Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
But you're not going to apply that to Trump, so stop wasting our time.Fawn, you’re making an ass out of yourself. Your side lost. Live with it.LOLOL"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.
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??
The funny thing is, we can apply the same standard to Hillary's classified information problems. They admitted she broke the law, but refused to prosecute because she was too stupid to realize she did.
"had ANY evidence the President had obstructed in any way, they absolutely would have said so"LOLOLI'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.
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.
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.
Tell that to the House Judiciary committee...Fawn, you’re making an ass out of yourself. Your side lost. Live with it.LOLOLI'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.
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??
Jerry Nadler: We have impeachment resolutions before the House Judiciary Committee
LOLThe 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.
Yes, we showed up in 2007 and 2009, you 2018 dumb ass.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
Did Mueller determine trump clearly did not obstruct justice?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.
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.
Did Mueller determine trump clearly did not obstruct justice?
Along with examples of where obstruction may have occurred. Now the House Judiciary committee has to decide...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?
“We got him now!” Lmfao.Along with examples of where obstruction may have occurred. Now the House Judiciary committee has to decide...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?
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
"Where is the obstruction? Mueller said that in no case was he prevented or hindered in obtaining any information.""had ANY evidence the President had obstructed in any way, they absolutely would have said so"LOLOL"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.
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.
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.
Where is the obstruction? Mueller said that in no case was he prevented or hindered in obtaining any information. None of the witnesses took the 5th so far as we know. And he identified no crime that was committed by the President including obstruction. It's pretty hard to obstruct justice when there is no crime to obstruct.
All Mueller has are bits of conversations, none in their full context, reported by others from a President frustrated that he is being constantly accused and slandered in the media, on social media, on message boards, and in Congress for something he did not do, has never done. And not one of those reports constitutes collusion, conspiracy, or obstruction. Mueller identified no crime that the President had committed. He confirmed that in his joint statement with Bill Barr. And he confirmed it again in his testimony last Wednesday.
And no amount of butt hurt, petty, snarky, angry, malicious, intellectually dishonest conspiracy theory and/or extrapolation from the TDS left changes that.
That's good, make it about me instead of the evidence.Did Mueller determine trump clearly did not obstruct justice?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.
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.
Did Mueller determine trump clearly did not obstruct justice?
Bought yourself an un-warned trip to the list for posting the same thing(s) 100 times in this thread alone. Pathetic TDS sufferer extroidinaire. You may be one of the better loons, but not exempt from the list. You can however, earn your way back off. It is rare.....but possible. We'll see.
I’m typing slowly and I repeat myself “We got him now!” Lmfao!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
I am typing slowly so that maybe, just maybe this will become clear to you. If you are so clueless about this, just maybe you have everything else wrong too?
The Department of Justice and the special counsel’s office released a joint statement on May 29 hours after special counsel Robert Mueller spoke for the first time since submitting his report to Attorney General William Barr.DOJ, Mueller's Office Release Joint Statement About Special Counsel's Comments
“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination—one way or the other—about whether the President committed a crime,” said Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice and Peter Carr, spokesman for the special counsel’s Office, in the joint statement.
“There is no conflict between these statements,” they added.
You see the intellectually honest look for the actual facts. The intellectually dishonest keep insisting that what they WANT to be the facts be accepted as the way it is.
Evidence is that President Trump got over 270 Electoral Votes on Election Day 2016. Get the fuck over already.That's good, make it about me instead of the evidence.Did Mueller determine trump clearly did not obstruct justice?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.
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.
Did Mueller determine trump clearly did not obstruct justice?
Bought yourself an un-warned trip to the list for posting the same thing(s) 100 times in this thread alone. Pathetic TDS sufferer extroidinaire. You may be one of the better loons, but not exempt from the list. You can however, earn your way back off. It is rare.....but possible. We'll see.
Bought yourself an un-warned trip to the list for posting the same thing(s) 100 times in this thread alone. Pathetic TDS sufferer extroidinaire. You may be one of the better loons, but not exempt from the list. You can however, earn your way back off. It is rare.....but possible. We'll see.
Hillary lost in 2016 fair and square. Waaaaaaahhhh"Where is the obstruction? Mueller said that in no case was he prevented or hindered in obtaining any information.""had ANY evidence the President had obstructed in any way, they absolutely would have said so"LOLOLHave 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.
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.
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.
Where is the obstruction? Mueller said that in no case was he prevented or hindered in obtaining any information. None of the witnesses took the 5th so far as we know. And he identified no crime that was committed by the President including obstruction. It's pretty hard to obstruct justice when there is no crime to obstruct.
All Mueller has are bits of conversations, none in their full context, reported by others from a President frustrated that he is being constantly accused and slandered in the media, on social media, on message boards, and in Congress for something he did not do, has never done. And not one of those reports constitutes collusion, conspiracy, or obstruction. Mueller identified no crime that the President had committed. He confirmed that in his joint statement with Bill Barr. And he confirmed it again in his testimony last Wednesday.
And no amount of butt hurt, petty, snarky, angry, malicious, intellectually dishonest conspiracy theory and/or extrapolation from the TDS left changes that.
Damn, you righties must all get your talking points from the same source. Y'all keep repeating that same debunked point...
CICILLINE: an unsuccessful attempt to obstruct justice is still a crime, is that correct?
MUELLER: That is correct.
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
I am typing slowly so that maybe, just maybe this will become clear to you. If you are so clueless about this, just maybe you have everything else wrong too?
The Department of Justice and the special counsel’s office released a joint statement on May 29 hours after special counsel Robert Mueller spoke for the first time since submitting his report to Attorney General William Barr.DOJ, Mueller's Office Release Joint Statement About Special Counsel's Comments
“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination—one way or the other—about whether the President committed a crime,” said Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice and Peter Carr, spokesman for the special counsel’s Office, in the joint statement.
“There is no conflict between these statements,” they added.
The intellectually honest look for the actual facts. The intellectually dishonest keep insisting that what they WANT to be the facts be accepted as the way it is.
"had ANY evidence the President had obstructed in any way, they absolutely would have said so"LOLOLI'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.
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.
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.
"Where is the obstruction? Mueller said that in no case was he prevented or hindered in obtaining any information.""had ANY evidence the President had obstructed in any way, they absolutely would have said so"LOLOLHave 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.
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.
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.
Where is the obstruction? Mueller said that in no case was he prevented or hindered in obtaining any information. None of the witnesses took the 5th so far as we know. And he identified no crime that was committed by the President including obstruction. It's pretty hard to obstruct justice when there is no crime to obstruct.
All Mueller has are bits of conversations, none in their full context, reported by others from a President frustrated that he is being constantly accused and slandered in the media, on social media, on message boards, and in Congress for something he did not do, has never done. And not one of those reports constitutes collusion, conspiracy, or obstruction. Mueller identified no crime that the President had committed. He confirmed that in his joint statement with Bill Barr. And he confirmed it again in his testimony last Wednesday.
And no amount of butt hurt, petty, snarky, angry, malicious, intellectually dishonest conspiracy theory and/or extrapolation from the TDS left changes that.
Damn, you righties must all get your talking points from the same source. Y'all keep repeating that same debunked point...
CICILLINE: an unsuccessful attempt to obstruct justice is still a crime, is that correct?
MUELLER: That is correct.
That, along with obstructing justice, is why he may now be impeached.Evidence is that President Trump got over 270 Electoral Votes on Election Day 2016. Get the fuck over already.That's good, make it about me instead of the evidence.Did Mueller determine trump clearly did not obstruct justice?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.
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.
Did Mueller determine trump clearly did not obstruct justice?
Bought yourself an un-warned trip to the list for posting the same thing(s) 100 times in this thread alone. Pathetic TDS sufferer extroidinaire. You may be one of the better loons, but not exempt from the list. You can however, earn your way back off. It is rare.....but possible. We'll see.
