It's Mueller Time!

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Baloney. No person is above the law nor beneath it.

What person and what law are you refererring to?

Now you’re playing coy. LOL. I hope they do impeach. Honestly. Do it!

I'm not "playing" anything. I asked the poster to clarify his meaning so I could respond, mr reasonable.

Bullshit.

So now you're proposing to tell me what the intent behind my post was?

Fuck off, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Huh?
When did Mueller state that?

When he retracted his initial comment to Ted Lieu.

When he retracted his initial comment to Ted Lieu.

LOL......OMG
It was a correction to his response to Lieu.
Not a change to the thinking behind the entire investigation.

No, no. You don't misrepresent facts at all.

You’re wrong. No amount of emojis will cure that.

LOL...
Im not though.
He said he was correcting his statement to Lieu. You said the same thing.

Mueller corrected it because as it was, there was an appearance that Mueller suggested that Trump committed a crime.

He in no way suggested he was changing the thinking behind the entire investigation.

Post up the transcript.

OMG no. Enough. You’re just. Bullshitting and playing coy now. You post and script if you’re really serious. I am Not anyone’s errand boy.

It's your assertion, dope.

Prove it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Baloney. No person is above the law nor beneath it.

What person and what law are you refererring to?

Now you’re playing coy. LOL. I hope they do impeach. Honestly. Do it!

I'm not "playing" anything. I asked the poster to clarify his meaning so I could respond, mr reasonable.

Bullshit.

So now you're proposing to tell me what the intent behind my post was?

Fuck off, dope.

I am not falling for your bs. You’re a loser.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

When he retracted his initial comment to Ted Lieu.

When he retracted his initial comment to Ted Lieu.

LOL......OMG
It was a correction to his response to Lieu.
Not a change to the thinking behind the entire investigation.

No, no. You don't misrepresent facts at all.

You’re wrong. No amount of emojis will cure that.

LOL...
Im not though.
He said he was correcting his statement to Lieu. You said the same thing.

Mueller corrected it because as it was, there was an appearance that Mueller suggested that Trump committed a crime.

He in no way suggested he was changing the thinking behind the entire investigation.

Post up the transcript.

OMG no. Enough. You’re just. Bullshitting and playing coy now. You post and script if you’re really serious. I am Not anyone’s errand boy.

It's your assertion, dope.

Prove it.

LOL it is a fact. Do you want me to post proof that the Patriots won the most recent SB too? You’re just trying to goad me. You’re a loser.

 

[Foxfyre]

Former FBI Agt Page testified that the FBI conducted their own internal investigation and found no evidence of crimal collusion.

Nadler and the House have investigated and have found no evidence of crimal collusion, despite Schiff lying about personally having evidence of criminal collusion that would put President Trump in prison.

Mueller testified yesterday, as the quote again shows, that he and his team found no criminal evidence.

Hutch, like Nadler, however, want to keep investigating and investigating and investigating so this whole fantasy doesn't come to a screeching halt, as it did due to the disastrous performance of Mueller.

That reminds me that Schiff had gone before the cameras time and time again to state unequivocally that he had irrefutable evidence that the President colluded with the Russians and that he obstructed justice.

He has yet to show any scrap or word of that evidence.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What person and what law are you refererring to?

Now you’re playing coy. LOL. I hope they do impeach. Honestly. Do it!

I'm not "playing" anything. I asked the poster to clarify his meaning so I could respond, mr reasonable.

Bullshit.

So now you're proposing to tell me what the intent behind my post was?

Fuck off, dope.

I am not falling for your bs. You’re a loser.

It wasn't even addressed to you, dope.

Fuck off.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL......OMG
It was a correction to his response to Lieu.
Not a change to the thinking behind the entire investigation.

No, no. You don't misrepresent facts at all.

You’re wrong. No amount of emojis will cure that.

LOL...
Im not though.
He said he was correcting his statement to Lieu. You said the same thing.

Mueller corrected it because as it was, there was an appearance that Mueller suggested that Trump committed a crime.

He in no way suggested he was changing the thinking behind the entire investigation.

Post up the transcript.

OMG no. Enough. You’re just. Bullshitting and playing coy now. You post and script if you’re really serious. I am Not anyone’s errand boy.

It's your assertion, dope.

Prove it.

LOL it is a fact. Do you want me to post proof that the Patriots won the most recent SB too? You’re just trying to goad me. You’re a loser.

No. I want you to be a grown man and handle yourself with competence.

Mueller corrects testimony on question about charging Trump

Mueller corrects testimony on one question
Former special counsel Robert Mueller took a moment in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee to correct an answer he had given to Rep. Ted Lieu in his earlier appearance before the Judiciary Committee about whether President Trump could be charged with obstruction after he leaves office. Watch his statement.JUL 25, 2019

 

[jc456]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is that funny to you?

Maybe because you are such a stupid fuck that can't come to the realization that Herr Mueller's testimony (if you want to call it that) was an utter, massive fail. Go down with the ship, dipshit......no one will ever know the difference.

Not surprising that you feel that way after he destroyed your "exoneration" narratives. You have nothing left but attempts to discredit him. Pathetic.

P.S Herr Mueller discredited himself, ya stupid fuck......keep bailing water out of the sinking ship that is the S.S DNC.

I'm sure you feel that way. It's called butthurt.

Cause our president was exonerated from the fraud? Nope , we wanted the fraud exposed and it was! Thanks for asking

 

[jc456]

The

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.

then why do an investigation?

That's certainly a stupid question.

entire investigation was stupid and illegal

 

[iceberg]

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.

i did -

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

links back to:
Grid view copy - Airtable

which links back to:
STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

so - you don't even look to see the actual source of what you're reading, do you? that's some kind of fucked up.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

i did -

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

links back to:
Grid view copy - Airtable

which links back to:
STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

so - you don't even look to see the actual source of what you're reading, do you? that's some kind of fucked up.

I don't believe 800 prosecutors are that ignorant of the law. You can indict a ham sandwich if you want to, but there has to be evidence of obstruction in order to convict of obstruction. Any judge worth his salt would have thrown any case out of court based on the 'possible but not conclusive' incidents that could have been obstruction described in Mueller's report--could have been obstruction only if they conclusively could have been interpreted as obstruction. In no place in the Mueller report is anything interpreted conclusively as obstruction.

Since Mueller himself stated that there was no conclusive evidence that any obstruction occurred--he was denied no document and received quickly and efficiently 1.4 million of them--and he was denied no witness--500+ subpoenas and hundreds and hundreds of hours of testimony--where did the President obstruct?

Also it is pretty hard to make a case that somebody obstructed justice when there was no crime to obstruct.

 

[jc456]

the left think that someone defending themselves from illegal prosecutors, indicates obstruction. they really don't want jurisprudence in our land.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Now you’re playing coy. LOL. I hope they do impeach. Honestly. Do it!

I'm not "playing" anything. I asked the poster to clarify his meaning so I could respond, mr reasonable.

Bullshit.

So now you're proposing to tell me what the intent behind my post was?

Fuck off, dope.

I am not falling for your bs. You’re a loser.

It wasn't even addressed to you, dope.

Fuck off.

You’re real brave behind a keyboard. Typical Leftist.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You’re wrong. No amount of emojis will cure that.

LOL...
Im not though.
He said he was correcting his statement to Lieu. You said the same thing.

Mueller corrected it because as it was, there was an appearance that Mueller suggested that Trump committed a crime.

He in no way suggested he was changing the thinking behind the entire investigation.

Post up the transcript.

OMG no. Enough. You’re just. Bullshitting and playing coy now. You post and script if you’re really serious. I am Not anyone’s errand boy.

It's your assertion, dope.

Prove it.

LOL it is a fact. Do you want me to post proof that the Patriots won the most recent SB too? You’re just trying to goad me. You’re a loser.

No. I want you to be a grown man and handle yourself with competence.

CBSN

Mueller corrects testimony on one question
Former special counsel Robert Mueller took a moment in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee to correct an answer he had given to Rep. Ted Lieu in his earlier appearance before the Judiciary Committee about whether President Trump could be charged with obstruction after he leaves office. Watch his statement.JUL 25, 2019

“Could” doesn’t mean should. He told him that if he were not president he still would not have been charged.

 

[protectionist]

You poor thing, bless your conservative heart.

The Department of Justice says there is a Mueller report; and I see nothing from anything you post to indicate you know better than them.

Mueller Report - Department of Justice

How odd is that?? They actually have a link to the report you keep insisting doesn't exist.

You don't get it. I posted a PDF of the so-called "report" in Post # 2168. Oh yeah. There's a paper allright. About 450 pages. >> Publicly released Mueller Report

But it's not a report from Mueller >> That's what doesn't exist.

It's a façade to enable lawyers to rake in $35 Million. And it worked. Until the Mueller hearing, it fooled most everybody.

Now, only a few really lame suckers still don't get it.

 

[basquebromance]

there's a saying in politics: "when you're explaining, you're losing"

Mueller and the Dems are LOSERS

 

[iceberg]

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.

i did -

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

links back to:
Grid view copy - Airtable

which links back to:
STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

so - you don't even look to see the actual source of what you're reading, do you? that's some kind of fucked up.

I don't believe 800 prosecutors are that ignorant of the law. You can indict a ham sandwich if you want to, but there has to be evidence of obstruction in order to convict of obstruction. Any judge worth his salt would have thrown any case out of court based on the 'possible but not conclusive' incidents that could have been obstruction described in Mueller's report--could have been obstruction only if they conclusively could have been interpreted as obstruction. In no place in the Mueller report is anything interpreted conclusively as obstruction.

Since Mueller himself stated that there was no conclusive evidence that any obstruction occurred--he was denied no document and received quickly and efficiently 1.4 million of them--and he was denied no witness--500+ subpoenas and hundreds and hundreds of hours of testimony--where did the President obstruct?

Also it is pretty hard to make a case that somebody obstructed justice when there was no crime to obstruct.

it's an informal group of people who are just making claims. it's like a twitter group - who's validated it? no one. but butt-buddy up here is prancing around like it means something.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

i did -

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

links back to:
Grid view copy - Airtable

which links back to:
STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

so - you don't even look to see the actual source of what you're reading, do you? that's some kind of fucked up.

WTF?
Those are supporting links, dope.
One is a list of the signatories and the other is their statement.

Why is that an issue for you?

 

[Foxfyre]

the left think that someone defending themselves from illegal prosecutors, indicates obstruction. they really don't want jurisprudence in our land.

I wonder how many of them would not have objected or said the same kinds of things that President Trump said if they were being investigated for something in which they knew beyond any doubt they were innocent if the investigators:

--were comprised of a 100% biased and politically motivated team who hated your guts and wanted somebody else to have your job?

--were dragging the names of your family, your friends, your colleagues, good people through the mud, intimidating anybody associated with them, destroying them professionally and economically?

--continued that process long after they knew there was no crime for the purpose of damaging you as much as they possibly could before the next important event in your life?

--leaked continuously to the media for the purpose of stirring up as much shit about you as they could?

--and when they finally concluded the investigation after 1.4 million documents had been produced, 500+ subpoenas had been issued, and somewhere between $25 and $50 million dollars had been spent trying to get you and failed to do so, they submitted a report deliberately worded in such a way as to provide presumed ammunition for conspiracy theorist and hatemongers to keep the trashing of you going?

 

[protectionist]

I don't believe 800 prosecutors are that ignorant of the law. You can indict a ham sandwich if you want to, but there has to be evidence of obstruction in order to convict of obstruction. Any judge worth his salt would have thrown any case out of court based on the 'possible but not conclusive' incidents that could have been obstruction described in Mueller's report--could have been obstruction only if they conclusively could have been interpreted as obstruction. In no place in the Mueller report is anything interpreted conclusively as obstruction.

Since Mueller himself stated that there was no conclusive evidence that any obstruction occurred--he was denied no document and received quickly and efficiently 1.4 million of them--and he was denied no witness--500+ subpoenas and hundreds and hundreds of hours of testimony--where did the President obstruct?

Also it is pretty hard to make a case that somebody obstructed justice when there was no crime to obstruct.

There isn't anything at all to the "report" because it is merely part of a crazy hoax designed to scam the govt out of $35 million.

The whole thing was an elaborate criminal act, and I'm going to go on record right here, as saying that some time in the future, AG Barr, with the help of the Senate (Lindsey Graham et al), is going to investigate the investigators, ID the perpetrators (starting with Hillary Clinton), and nail their asses to the wall.

Trump: Barr Has 'Anything He Needs' for Reverse Russia Probe