing in the law that says it had to be successful.

Nope, not until something happened look at the comments in Wikipedia concerning it!

No lawyer would ever take it mueller knew it

Oh, well......Wikipedia. My bad.
You should read the actual statute.

These lawyers said they would take it.

About 800 ex-prosecutors say Trump would be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president

Former prosecutors shouldn't be judges. Here's why

and your post seems to be from medium.com - bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. a twitterwannabe.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

It hurts me more that my kids have to grow up in the world with illogical people like you living in it. PC pussies.

You mad, bro?
You seem frustrated.

He probably is, but he's also one of the more reasonable conservatives here so take it easy on the guy.

He hasn't been reasonable as far as I can tell.
He has repeatedly and perhaps deliberately misrepresented the facts.

FACTS - You Leftist Loon:

Ratcliffe: "Your report and today you said at all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So, which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "Can you repeat the last part of that question?"

Ratcliffe: "Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated, if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?"

Mueller: [Silence]

Ratcliffe: "Let me make it easier. Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "I cannot, but this is unique situation."

Ratcliffe: "Well you can't, time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because, I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist."

Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

It's a stupid line of questioning as the president is the only person in America who cannot be indicted of a crime. Because of that dynamic, it will always create unique leagal circumstances.

 

[Faun]

No, Mueller was not investigating Russian interference. That investigation was done by the FBI and another investigation by Horowitz on that matter is wrapping up. Mueller was investigating if trump or anyone in his campaign was working with the Eussians to hack the election; and to determine if any of them had committed obstruction of justice to try and prevent Mueller from getting to the truth.

his charter was to look for the collusion from the Eussians. (oops there? but didn't you recently rag on someone else's typo?) since that wasn't found the dems shifted their focus to OBSTRUCTION - but how can you have mueller search for OBSTRUCTION if that would have to happen after the investigation on COLLUSION had started?

ergo - it was never his charter to do that from the outset. ergo, you lied.

Who did I rag on for a typo? WTF is wrong with you?

Aside from your dementia, the initial investigation into obstruction started with the firing of Comey, which did occur prior to Mueller being assigned as Special Counsel.

I like how Democrats suddenly believe Comey is some kinda hero after they blamed him for Hillary's loss. It's like they have no standards. Typical communist.

I never said he is a hero.

Really though... who cares what a in the tank commie drone thinks?

Hillary would of fired Comey and it would of been no big deal to you.

Democrats have about the same mental health as their hero Bob Mueller.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It hurts me more that my kids have to grow up in the world with illogical people like you living in it. PC pussies.

You mad, bro?
You seem frustrated.

He probably is, but he's also one of the more reasonable conservatives here so take it easy on the guy.

He hasn't been reasonable as far as I can tell.
He has repeatedly and perhaps deliberately misrepresented the facts.

FACTS - You Leftist Loon:

Ratcliffe: "Your report and today you said at all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So, which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "Can you repeat the last part of that question?"

Ratcliffe: "Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated, if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?"

Mueller: [Silence]

Ratcliffe: "Let me make it easier. Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "I cannot, but this is unique situation."

Ratcliffe: "Well you can't, time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because, I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist."

Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

It's a stupid line of questioning as the president is the only person in America who cannot be indicted of a crime. Because of that dynamic, it will always create unique leagal circumstances.

But if he could have been he still would not have been as Mueller stated in the afternoon. The office did not matter.

 

[Faun]

LOLOLOL

When a case is closed, there's nothing more to come from it;

whereas an ellipsis means there's more to come.

You're such a dolt, it doesn't even occur to you that you contradict yourself every time you post "case closed" after an ellipsis.

what's the ; doing after your second sentence?

seems a bit out of place to me. it certainly doesn't match your sentence structure and leaves a closed thought open.

then again, i only give a shit cause you're being a grammar nazi.

carry on.

Moi, a grammar nazi?

Faun has crossed to insanity.

Oh? Care to point out where I corrected anyone's grammar?

You just give childish smileys and emojis because you cannot debate logically.

I take that as you can't find it. Thanks for tryin' anyway.

 

[WEATHER53]

Hens still clucking about Russians?
Chicken salad is what it all now is.

 

[Faun]

his charter was to look for the collusion from the Eussians. (oops there? but didn't you recently rag on someone else's typo?) since that wasn't found the dems shifted their focus to OBSTRUCTION - but how can you have mueller search for OBSTRUCTION if that would have to happen after the investigation on COLLUSION had started?

ergo - it was never his charter to do that from the outset. ergo, you lied.

Who did I rag on for a typo? WTF is wrong with you?

Aside from your dementia, the initial investigation into obstruction started with the firing of Comey, which did occur prior to Mueller being assigned as Special Counsel.

god damn you can reach.

i've had my stupid limit for the weekend. later.

Maybe he's a bit old, like his hero Mueller, and can't tell up from down. Going to the mat for the communism he believes in.

^^^ another rightwing nut who thinks commies are hiding under his bed.

I think Democrats are so brainwashed they don't realize they have become communist.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There is no attorney client privilege extended to cover felonious activities. See crime- fraud exception.
Mcghan resigned because the president wanted him to obstruct justice.

ok, was a crime committed though? the attorney declined and trump didn't do anything. so where's the crime?

Yes. The crime was committed when Trump
"endeavored" to obstruct justice. There is nothing in the law that says it had to be successful.

Nope, not until something happened look at the comments in Wikipedia concerning it!

No lawyer would ever take it mueller knew it

Oh, well......Wikipedia. My bad.
You should read the actual statute.

These lawyers said they would take it.

About 800 ex-prosecutors say Trump would be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president

Former prosecutors shouldn't be judges. Here's why

and your post seems to be from medium.com - bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. a twitterwannabe.

It's from the journal of the American Bar Association. You would know that if you actually read it.

 

[Flash]

Nader haz Trump Derangement Syndrome. In fact there is a good possibility he could be Patient Zero for the mental Illness.

He is so stupid he thinks the rest of the country has also succumbed to the sickness. He is wrong. It is only his fellow hate filled pink pussy hat Moon Bats.

The strategy of TDS hate mongering is not the winning platform assholes and the other Democrat clowns think it is. They are in for a big disappointment in 2020.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Imagine a Democrat saying the government is to big...

You can't...

 

[Flash]

ok, was a crime committed though? the attorney declined and trump didn't do anything. so where's the crime?

Yes. The crime was committed when Trump
"endeavored" to obstruct justice. There is nothing in the law that says it had to be successful.

Nope, not until something happened look at the comments in Wikipedia concerning it!

No lawyer would ever take it mueller knew it

Oh, well......Wikipedia. My bad.
You should read the actual statute.

These lawyers said they would take it.

About 800 ex-prosecutors say Trump would be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president

Former prosecutors shouldn't be judges. Here's why

and your post seems to be from medium.com - bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. a twitterwannabe.

It's from the journal of the American Bar Association. You would know that if you actually read it.

Isn't the ABA the organization that disbarred Slick Willy?

 

[easyt65]

Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope.

You are a LIAR! I provided the link to the article and the transcript that quoted him word for f*ing word.

But you keep clinging on to your own demented reality that is collapsing inside your mind!

You misquoted me , dope.

Please fix it.

Bullshit - cut and paste ... Unless you went back & changed it