It's Mueller Time!

[miketx]

AG Barr is going to send Hillary to prison for her illegal emails and Obama to prison for his illegal spying of Trump. Bill Clinton might end up doing prison time if Epstein talks.

Meanwhile Trump has been exonerated.
There was no obstruction.
There was no collusion.
There was no Russian interference in the election.

They will never see the prison.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What was the corrupt intent?

To stifle a lawful investigation. How can you not puzzle that out for yourself?

So, when it is determined that "collusion" was not a crime, and the investigation was a big fat piece of wasteful shit, wouldn't that NEGATE corrupt intent? You know, being as it was the president's job to stop wasteful investigations into NON-CRIMES?

 

[Crixus]

It's clear not only did Mueller not write the "Mueller Report", he never even read it!

Of course he didn’t read it. He’s like every other republican.

It's even better seeing you retards disown your hero. For almost three years you all have been going on about Muller getting trump , and what did you get? A senile old fart and now y'all talk shot about Mullerclause.

 

[toobfreak]

A BRIEF DEMOCRATIC SUMMARY:

1. Bob Mueller, WE LOVE YOU! You are a great patriot! Our Hero! Kiss! Kiss! Kiss! Now tell us we can impeach Donald for being innocent of Russian Conspiracy!
2. No one is above the law! Not for even any slightest little thing! Must prosecute! We must not let anyone escape the law, except Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Valerie Jarrett, Debbie Wassermann-Schultz, Lois Lerner, John Brennan, James Clapper, Eric Holder, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Huma Abedin and Susan Rice.

A BRIEF MUELLER SUMMARY:

1. How did the Russian investigation begin? NO COMMENT.
2. Did you look into Hillary's financing of the Steele Dossier upon which the whole investigation was based? NO COMMENT.
3. Were any votes actually known changed by the Russian meddling? NO COMMENT.
   
4. Did you know that the DNC, who are half the people in this room, actually went to a foreign power seeking phony dirt on Trump that he is accused of doing? NO COMMENT.
5. Why did you not prosecute the central figure behind the Russian dossier like you prosecuted all of Trump's men on unrelated lies to the FBI even though he too lied to the FBI? NO COMMENT.
6. Did you know it is perfectly within Trump's power to fire the FBI Director which you say started the investigation? NO COMMENT.
7. Do you know the Dossier used to base your investigation on was fraudulent and lies made to the FISA Court to spy? NO COMMENT.
8. Did you know that half the people on your team were working for Hillary, the DNC, and were huge Hillary supporters who vowed to defeat Trump at any cost? NO COMMENT.
   
9. Do you know that the term "exonerate" is not even a legal term or process and appears nowhere in the US Code, Constitution or any book of law? NO COMMENT.
10. Why did you write 200 pages in a report to the AG as a prosecutor in which no prosecution is even recommended? NO COMMENT.
11. Do you have any idea that anyone, even a president is presumed innocent unless found actually guilty and it is not up to you, the AG, or any judge to exonerate them since they are already presumed innocent anyway? NO COMMENT.
12. And the best of all: Mr. Mueller, why is it that you vociferously pursued prosecution of anyone even slightly guilty of the smallest crime no matter how long ago if they were in any way connected to Trump yet passed on prosecuting anyone connected to the Democrats no matter how big the crime, relevant or recent to the investigation? NO COMMENT.

 

[easyt65]

Yes, let's go over what we learned today:

1. If you buy Mueller's 'act' today, which I don't think was an 'act', Mueller was a figurehead, a 'frontman' used, played...ignorant of anything really going on. According to him he knew nothing about Steele, the Dossier, Fusion GPS, the Hillary non-investigation, etc... According to Mueller, he did not even pick his own team, which I am not sure I believe. He said he had no idea Hillary's lawyer was on his team.
-- One problem I have here is that Ohr testified under oath that Mueller had talked to / worked with him on the Dossier BEFORE he was appointed Special Counsel.
-- Another problem I have is Mueller saying he had no Idea Hillary's lawyer was on his team....FOR 2 YEARS? If that is so that means he is the most inept, suck-ass investigator ever...and what prosecutor / SC takes over an investigation of a President and has no clue who is on his team?

 

[Leo123]

Today we found out that Mueller had very little to do with his own report.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And the best of all: Mr. Mueller, why is it that you vociferously pursued prosecution of anyone even slightly guilty of the smallest crime no matter how long ago if they were in any way connected to Trump yet passed on prosecuting anyone connected to the Democrats no matter how big the crime, relevant or recent to the investigation? NO COMMENT.

THIS is the troubling part of Mueller's testimony.

I would like to have that investigated and pursued.

.

 

[Polishprince]

What was the corrupt intent?

To stifle a lawful investigation. How can you not puzzle that out for yourself?

But the investigation wasn't stifled in the least. President Trump didn't stop anyone from testifying, provided all of the documents requested.

He didn't fire anyone, even though it was his right to do so, and firing Mueller or anyone else would not have stopped the Witch Hunt.

 

[miketx]

It's clear not only did Mueller not write the "Mueller Report", he never even read it!

Of course he didn’t read it. He’s like every other republican.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,”

Which would have been true regardless of the evidence found. Mueller has literally spelled this out and dumbed it down to the point of retardation for you to understand.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yes, a fact finder could infer that a defendant taking steps to obstruct an investigation did so because the defendant was guilt -- OF THE UNDERLYING CRIME.

If, however, there is no underlying crime, that is also probative as to whether the defendant, acting to end the investigation, had corrupt intent. It really make the case for LACK of corrupt intent when ending a wasteful investigation into NON-crimes is your job---like the President.

.

126 undisclosed meetings. "I love it". Flynn lied, manafort lied, gates lied, papadoulos lied, Cohen lied... All intelligence agencies and the report all agree Russia weighed in on tRump's side... tRump just recently said if offered information my a foreign government he would take it... WikiLeaks coordinated email dumps...

How much more do you need?

Democrats Voted NO to impeach Trump, what are YOU going to do about it?

Nothing to be done as long as the Senate is packed with McConnell's meatpuppets.

Why?

Republicans looked much smarter than their counterparts. Sorry.

According to you? I would expect so. Bias does that kinda thing. The Democrats looked better to me.

Yes, a fact finder could infer that a defendant taking steps to obstruct an investigation did so because the defendant was guilt -- OF THE UNDERLYING CRIME.

If, however, there is no underlying crime, that is also probative as to whether the defendant, acting to end the investigation, had corrupt intent. It really make the case for LACK of corrupt intent when ending a wasteful investigation into NON-crimes is your job---like the President.

.

126 undisclosed meetings. "I love it". Flynn lied, manafort lied, gates lied, papadoulos lied, Cohen lied... All intelligence agencies and the report all agree Russia weighed in on tRump's side... tRump just recently said if offered information my a foreign government he would take it... WikiLeaks coordinated email dumps...

How much more do you need?

Democrats Voted NO to impeach Trump, what are YOU going to do about it?

Nothing to be done as long as the Senate is packed with McConnell's meatpuppets.

Why?

Republicans looked much smarter than their counterparts. Sorry.

According to you? I would expect so. Bias does that kinda thing. The Democrats looked better to me.

Come on man. No way. Even CNN and MSNBC disagree with you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What was the corrupt intent?

To stifle a lawful investigation. How can you not puzzle that out for yourself?

But the investigation wasn't stifled in the least. President Trump didn't stop anyone from testifying, provided all of the documents requested.

He didn't fire anyone, even though it was his right to do so, and firing Mueller or anyone else would not have stopped the Witch Hunt.

But, even if he did, the obstructive act is not enough. They have to prove it was done with corrupt intent.

Action to end a bullshit investigation into NON-CRIMES would be the duty of a president, which pretty much negates any corrupt intent.



.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But the investigation wasn't stifled in the least

Silly lie.

He didn't fire anyone

Except the director of the investigation.

You're a cheap fraud.

 

[lantern2814]

Mueller looked like a feeble old man who had no idea what was going on. The report states he interviewed Steele,yet he has no idea who Fusion GPS is and wouldn't answer any questions pertaining to Steele? He came off as incompetent and not knowing what was in "his" report. A bad day for Mueller and the Dems.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But, even if he did, the obstructive act is not enough. They have to prove it was done with corrupt intent

Which they did. Quite clearly.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yes, a fact finder could infer that a defendant taking steps to obstruct an investigation did so because the defendant was guilt -- OF THE UNDERLYING CRIME.

If, however, there is no underlying crime, that is also probative as to whether the defendant, acting to end the investigation, had corrupt intent. It really make the case for LACK of corrupt intent when ending a wasteful investigation into NON-crimes is your job---like the President.

.

126 undisclosed meetings. "I love it". Flynn lied, manafort lied, gates lied, papadoulos lied, Cohen lied... All intelligence agencies and the report all agree Russia weighed in on tRump's side... tRump just recently said if offered information my a foreign government he would take it... WikiLeaks coordinated email dumps...

How much more do you need?

2 yrs
$25mil
No conspiracy no obstruction
How much more do you need?
Even CNN says the Republicans won

You're a smart guy, why don't you read the report? That's not what it says.

Except it does and after listening to Bob today, I am curious who actually wrote it. Embarrassing.

How can you know what it says if you haven't read it?

I read portions of it. Frankly not interested in 400+ pages of boredom.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,”

Which would have been true regardless of the evidence found. Mueller has literally spelled this out and dumbed it down to the point of retardation for you to understand.

And, because the investigation was into non-crimes, and Trump acted to stop said frivolous investigation, the element of corrupt intent goes right in the fucking trash.



.

 

[Billy000]

It's clear not only did Mueller not write the "Mueller Report", he never even read it!

Of course he didn’t read it. He’s like every other republican.

Apparently you don't realize how stupid you sound.

Oh so the republicans read it huh? You’re sure of that because they are republicans who read stuff?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But, even if he did, the obstructive act is not enough. They have to prove it was done with corrupt intent

Which they did. Quite clearly.

How?

If the underlying conduct was not criminal, it was the President's job to end it and save US the money.



No corrupt intent there.

.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Nope. In today's correction he said his team did not form a determination about criminality while in his report he stated that they found no criminality.
And in light of my response to Bootney above how is your whining relevant?

Because it's the truth, and what you are spouting is fake news. The report did not say they found no criminality.

They said there was not enough to prosecute. No conspiracy and no obstruction.

Against, why don't you read the report for yourself. Thats not what it says.

Mueller is a prosecutor he cannot exonerate

In his role as Special Counsel he was not a prosecutor primarily. He took pains to say the report did not exonerate tRump.

Even a special prosecutor may not exonerate. If I am charged with a crime the prosecutor argues a case and only the judge and or jury may exonerate.