It's Mueller Time!

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Neither Trump nor Hillary will ever see the inside of a cell, no matter if they've broken the law or not.

Ha, maybe. Trump is clearly a felon and may require a pardon.

 

[hadit]

Neither Trump nor Hillary will ever see the inside of a cell, no matter if they've broken the law or not.

Ha, maybe. Trump is clearly a felon and may require a pardon.

Hillary likewise. She's clearly broken the law, they just declined to prosecute.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

 

[SAYIT]

Neither Trump nor Hillary will ever see the inside of a cell, no matter if they've broken the law or not.

Ha, maybe. Trump is clearly a felon and may require a pardon.

First he must commit and be convicted of a crime and 67 Senators won't do it.

By the time he leaves office he'll be 78 yrs old and would - even if indicted - simply employ the Mueller/Gigante Method. Your only hope for relief from your enduring butt-hurt is to vote him out but from what we've seen of the Democrat Socialist Party clown car, that ain't happening.

Vincent Gigante - Wikipedia
For the better part of 30 years, Gigante feigned insanity in an effort to throw law enforcement off his trail. Dubbed "The Oddfather" and "The Enigma in the Bathrobe" by the press, Gigante often wandered the streets of Greenwich Village in his bathrobe and slippers, mumbling incoherently to himself. He was indicted on federal racketeering charges in 1990, but was determined to be mentally unfit to stand trial. In 1997 he was tried and convicted of racketeering and was given a 12-year sentence. Facing new charges in 2003, he pleaded guilty and admitted that his supposed insanity was an elaborate effort to avoid prosecution

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Neither Trump nor Hillary will ever see the inside of a cell, no matter if they've broken the law or not.

Ha, maybe. Trump is clearly a felon and may require a pardon.

Hillary likewise. She's clearly broken the law, they just declined to prosecute.

False. Intent is part and parcel of the laws to which you refer.

 

[Obama2020]

Too bad your senile boy Mueller crashed your obstruction lie by saying he wasn't obstructed. Perhaps you should stop smoking and actually learn something. Nothing to disprove MUELLER'S words. Typical leftist denier.

I would recommend better hearing aid (and glasses maybe?). Mueller followed the office of legal counsel rule and did not/could not prosecute. However, once out of office Trump is immediately exposed to prosecution using the detailed findings of the report itself.

As Spicer would say: 'This was the most damning obstruction report ever, period.'

Put your glasses on and you might find out that there's no 'candle' in your Lantern.

 

[Faun]

It means he decided not to determine guilt because of the OLC's opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted.

Had he believed trump was not guilty, he would have cleared him -- just as he did over collusion/conspiracy.

I'm still waiting for the specific line in the report which he cleared the President of collusion/conspiracy. Hint: it isn't there.

What is there is a report describing some of the exhaustive investigation done with a conclusion that no evidence was found that ANY AMERICAN had committed any crime related to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.

My interpretation: There was strong evidence that the Clinton Campaign tried to use the Russians for their advantage but he chose not to look at that. And the only way to divert attention from her was to find no evidence that any American is guilty of that. Mueller didn't know who or what Fusion GPS is. Give me a break. 1.4 million documents, 500+ subpoenas, somewhere between $25 and $50 million dollars spent, and he didn't hear about Fusion GPS in any of that? The one entity deliberately and with foresight soliciting information from the Russians? Incredible. I'm hoping the IG or Durham will have no such inclination to refuse to look into that.

Nor did he find any evidence that the President obstructed justice. He cited a lot of instances that COULD BE INTERPRETED AS OBSTRUCTION IF THE INTENT WAS TO OBSTRUCT but he cites no shred of evidence that the intent was to obstruct.

"In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." ~ pg 157

"At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." ~ pg 182

The two volumes reached different conclusions.

The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.

The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

Have you ever been in a courtroom in your life? Have you ever been in a position to sit on a jury or even read up on what the legal criteria is for guilt to be established? If there is insufficient evidence to charge or convict a person with a crime, the person is judged not guilty under the law. Of course a team of 17 Hillary supporting, Trump hating Democrats are not going to say they cleared the President of a crime. And they did their damndest to feed as much crap to the gullible haters out there who gobbled it up and want it to look like something incriminating. But for the record, they didn't clear anybody else they looked at or interrogated either.

But if they couldn't find a crime to accuse him with after looking at 1.4 million documents, after 500+ subpoenas, after spending between $25 and $50 million, it is pretty damn certain that they, you, or nobody else has a single leg to stand on to accuse him of a crime.

I write this as information for the rational and fair minded of course. I don't expect those afflicted with TDS to even read it, much less make any effort to understand it.

LOLOL

So to you, Mueller saying he would have so stated trump had not committed obstruction had that been where the evidence led him -- is the same as saying -- there was no evidence trump was involved with Russian election interference??

Yep. If he, or probably Weissmann who I believe wrote at least Part 2 of the report, had ANY evidence the President had obstructed in any way, they absolutely would have said so and would have led that portion of the report with it. And Mueller wouldn't have joined Barr in a joint statement verifying that there was no such evidence. And he wouldn't have corrected his misspeak in his testimony on Wednesday.

"had ANY evidence the President had obstructed in any way, they absolutely would have said so"

LOL

That's actually the opposite of what the report says...

"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."​

Righties can't git anything right.

Regardless, trump was cleared of collusion and Mueller said so. There was obstruction which is why Mueller wouldn't clear him of it.

 

[saveliberty]

That's actually the opposite of what the report says...

"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."​

Righties can't git anything right.

Regardless, trump was cleared of collusion and Mueller said so. There was obstruction which is why Mueller wouldn't clear him of it.

What part of clearly is giving you a hard time? If it is not clear, then you are found innocent by reasonable doubt at a minimum.

 

[Faun]

It means he decided not to determine guilt because of the OLC's opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted.

Had he believed trump was not guilty, he would have cleared him -- just as he did over collusion/conspiracy.

I'm still waiting for the specific line in the report which he cleared the President of collusion/conspiracy. Hint: it isn't there.

What is there is a report describing some of the exhaustive investigation done with a conclusion that no evidence was found that ANY AMERICAN had committed any crime related to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.

My interpretation: There was strong evidence that the Clinton Campaign tried to use the Russians for their advantage but he chose not to look at that. And the only way to divert attention from her was to find no evidence that any American is guilty of that. Mueller didn't know who or what Fusion GPS is. Give me a break. 1.4 million documents, 500+ subpoenas, somewhere between $25 and $50 million dollars spent, and he didn't hear about Fusion GPS in any of that? The one entity deliberately and with foresight soliciting information from the Russians? Incredible. I'm hoping the IG or Durham will have no such inclination to refuse to look into that.

Nor did he find any evidence that the President obstructed justice. He cited a lot of instances that COULD BE INTERPRETED AS OBSTRUCTION IF THE INTENT WAS TO OBSTRUCT but he cites no shred of evidence that the intent was to obstruct.

"In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." ~ pg 157

"At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." ~ pg 182

The two volumes reached different conclusions.

The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.

The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

Have you ever been in a courtroom in your life? Have you ever been in a position to sit on a jury or even read up on what the legal criteria is for guilt to be established? If there is insufficient evidence to charge or convict a person with a crime, the person is judged not guilty under the law. Of course a team of 17 Hillary supporting, Trump hating Democrats are not going to say they cleared the President of a crime. And they did their damndest to feed as much crap to the gullible haters out there who gobbled it up and want it to look like something incriminating. But for the record, they didn't clear anybody else they looked at or interrogated either.

But if they couldn't find a crime to accuse him with after looking at 1.4 million documents, after 500+ subpoenas, after spending between $25 and $50 million, it is pretty damn certain that they, you, or nobody else has a single leg to stand on to accuse him of a crime.

I write this as information for the rational and fair minded of course. I don't expect those afflicted with TDS to even read it, much less make any effort to understand it.

LOLOL

So to you, Mueller saying he would have so stated trump had not committed obstruction had that been where the evidence led him -- is the same as saying -- there was no evidence trump was involved with Russian election interference??

Fawn, you’re making an ass out of yourself. Your side lost. Live with it.

Tell that to the House Judiciary committee...

Jerry Nadler: We have impeachment resolutions before the House Judiciary Committee

 

[Foxfyre]

Neither Trump nor Hillary will ever see the inside of a cell, no matter if they've broken the law or not.

Ha, maybe. Trump is clearly a felon and may require a pardon.

Hillary likewise. She's clearly broken the law, they just declined to prosecute.

The difference is that we KNOW Hillary clearly broke the law. Comey himself, a strong pro Hillary anti Trump guy, confirmed it in his congressional testimony when he confirmed that Hillary, testifying under oath, had given false statements in her congressional testimony. But as you said earlier, he gave her a pass because, as you said, she, a licensed attorney presumably in good standing with the bar, was "too stupid" to know that she broke the law. (Pardon while I cough for no apparent reason.) Let's just ignore that he had already written a document exonerating her before she was ever interviewed.
Comey wrote draft exoneration of Clinton months before July 2016 announcement - CNNPolitics

But Mueller with 17 of the most viciously partisan people he could find, some being attorneys who had worked with or for the Clintons or who had contributed to her or the DNC, Weissmann, his number one attack dog who most likely wrote most of the report attended Hillary's expected victory party in New York--all hated Trump and supported Hillary--examined 1.4 million documents, issued 500+ subpoenas, spent between $25 and $50 million and came up without a single crime they could use to accuse the President. If those pit vipers couldn't find anything to accuse him, it's a safe bet that it is hugely likely there is no there there.

Anyone other than Hillary who committed perjury and destroyed evidence constituting obstruction of justice--Comey didn't bother to get into all of that of course--would have gone to jail. I won't be surprised if the IG's investigation and/or the Durham investigation look into that. I also won't be surprised if they discover that Comey quietly gave her immunity, as we know he did five of her people, so that she cannot be prosecuted.
The Immunized Five: Meet The People Covering For Hillary

There is no evidence--none, zilch, zip--that President Trump has committed any crime during his campaign or since he has been in office. Bob Mueller was feeble, bumbling, seemingly incompetent in his testimony last Wednesday, but he nevertheless has confirmed that.

 

[saveliberty]

Tell that to the House Judiciary committee...

Jerry Nadler: We have impeachment resolutions before the House Judiciary Committee

 

[Obama2020]

The two volumes reached different conclusions.
The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.
The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

That's right.
Keeping it simple: cleared of conspiracy in the first volume, but guilty of extensive obstruction in second volume that could not lead to indictment because of the office of legal counsel rule/opinion (sitting presidents can not be indicted).

Mueller's hands were tied.

I think MAGA hats prevent logic from reaching parts of the brain (likely the neocortex).

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm still waiting for the specific line in the report which he cleared the President of collusion/conspiracy. Hint: it isn't there.

What is there is a report describing some of the exhaustive investigation done with a conclusion that no evidence was found that ANY AMERICAN had committed any crime related to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.

My interpretation: There was strong evidence that the Clinton Campaign tried to use the Russians for their advantage but he chose not to look at that. And the only way to divert attention from her was to find no evidence that any American is guilty of that. Mueller didn't know who or what Fusion GPS is. Give me a break. 1.4 million documents, 500+ subpoenas, somewhere between $25 and $50 million dollars spent, and he didn't hear about Fusion GPS in any of that? The one entity deliberately and with foresight soliciting information from the Russians? Incredible. I'm hoping the IG or Durham will have no such inclination to refuse to look into that.

Nor did he find any evidence that the President obstructed justice. He cited a lot of instances that COULD BE INTERPRETED AS OBSTRUCTION IF THE INTENT WAS TO OBSTRUCT but he cites no shred of evidence that the intent was to obstruct.

"In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." ~ pg 157

"At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." ~ pg 182

The two volumes reached different conclusions.

The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.

The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

Have you ever been in a courtroom in your life? Have you ever been in a position to sit on a jury or even read up on what the legal criteria is for guilt to be established? If there is insufficient evidence to charge or convict a person with a crime, the person is judged not guilty under the law. Of course a team of 17 Hillary supporting, Trump hating Democrats are not going to say they cleared the President of a crime. And they did their damndest to feed as much crap to the gullible haters out there who gobbled it up and want it to look like something incriminating. But for the record, they didn't clear anybody else they looked at or interrogated either.

But if they couldn't find a crime to accuse him with after looking at 1.4 million documents, after 500+ subpoenas, after spending between $25 and $50 million, it is pretty damn certain that they, you, or nobody else has a single leg to stand on to accuse him of a crime.

I write this as information for the rational and fair minded of course. I don't expect those afflicted with TDS to even read it, much less make any effort to understand it.

LOLOL

So to you, Mueller saying he would have so stated trump had not committed obstruction had that been where the evidence led him -- is the same as saying -- there was no evidence trump was involved with Russian election interference??

Fawn, you’re making an ass out of yourself. Your side lost. Live with it.

Tell that to the House Judiciary committee...

Jerry Nadler: We have impeachment resolutions before the House Judiciary Committee

Jerry Nadler is another making an ass out of himself.

 

[Foxfyre]

The two volumes reached different conclusions.
The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.
The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

That's right.
Keeping it simple: cleared of conspiracy in the first volume, but guilty of extensive obstruction in second volume that could not lead to indictment because of the office of legal counsel rule/opinion (sitting presidents can not be indicted).

Mueller's hands were tied.

I think MAGA hats prevent logic from reaching parts of the brain (likely the neocortex).

I think TDS must prevent the brain from reading that there was no evidence of conspiracy/collusion AND no evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report, in Mueller's joint statement with AG Barr, confirmed once again in Mueller's testimony last Wednesday.

 

[saveliberty]

The two volumes reached different conclusions.
The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.
The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

That's right.
Keeping it simple: cleared of conspiracy in the first volume, but guilty of extensive obstruction in second volume that could not lead to indictment because of the office of legal counsel rule/opinion (sitting presidents can not be indicted).

Mueller's hands were tied.

I think MAGA hats prevent logic from reaching parts of the brain (likely the neocortex).

Weird how it all started with illegal actions by prosecutors and Democrat funded reports....that would make anything discovered poison fruit in a real court.

 

[Faun]

That's actually the opposite of what the report says...

"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."​

Righties can't git anything right.

Regardless, trump was cleared of collusion and Mueller said so. There was obstruction which is why Mueller wouldn't clear him of it.

What part of clearly is giving you a hard time? If it is not clear, then you are found innocent by reasonable doubt at a minimum.

Did Mueller determine trump clearly did not obstruct justice?

No, he did not determine that. That means there's evidence trump may have obstructed justice. And Mueller included many examples of what may be considered obstruction. Such as asking McGahn to have Mueller fired.

And again, comparing the conclusions of volumes and and two... volume one -- there's no evidence trump colluded with Russia and Mueller said so; if there was evidence trump clearly did not obstruct justice, Mueller would have said so -- he didn't say so.

The next step is up to Democrats to decide what, if any, action(s) they will take.

 

[saveliberty]

That's actually the opposite of what the report says...

"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."​

Righties can't git anything right.

Regardless, trump was cleared of collusion and Mueller said so. There was obstruction which is why Mueller wouldn't clear him of it.

What part of clearly is giving you a hard time? If it is not clear, then you are found innocent by reasonable doubt at a minimum.

Did Mueller determine trump clearly did not obstruct justice?

No, he did not determine that. That means there's evidence trump may have obstructed justice. And Mueller included many examples of what may be considered obstruction. Such as asking McGahn to have Mueller fired.

And again, comparing the conclusions of volumes and and two... volume one -- there's no evidence trump colluded with Russia and Mueller said so; if there was evidence trump clearly did not obstruct justice, Mueller would have said so -- he didn't say so.

The next step is up to Democrats to decide what, if any, action(s) they will take.

Still confused by clearly I see. Keep up the circular reasoning and blinders there sport.

 

[Obama2020]

I think TDS must prevent the brain from reading that there was no evidence of conspiracy/collusion AND no evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report, in Mueller's joint statement with AG Barr, confirmed once again in Mueller's testimony last Wednesday.

Bwahahahaha there was never a JOINT statement involving Mueller and AG Barr. Mueller contradicted Barr last Wednesday... man what BS LOL

This place is full of Russian trolls

 

[Faun]

 

[saveliberty]

Did Mueller determine trump clearly did not obstruct justice?

No, he did not determine that. That means there's evidence trump may have obstructed justice. And Mueller included many examples of what may be considered obstruction. Such as asking McGahn to have Mueller fired.

And again, comparing the conclusions of volumes and and two... volume one -- there's no evidence trump colluded with Russia and Mueller said so; if there was evidence trump clearly did not obstruct justice, Mueller would have said so -- he didn't say so.

The next step is up to Democrats to decide what, if any, action(s) they will take.

No clear evidence...may have...may be...

Take that can of wishes and try to act in any sane fashion. Take note public, Democrats will convict you by feelings alone. You want people like that running the country?