It's Mueller Time!

[Hutch Starskey]

Post up the transcript.

One last time, and then I am just going to ignore you because, as I stated, you are living proof you can't fix stupid when it's combined with a denial of reality:

"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.”

Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways | Fox News

.

No shit. I posted the video, dope.

Now where does he say this

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

 

[ColonelAngus]

Mueller testified that his investigation was not impeded.

It’s gonna be a tough sell to a jury to convict Trump of obstructing Justice.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Post up the transcript.

One last time, and then I am just going to ignore you because, as I stated, you are living proof you can't fix stupid when it's combined with a denial of reality:

"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.”

Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways | Fox News

.

No shit. I posted the video, dope.

Now where does he say this

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

He says “we did not reach the determination whether the President committed a crime” LOL. Nothing to do with OLC. He could have been a cashier at WalMart and still have the same outcome. You’re dumb and a Leftist

 

[Meathead]

Post up the transcript.

One last time, and then I am just going to ignore you because, as I stated, you are living proof you can't fix stupid when it's combined with a denial of reality:

"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.”

Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways | Fox News

.

No shit. I posted the video, dope.

Now where does he say this

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

It's over cupcake.

 

[Faun]

LOL

If it was all just a criminal act, when is trump gonna have Mueller locked up?

All in good time, Fail

DOJ Restarting Federal Executions

LOLOLOL

Translation: never

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

LOL

If it was all just a criminal act, when is trump gonna have Mueller locked up?

All in good time, Fail

DOJ Restarting Federal Executions

LOLOLOL

Translation: never

More emojis. Dumbass.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Quote Mueller saying there was no conclusive evidence of obstruction....

Here you go. Happy reading:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Oh and here too:
"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.”

Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways | Fox News

That is not what that means. What he stated is far more sinister than that.

 

[protectionist]

Faux want s to know when they're going to have Mueller locked up.

Good question. My guess is ASAP.

And Wiseman, and Hillary, and Comey, etc

 

[bripat9643]

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?

No evidence of collusion, shit for brains. In fact, the report said that even though The Russian government made numerous attempts to reach out to the Trump campaign, their overtures were always rebuffed.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

He didnt. Did you not watch the video?

The Reversed “Gotcha” Moment of Mueller’s Testimony Is a Metaphor for the Whole Thing

WTF?
That says exactly what I said, dope.
Nowhere in your link does it say this

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

OMG day is night in your world.

Where does he say that, liar?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He didnt. Did you not watch the video?

yes he did when he made his correction at the start of the afternoon session. sorry, but a duck is still a duck

He did not, dope.
Straight up lying and misrepresentation is all you dopes have left after Mueller destroyed your narrative.

yes he did when he made his correction at the start of the afternoon session. sorry, but a duck is still a duck

He did not say this, dope

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

The full correction

I am all set with Hutch. He is a moron. He calls dogs, cats and day, night. Again. Moron.

Where does he say what you attributed, liar?

Liar? You’re the one with the hearing problem. Why did he make the redaction? Again you’re brave on a keyboard. Pussy.

You've been exposed, loser.

 

[protectionist]

Mueller testified that his investigation was not impeded.

It’s gonna be a tough sell to a jury to convict Trump of obstructing Justice.

That's all over and done. Now, Mueller, Wiseman, Rhee, Comey are who will be convicted. First they have to be investigated.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I understand bullshit when I see it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

He didnt. Did you not watch the video?

The Reversed “Gotcha” Moment of Mueller’s Testimony Is a Metaphor for the Whole Thing

WTF?
That says exactly what I said, dope.
Nowhere in your link does it say this

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

OMG day is night in your world.

Where does he say that, liar?

That day is night? He doesn’t. It’s me mocking you.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

yes he did when he made his correction at the start of the afternoon session. sorry, but a duck is still a duck

He did not, dope.
Straight up lying and misrepresentation is all you dopes have left after Mueller destroyed your narrative.

yes he did when he made his correction at the start of the afternoon session. sorry, but a duck is still a duck

He did not say this, dope

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

The full correction

I am all set with Hutch. He is a moron. He calls dogs, cats and day, night. Again. Moron.

Where does he say what you attributed, liar?

Liar? You’re the one with the hearing problem. Why did he make the redaction? Again you’re brave on a keyboard. Pussy.

You've been exposed, loser.

Wrong. You have. Pussy.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

No evidence of collusion, shit for brains. In fact, the report said that even though The Russian government made numerous attempts to reach out to the Trump campaign, their overtures were always rebuffed.

It said there was not sufficient evidence, dope.

 

[Faun]

Post up the transcript.

One last time, and then I am just going to ignore you because, as I stated, you are living proof you can't fix stupid when it's combined with a denial of reality:

"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.”

Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways | Fox News

.

So replace Mr Lieu's question with Mueller's correction and you'll get:

Lieu: “I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you [did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime] was because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?”

Mueller: “That is correct.”​

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Post up the transcript.

One last time, and then I am just going to ignore you because, as I stated, you are living proof you can't fix stupid when it's combined with a denial of reality:

"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.”

Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways | Fox News

.

No shit. I posted the video, dope.

Now where does he say this

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

He says “we did not reach the determination whether the President committed a crime” LOL. Nothing to do with OLC. He could have been a cashier at WalMart and still have the same outcome. You’re dumb and a Leftist

Respond to this one, Hutch. LMAO. Dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

No evidence of collusion, shit for brains. In fact, the report said that even though The Russian government made numerous attempts to reach out to the Trump campaign, their overtures were always rebuffed.

It said there was not sufficient evidence, dope.

There isn't sufficient evidence that Santa Clause exists. In a court of law "Insufficient evidence" means "innocent."

 

[kwc57]

An investigation into a bogus charge is illegal

What was bogus about the investigation in to the Russians interfering?

The premise Trump had anything to do with it.

121 verified contacts between the Trump Campaign and the very Russians interfering in our election, where as no other presidential candidate, has had any contacts with any Russians trying to help them, during their presidential runs.

It was unAmerican to do such, so OF COURSE the Trump campaign came under suspicion of being a witting or unwitting asset, of the Russians.

Yesssssss……..he should have been more careful like Hillary was. She went thru a law firm to hire a company to hire an unregistered foreign agent to talk to Russian officials to obtain dirt on Trump. I mean, there is a protocol to be followed when hiding that you are seeking Russian interference and Hillary followed it. Trump could have avoided all of this investigation if he had just imitated Hillary's actions, correct? I'm curious as to why her actions are ignored while Trumps aren't when they both went to the Russians for assistance in their campaigns???

kwc, she hired the DNC's law firm, of whom they had employed as their law firm for nearly a decade.

ALL of the rest of your post is crazy ass conspiracy, right wing bunk... seriously!

Were the Russians in your conspiracy the same ones who tried to get Trump elected?

Were the Russians trying to get her elected?

What part of GPS hiring an investigator for his client to do opposition research on Candidate Trump, who had expertise in Russian affairs...the country that all financials of Trump lead to, is illegal?

How in the world does that make Steele an agent of a foreign power where he would need to register?

YOU are way way smarter than all that nonsensical, not thought out with any kind of logic involved, garbage, imo.

Bullshit. Hillary hired intermediaries to get dirt on Trump from Russians to use to influence the election in her favor. A British citizen who was not registered with the State Department as a foreign agent assisted in acquiring the info. Those are all established facts. The fact is, both candidates accepted info from Russians to influence the campaign in their favor. On one hand, supposedly the Russians reached out to people in the Trump campaign. On the other hand, Hillary reached out to the Russians. Tell me scenario is actually worse than the other? I'd say it's the campaign that sought the info. But why do we get all bent out of shape over Russia interfering (which they've done for decades with our knowledge it was happening) when we interfere in other nation's elections. Obama and Israel anyone?