It's Mueller Time!

[mudwhistle]

Ha ha ha, then YOU can't point out where he said there was crime committed anywhere in the Mueller report. The investigation where he was supposed to find crimes, yet couldn't find any to write up for the Mueller report.

You are stupid as hell for failing to notice THAT particular reality.

By the way you IGNORED this from Mueller's own mouth to the important question:

“your investigation [was] curtailed or stopped or hindered?”

“No,” Mueller responded. "

You ignore openly stated evidence completely because you are a stupid partisan jackass!

Seriously, dope. Watch this as many times as it takes for you to get it. Let Mueller clarify for you from his own mouth.

You can't answer the SIMPLE question then, which means you KNOW that Mueller NEVER stated a single charge of a crime in the 448 page report. You continue your torrential flow of bullshit because you are a partisan jackass.

You have NOTHING to show for your bullcrap, and you do this video thing from a man who stated over and over that his testimony is BASED on his 448 page report. The Exoneration statement is bogus crap for a reason that amazingly eludes a lot of Dumbocrats. It made you go sniffing for a lot of crap piles left by partisan hacks,, while ignoring that there was NEVER crime discovered and posted anywhere in the 448 page report.

You are one stupid little boy who can't understand that being exonerated means you have to be accused/Indicted/charged with something legally binding first. Mueller was charged to FIND any conspiracy crimes against Trump, and report it to the AG, but he NEVER posted a single charge in his 448 page report. YOU never showed where in the 448 page report of a charge, which means you have NOTHING to maintain your mentally ill beliefs that Trump is guilty of a conspiracy.

Here from Merriam-Webster:

Exonerate

1 : to relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship
2 : to clear from accusation or blame

Since he was NEVER charged with anything by Mueller in his 448 page report, there is nothing to exonerate, since Trump was never charged with anything beyond partisan hate claims.

You have NOTHING real to run on stupid little boy!

You can't answer the SIMPLE question then, which means you KNOW that Mueller NEVER stated a single charge of a crime in the 448 page report. You continue your torrential flow of bullshit because you are a partisan jackass.

Of course I know that Mueller didn't bring charges, dope. Everyone knows that. The entire world knows that.
Why? How?
Because Mueller told us he couldn't bring charges, dope.

Except that isn't what Mueller said when he corrected his earlier testimony. In fact, he said the opposite of what you claim:

“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.”

Mueller issues clarification, takes back bombshell statement about indicting Trump

Right, he did not make a determination as to whether Trump committed a crime or did not commit a crime, because of the OLC rule.

he replaced: he didn't ''charge'' the president with a crime because of the OLC memo

with he didn't ''determine'' or ''make a determination'' whether the president committed a crime or NOT, due to the OLC memo.

Nope. You are wrong.
He corrected that statement.

He later said the OLC memo had nothing to do with it.
Sorry that got by you.
Here is his original statement which he later reversed.




The fact is Mueller made no effort to to exonerate Trump, and he wasn't required to. As a matter of fact, he went out of his way to avoid investigating exculpatory evidence proving Trump did not collude with Russians.



He hired people that attempted to bargain with Russians for perjured testimony in return for favors.

 

[Faun]

No, dope. That is not what he said yesterday.
This is what he said yesterday in the first five freaking minutes of testimony.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I Specifically said this, which you have deflected completely to his stumbling "testimony" ,

"Mueller NEVER posted a Crime charge anywhere in his report"

None of you leftist idiots have ever addressed this. Where is it mentally ill boy? where did he say there was a crime in his 448 page report?

Waiting, waiting,

been waiting for MONTHS for the answer, where is it little partisan jackass?

Where does Mueller say there was a crime committed in the report?

Waiting,
waiting,
waiting.......

waiting for the answer......................

Waiting for stupid liberal boy to answer the simple question.

By the way you can't be exonerated, when you were not charged with a crime in the first place. With no legal charge made, there is nothing to be exonerated from.

Rep. Mike Turner: “Where’s the office of exoneration?”…



You are stupid as shit, little mentally ill boy.

You seem triggered.

TRUMP to his critics, in a fundraising letter from his 2020 campaign: “How many times do I have to be exonerated before they stop?”

AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely claims Mueller exonerated him

did Mueller's team find him guilty? if not, then he was exonerated. look up the word. It' isn't a legal word.

LOLOL

No, brain-dead con, it doesn't mean he exonerated trump. It means he chose not to reach a conclusion of whether or not a crime was committed. Not only is that not an exoneration, Mueller specifically stated his report does not exonerate trump.

Apparently it also doesn't accuse him of committing any crimes.

It implicates him.

 

[Care4all]

Yes, because they were never going to make such a determination.

Mueller just verified what we've been saying all along.
Your narrative that Mueller concluded that there was no crime was debunked, dope.

WRONG. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Period. End of Story. Mueller did not have enough evidence to prove guilt. None on Conspiracy and iffy at best on obstruction as there was not an underlying crime and the President was visibly frustrated. Your blue tint is amusing to me. That hearing hurt the Democrats visibly. I am an Independent and I was embarrased for them. Similarly I was embarrassed for the GOP after the Starr investigation.

You are a stupid person. That is a fact. And the fact that your vote counts as much as mine is frightening.

WRONG. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Period. End of Story. Mueller did not have enough evidence to prove guilt.

Not facts in evidence.

You know, you can lead a horse....well, you get the idea.

Listen carefully.

He backtracked!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

See above post.

See below post

Rep. Ratcliffe to Mueller: You Didn't Follow Special Counsel Rules, You Wrote About Decisions That Weren't Reached

Well, Radcliffe was wrong, the OLC guideline memo states continuing the investigation on a president would be appropriate even if you can't make a determination while sitting, so that they could use the information to catch anyone else involved in the crime or capture the facts close to the time of the crime when all is fresh and in memory of witnesses, so that the President if he or she committed a crime, they could be indicted for it, when they left office.

Clinton was going to be charged with obstruction and Perjury after he left office, and reached a plea deal with the Starr team lawyers, the day before he left office, so that they would not bring him to trial.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, because they were never going to make such a determination.

Mueller just verified what we've been saying all along.
Your narrative that Mueller concluded that there was no crime was debunked, dope.

Now you are lying, Mueller specifically stated NO CRIME WAS FOUND, he said just yesterday,

“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.”

LINK

Mueller NEVER posted a Crime charge anywhere in his report!

Now you are lying, Mueller specifically stated NO CRIME WAS FOUND, he said just yesterday,

No, dope. That is not what he said yesterday.
This is what he said yesterday in the first five freaking minutes of testimony.

And then backtracked. LOL

Not from the statements in my link.

No he did. That is exactly what he did. You just hear what your Leftist ears want you to hear. There was NEVER conspiracy proof. NEVER. Obstruction is iffy at best as there was no underlying crime. And even on that there was not enough evidence.

Show us. Point to the statement in my link that Mueller "backtracked" on.

 

[rjs330]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I Specifically said this, which you have deflected completely to his stumbling "testimony" ,

"Mueller NEVER posted a Crime charge anywhere in his report"

None of you leftist idiots have ever addressed this. Where is it mentally ill boy? where did he say there was a crime in his 448 page report?

Waiting, waiting,

been waiting for MONTHS for the answer, where is it little partisan jackass?

Where does Mueller say there was a crime committed in the report?

Waiting,
waiting,
waiting.......

waiting for the answer......................

Waiting for stupid liberal boy to answer the simple question.

By the way you can't be exonerated, when you were not charged with a crime in the first place. With no legal charge made, there is nothing to be exonerated from.

Rep. Mike Turner: “Where’s the office of exoneration?”…



You are stupid as shit, little mentally ill boy.

You seem triggered.

TRUMP to his critics, in a fundraising letter from his 2020 campaign: “How many times do I have to be exonerated before they stop?”

AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely claims Mueller exonerated him

did Mueller's team find him guilty? if not, then he was exonerated. look up the word. It' isn't a legal word.

LOLOL

No, brain-dead con, it doesn't mean he exonerated trump. It means he chose not to reach a conclusion of whether or not a crime was committed. Not only is that not an exoneration, Mueller specifically stated his report does not exonerate trump.

Apparently it also doesn't accuse him of committing any crimes.

It implicates him.

No it doesn't. Mueller never said there was obstruction. Mueller also never said there was cooperation or cooberation between Trump and the Russians. To implicant Trump you have to have an accusation that a crime occurred. There isn't any. Then you have to say what the person sis to commit the crime. Hence an allegation. Mueller doesn't do that.

 

[NotYourBody]

Foxfyre, the investigation into the "matter" (the Obama/Crooked Hillary plot to overthrow our democracy) is just beginning. Get used to it. Mueller should be in prison after the "matter" is settled.

I don't know whether he should be in prison just yet, but I do believe the Mueller investigation was viciously partisan and was conducted with a single goal in mind: destroy President Trump. And in his and his team's eagerness to do that, many good people had their names dragged through the mud and they and their families were seriously harmed personally, professionally, and economically. That was wrong. That was evil.

Mueller is either so senile he doesn't have a clue or he bald faced lied when he said his team didn't leak to the press. There was leak after leak after leak all suggesting they were finding terrible things about the President and/or his closest people and thus damaging him as much as possible leading up to the 2018 election. THAT is election meddling that matters. The Russians or any other foreign powers were teensy blips on the radar compared with that.

I've been around the block enough times to become thoroughly jaded when it comes to believe anybody protected by the left will be accountable for any kind of malfeasance. So I don't hold out strong hope that the I.G. and/or the Durham Investigation will come through for us and expose all the total corruption that existed in all that. But I do hope.

You could be right about the investigation being partisan. All the facts are not out yet. I am willing to let the whole truth come out. Every bit of it.

The issue I have is the way Trump has reacted to the investigation. The part that's all described in the Obstruction Diaries.
Like a 12-year old boy who can't get a girlfriend because he's got too many pimples.

Good God that is not who I want running the country. He's SUCH a crybaby! Rational, innocent people don't behave that way.

There was no obstruction. Anywhere.

Yes the President was frustrated and certainly mad as hell. Every single day there would be somebody in Congress, somebody on television, some newspaper story accusing him of all manner of things. He was being investigated by a special counsel and 17 other people who hated his guts and wanted to bring him down. And he had to watch good people being dragged through the mud and professionally and financially ruined in their efforts to get him.

Witness after witness has reported that he was not asked a single question they didn't know the answer to. The purpose was absolutely not to get information or learn something. The purpose was to catch them in a perjury trap so they could be coerced or extorted into composing something harmful about the President. And they kept it going long LONG after they determined there was no Russian collusion or wrong doing re Russians by any American. They didn't give a tinker's dam about Russia. They wanted to hurt the President and so they kept it going, and kept leaking to the media right up to the 2018 election. That was evil.

But nevertheless he provided the Mueller team with a reported 1.4 million documents and refused him absolutely nothing, did not deny him a single witness either those who volunteered or those who testified due to the more than 500 subpoenas issued. Even Mueller had to admit yesterday that the President and/or his staff did not do anything to prevent or slow down the investigation.

But who in that position would not have expressed their anger and frustration to trusted colleagues? Both about the dishonest and negative press and the innocent people getting hurt? Who would not have wanted the situation changed to something more honest, more fair and would not have expressed that?

My God how much of a pillar of strength, so thick skinned he can ignore the most vicious attacks on himself and other people getting hurt, literally unhuman, is a person supposed to be in order to not be a 'crybaby'?

I watched Bill Clinton go through more than this over a blow job! He was investigated for four years! He got impeached for lying over consensual adult sex and I don't even think there was penetrations!!!

I guess he's made of far stronger stuff than your pre-teen boy-man. And I am not even a fan of either Clinton.

I can't help it if Trump is a delicate precious flower who needs continual adoration and never gets it because he's a jackass jerk. I guess his mommy just didn't love him enough.

should never have happened. having said that, since it did, clinton screwed himself, however, it didn't get him removed from office did it. so the left is learning absolutely nothing.

I don't see any impeachment hearings taking place. I think they did learn. I think they will let 2020 be the decider and I'm good with that. Impeachment is silly unless he can be removed from office. Democrats are trying to figure that out. They'll get there.

And the whole point is Billy didn't act like a whiny little bitch.

Trump should have been taking notes.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, because they were never going to make such a determination.

Mueller just verified what we've been saying all along.
Your narrative that Mueller concluded that there was no crime was debunked, dope.

WRONG. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Period. End of Story. Mueller did not have enough evidence to prove guilt. None on Conspiracy and iffy at best on obstruction as there was not an underlying crime and the President was visibly frustrated. Your blue tint is amusing to me. That hearing hurt the Democrats visibly. I am an Independent and I was embarrased for them. Similarly I was embarrassed for the GOP after the Starr investigation.

You are a stupid person. That is a fact. And the fact that your vote counts as much as mine is frightening.

WRONG. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Period. End of Story. Mueller did not have enough evidence to prove guilt.

Not facts in evidence.

You know, you can lead a horse....well, you get the idea.

Listen carefully.

He backtracked!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

See above post.

See below post

Rep. Ratcliffe to Mueller: You Didn't Follow Special Counsel Rules, You Wrote About Decisions That Weren't Reached

That has nothing to do with your allegation,dope.

 

[OldLady]

95 pages. Hain't you people tired of talking about this AGAIN? Nothing new happened here, guys. Same old same old shit from when the report came out. Good gravy.
Look, the people who like Trump are going to insist he did nothing and the people who don't like him are going to insist he broke the law. Nothing is going to change that. We could all jump into another argument about Benghazi, too, but it isn't going to change anything.

95 pages.

 

[jc456]

I don't know whether he should be in prison just yet, but I do believe the Mueller investigation was viciously partisan and was conducted with a single goal in mind: destroy President Trump. And in his and his team's eagerness to do that, many good people had their names dragged through the mud and they and their families were seriously harmed personally, professionally, and economically. That was wrong. That was evil.

Mueller is either so senile he doesn't have a clue or he bald faced lied when he said his team didn't leak to the press. There was leak after leak after leak all suggesting they were finding terrible things about the President and/or his closest people and thus damaging him as much as possible leading up to the 2018 election. THAT is election meddling that matters. The Russians or any other foreign powers were teensy blips on the radar compared with that.

I've been around the block enough times to become thoroughly jaded when it comes to believe anybody protected by the left will be accountable for any kind of malfeasance. So I don't hold out strong hope that the I.G. and/or the Durham Investigation will come through for us and expose all the total corruption that existed in all that. But I do hope.

You could be right about the investigation being partisan. All the facts are not out yet. I am willing to let the whole truth come out. Every bit of it.

The issue I have is the way Trump has reacted to the investigation. The part that's all described in the Obstruction Diaries.
Like a 12-year old boy who can't get a girlfriend because he's got too many pimples.

Good God that is not who I want running the country. He's SUCH a crybaby! Rational, innocent people don't behave that way.

There was no obstruction. Anywhere.

Yes the President was frustrated and certainly mad as hell. Every single day there would be somebody in Congress, somebody on television, some newspaper story accusing him of all manner of things. He was being investigated by a special counsel and 17 other people who hated his guts and wanted to bring him down. And he had to watch good people being dragged through the mud and professionally and financially ruined in their efforts to get him.

Witness after witness has reported that he was not asked a single question they didn't know the answer to. The purpose was absolutely not to get information or learn something. The purpose was to catch them in a perjury trap so they could be coerced or extorted into composing something harmful about the President. And they kept it going long LONG after they determined there was no Russian collusion or wrong doing re Russians by any American. They didn't give a tinker's dam about Russia. They wanted to hurt the President and so they kept it going, and kept leaking to the media right up to the 2018 election. That was evil.

But nevertheless he provided the Mueller team with a reported 1.4 million documents and refused him absolutely nothing, did not deny him a single witness either those who volunteered or those who testified due to the more than 500 subpoenas issued. Even Mueller had to admit yesterday that the President and/or his staff did not do anything to prevent or slow down the investigation.

But who in that position would not have expressed their anger and frustration to trusted colleagues? Both about the dishonest and negative press and the innocent people getting hurt? Who would not have wanted the situation changed to something more honest, more fair and would not have expressed that?

My God how much of a pillar of strength, so thick skinned he can ignore the most vicious attacks on himself and other people getting hurt, literally unhuman, is a person supposed to be in order to not be a 'crybaby'?

I watched Bill Clinton go through more than this over a blow job! He was investigated for four years! He got impeached for lying over consensual adult sex and I don't even think there was penetrations!!!

I guess he's made of far stronger stuff than your pre-teen boy-man. And I am not even a fan of either Clinton.

I can't help it if Trump is a delicate precious flower who needs continual adoration and never gets it because he's a jackass jerk. I guess his mommy just didn't love him enough.

should never have happened. having said that, since it did, clinton screwed himself, however, it didn't get him removed from office did it. so the left is learning absolutely nothing.

I don't see any impeachment hearings taking place. I think they did learn. I think they will let 2020 be the decider and I'm good with that. Impeachment is silly unless he can be removed from office. Democrats are trying to figure that out. They'll get there.

And the whole point is Billy didn't act like a whiny little bitch.

Trump should have been taking notes.

They would be smart to do that, however, they should stop talking about it then.

 

[Care4all]

You seem triggered.

TRUMP to his critics, in a fundraising letter from his 2020 campaign: “How many times do I have to be exonerated before they stop?”

AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely claims Mueller exonerated him

did Mueller's team find him guilty? if not, then he was exonerated. look up the word. It' isn't a legal word.

LOLOL

No, brain-dead con, it doesn't mean he exonerated trump. It means he chose not to reach a conclusion of whether or not a crime was committed. Not only is that not an exoneration, Mueller specifically stated his report does not exonerate trump.

Apparently it also doesn't accuse him of committing any crimes.

It implicates him.

No it doesn't. Mueller never said there was obstruction. Mueller also never said there was cooperation or cooberation between Trump and the Russians. To implicant Trump you have to have an accusation that a crime occurred. There isn't any. Then you have to say what the person sis to commit the crime. Hence an allegation. Mueller doesn't do that.

In the report, it was spelled out the three things it takes to charge someone with obstruction, and then the report went on and showed the 10 to 12 instances where obstruction could have been committed by the president and how these 12 instances or so, fared out with the 3 things needed to indict. He gave congress everything but the fat lady singing on it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That comment did not make any sense. Mueller himself didn’t even read the report.

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

That comment did not make any sense. Mueller himself didn’t even read the report.

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

You're such a dumbass. From Mueller:

“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.”

So? He also said he didn't reach such a determination because of the OLC opinion, not because the evidence exonerated trump's culpability.

Don't be like that. As a prosecutor, after nearly what two years? They didn't have enough to indict. Period. End of Story.

^^^ Another lie. Mueller never said there isn't enough evidence to indict on obstruction.

Except he did. LOL.

"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.”

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

prosecutors would have serious difficulty proving "corrupt intent" on any of the alleged "obstructive acts".

not really hard though, Trump made it clear when he asked McGahn to lie about Trump asking him to fire Mueller and to create a false memo about it... when he tried to have Don McGann cover up his initial firing of Mueller request.... that was... consciousness of guilt, corrupt intent.

That's not what the report said.

The fourth instance revolves around Mr. Trump's reaction to Mueller's appointment. Upon hearing the news that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had tasked Mueller with investigating the Russia matter in May 2017, the president privately declared it was "the end of his presidency." Mr. Trump then demanded Sessions' resignation, although he did not accept it at the time, and told aides Mueller had conflicts of interest that should preclude him from acting as the special counsel.

It was then reported in June that Mueller was investigating Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice, prompting the president to publicly attack Mueller and the Justice Department. Within days of the first report, he told McGahn to tell Rosenstein that Mueller had conflicts of interest and must be removed.

McGahn ignored the request, explaining that he would rather resign.

"In the same meeting, the president also asked McGahn why he had told the special counsel about the president's efforts to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the president," the report states. "McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the president to be testing his mettle."


He didn't ask him to deny anything. He asked him why he (the White House Counsel) breached the attorney-client communication privilege in telling the Special Counsel about their discussion regarding the removal of the Special Counsel for having a conflict of interest.

So, asking your own lawyer why he breached privilege is now an obstructive act?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That I disagree with. Impeachment is a big fucking deal and is not good for the country. If a House is going to impeach, it should only be for a good fucking reason.

I can respect that.


.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

did Mueller's team find him guilty? if not, then he was exonerated. look up the word. It' isn't a legal word.

LOLOL

No, brain-dead con, it doesn't mean he exonerated trump. It means he chose not to reach a conclusion of whether or not a crime was committed. Not only is that not an exoneration, Mueller specifically stated his report does not exonerate trump.

Apparently it also doesn't accuse him of committing any crimes.

It implicates him.

No it doesn't. Mueller never said there was obstruction. Mueller also never said there was cooperation or cooberation between Trump and the Russians. To implicant Trump you have to have an accusation that a crime occurred. There isn't any. Then you have to say what the person sis to commit the crime. Hence an allegation. Mueller doesn't do that.

In the report, it was spelled out the three things it takes to charge someone with obstruction, and then the report went on and showed the 10 to 12 instances where obstruction could have been committed by the president and how these 12 instances or so, fared out with the 3 things needed to indict. He gave congress everything but the fat lady singing on it.

No it didn't.

It left open the issue of corrupt intent, given the undecided and unclear legal issues.

.

 

[NotYourBody]

The best option is to save impeachment and use it if Trump gets re-elected and the Senate tips blue. It's really too late for this term.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

WRONG. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Period. End of Story. Mueller did not have enough evidence to prove guilt. None on Conspiracy and iffy at best on obstruction as there was not an underlying crime and the President was visibly frustrated. Your blue tint is amusing to me. That hearing hurt the Democrats visibly. I am an Independent and I was embarrased for them. Similarly I was embarrassed for the GOP after the Starr investigation.

You are a stupid person. That is a fact. And the fact that your vote counts as much as mine is frightening.

WRONG. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Period. End of Story. Mueller did not have enough evidence to prove guilt.

Not facts in evidence.

You know, you can lead a horse....well, you get the idea.

Listen carefully.

He backtracked!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

See above post.

See below post

Rep. Ratcliffe to Mueller: You Didn't Follow Special Counsel Rules, You Wrote About Decisions That Weren't Reached

Well, Radcliffe was wrong, the OLC guideline memo states continuing the investigation on a president would be appropriate even if you can't make a determination while sitting, so that they could use the information to catch anyone else involved in the crime or capture the facts close to the time of the crime when all is fresh and in memory of witnesses, so that the President if he or she committed a crime, they could be indicted for it, when they left office.

Clinton was going to be charged with obstruction and Perjury after he left office, and reached a plea deal with the Starr team lawyers, the day before he left office, so that they would not bring him to trial.

But then why not indict the dude who lied 3x? Why not go after the FISA crap? Mueller looked bad, lost and biased. Even your fellow Leftists agree and I disagree that Radcliffe a former prosecutor was wrong. Show a link that he was.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Now you are lying, Mueller specifically stated NO CRIME WAS FOUND, he said just yesterday,

“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.”

LINK

Mueller NEVER posted a Crime charge anywhere in his report!

Now you are lying, Mueller specifically stated NO CRIME WAS FOUND, he said just yesterday,

No, dope. That is not what he said yesterday.
This is what he said yesterday in the first five freaking minutes of testimony.

And then backtracked. LOL

Not from the statements in my link.

No he did. That is exactly what he did. You just hear what your Leftist ears want you to hear. There was NEVER conspiracy proof. NEVER. Obstruction is iffy at best as there was no underlying crime. And even on that there was not enough evidence.

Show us. Point to the statement in my link that Mueller "backtracked" on.

They were unable to conclude one way or the other. It was iffy as I stated. Iffy is not enough to indict. That is exactly what your link said.

 

[jc456]

prosecutors would have serious difficulty proving "corrupt intent" on any of the alleged "obstructive acts".

not really hard though, Trump made it clear when he asked McGahn to lie about Trump asking him to fire Mueller and to create a false memo about it... when he tried to have Don McGann cover up his initial firing of Mueller request.... that was... consciousness of guilt, corrupt intent.

That's not what the report said.

The fourth instance revolves around Mr. Trump's reaction to Mueller's appointment. Upon hearing the news that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had tasked Mueller with investigating the Russia matter in May 2017, the president privately declared it was "the end of his presidency." Mr. Trump then demanded Sessions' resignation, although he did not accept it at the time, and told aides Mueller had conflicts of interest that should preclude him from acting as the special counsel.

It was then reported in June that Mueller was investigating Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice, prompting the president to publicly attack Mueller and the Justice Department. Within days of the first report, he told McGahn to tell Rosenstein that Mueller had conflicts of interest and must be removed.

McGahn ignored the request, explaining that he would rather resign.

"In the same meeting, the president also asked McGahn why he had told the special counsel about the president's efforts to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the president," the report states. "McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the president to be testing his mettle."


He didn't ask him to deny anything. He asked him why he (the White House Counsel) breached the attorney-client communication privilege in telling the Special Counsel about their discussion regarding the removal of the Special Counsel for having a conflict of interest.

So, asking your own lawyer why he breached privilege is now an obstructive act?

.

only in a leftist world. the real world of justice and american law, nope.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

WRONG. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Period. End of Story. Mueller did not have enough evidence to prove guilt. None on Conspiracy and iffy at best on obstruction as there was not an underlying crime and the President was visibly frustrated. Your blue tint is amusing to me. That hearing hurt the Democrats visibly. I am an Independent and I was embarrased for them. Similarly I was embarrassed for the GOP after the Starr investigation.

You are a stupid person. That is a fact. And the fact that your vote counts as much as mine is frightening.

WRONG. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Period. End of Story. Mueller did not have enough evidence to prove guilt.

Not facts in evidence.

You know, you can lead a horse....well, you get the idea.

Listen carefully.

He backtracked!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

See above post.

See below post

Rep. Ratcliffe to Mueller: You Didn't Follow Special Counsel Rules, You Wrote About Decisions That Weren't Reached

That has nothing to do with your allegation,dope.

Dipshit, all you do is give smileys and talk to yourself. It has everything to do with it. As a prosecutor there was NOTHING on Conspiracy and iffy at best on Obstruction and he wrote 400+ pages stating as such. Meanwhile he admitted that he spoke to everyone he asked to speak with sans the President himself. You hear what you want to hear. Thanks for the rep. Keep em coming.

 

[Care4all]

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

You're such a dumbass. From Mueller:

“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.”

So? He also said he didn't reach such a determination because of the OLC opinion, not because the evidence exonerated trump's culpability.

Don't be like that. As a prosecutor, after nearly what two years? They didn't have enough to indict. Period. End of Story.

^^^ Another lie. Mueller never said there isn't enough evidence to indict on obstruction.

Except he did. LOL.

"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.”

yep...

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."