It's Mueller Time!

[protectionist]

Haha.....suuuuure, cultist.

SUUUUURE >>>

And then there's the MURDERS. That will eventually be revealed as well, despite leftist media fanatical coverup. Democrats are petrified of this website. Once fully exposed, it will be the end of the Democratic Party, as Democrats who nominated a serial killer to become POTUS, will be too ashamed and embarrassed to ever show their faces in public again.>>

THE CLINTON BODY-COUNT | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

Looks like Faux Faun is laying low in this thread. Doesn't seem to want to comment on Meltdown Malfunction Muddle Muttering Mueller. The guy he chose for his avatar.

Hey, come on, Faulty Faun Fake. You've got a reputation to live up to. You're USMB's # 1 bigot-AGEIST. You know, how you always throw words like "gramps" and "senile" around, so casually ? Well, here's, your big chance, Fail Faun.

Oh, this is too good. We're gonna have a field day with this one.

Tell us what you think about the Masterful, Mumbling, not too Meticulous, Morbid Meltdown.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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."

Meaning there was not enough to indict. It is basic English. If there were enough they would and would impeach. That was what happened with Starr and Clinton. Again your fellow Leftists agree. You're an outlier.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Asking your attorney to falsify documents is not corrupt intent in your mind?

First, he

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

This whole thing, top to bottom, has taken HUGE SHIT on attorney-client privilege, and the entire legal profession in general.

The McGahn bullshit.

Raiding Cohen's office.

Special Counsel continuing to pursue an investigation KNOWING there is no underlying crime, in breach of a prosecutor's duty to justice.

This is what happens when people who think they are ORDAINED BY GOD to win an election GET BEAT.

.

 

[bendog]

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 should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.

BTW, I can't help your ignorance of the law.

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

I watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?

I know what he was correcting and I know thru ALL of his other comments in the hearing on it, what he was talking about and what he needed to correct.

He did not want the public to think he did not CHARGE the president with a crime due to the OLC memo, because he never made the determination, one way or the other, due to the OLC memo guidelines. He also said and confirmed this was not an exoneration either.... he said they did not make any determination....

period... end of story.

Here's my take away...

Mueller was very clear, he said he would not seek indictment on trump because a sitting president can't be indicted according to the OLC's opinion on that matter. Had there been no evidence to support a criminal charge on obstruction, Mueller would have cleared him of any wrong doing, just as he did regarding conspiring with Russia's election hacking. But he didn't clear trump of obstruction because hd found evidence of obstruction.

In other words, he could clear the president when the evidence supports clearing him since that would not result in an indictment of a sitting president. That's exactly what Mueller did in volume one of his report.

But if the evidence shows a crime may have been committed, then Mueller could neither clear trump, nor could he seek indictment because trump is a sitting president and sitting presidents can't be indicted. That's exactly what Mueller did in volume two of his report.

Clearing trump of conspiracy proves trump did not collude with Russia. Not clearing trump of obstruction, and including possible evidence of obstruction in his report, proves trump may have obstructed justice.

It's now up to the Congress to decide the next step.

I think Mueller said there was not sufficient evidence of collusion with Russia to prove a crime. I believe he mentioned that Trump seemed to know what WikiLeaks would do before Wikileaks did it.

so?

So, Mueller did not say there was NO COLLUSION, he said there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump feloniously conspired with non-Americans to flip an election, but there is evidence sufficicient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he feloniously conspired to obstruct justice. And Trump lies about what Mueller said.

 

[bendog]

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."

Meaning there was not enough to indict. It is basic English. If there were enough they would and would impeach. That was what happened with Starr and Clinton. Again your fellow Leftists agree. You're an outlier.

there's enough for the House to indict on obstruction, and for the senate to convict, but no so on collusion.

 

[jc456]

nope, you should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.

BTW, I can't help your ignorance of the law.

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

I watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?

I know what he was correcting and I know thru ALL of his other comments in the hearing on it, what he was talking about and what he needed to correct.

He did not want the public to think he did not CHARGE the president with a crime due to the OLC memo, because he never made the determination, one way or the other, due to the OLC memo guidelines. He also said and confirmed this was not an exoneration either.... he said they did not make any determination....

period... end of story.

Here's my take away...

Mueller was very clear, he said he would not seek indictment on trump because a sitting president can't be indicted according to the OLC's opinion on that matter. Had there been no evidence to support a criminal charge on obstruction, Mueller would have cleared him of any wrong doing, just as he did regarding conspiring with Russia's election hacking. But he didn't clear trump of obstruction because hd found evidence of obstruction.

In other words, he could clear the president when the evidence supports clearing him since that would not result in an indictment of a sitting president. That's exactly what Mueller did in volume one of his report.

But if the evidence shows a crime may have been committed, then Mueller could neither clear trump, nor could he seek indictment because trump is a sitting president and sitting presidents can't be indicted. That's exactly what Mueller did in volume two of his report.

Clearing trump of conspiracy proves trump did not collude with Russia. Not clearing trump of obstruction, and including possible evidence of obstruction in his report, proves trump may have obstructed justice.

It's now up to the Congress to decide the next step.

I think Mueller said there was not sufficient evidence of collusion with Russia to prove a crime. I believe he mentioned that Trump seemed to know what WikiLeaks would do before Wikileaks did it.

so?

So, Mueller did not say there was NO COLLUSION, he said there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump feloniously conspired with non-Americans to flip an election, but there is evidence sufficicient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he feloniously conspired to obstruct justice. And Trump lies about what Mueller said.

no he didn't. post the page and paragraph that backs that language.

 

[protectionist]

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

FALSE! He said it at least once in the morning, and again in the afternoon, and NBC News even put it in a graphic on the TV screen.

And be sure to see my Post # 1901.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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."

Meaning there was not enough to indict. It is basic English. If there were enough they would and would impeach. That was what happened with Starr and Clinton. Again your fellow Leftists agree. You're an outlier.

there's enough for the House to indict on obstruction, and for the senate to convict, but no so on collusion.

Except there isn't. What was he obstructing. There was no underlying crime and he is the boss and could have fired Mueller. If there were true cause then I would support your argument but there was not. No crime. No obstruction. No conspiracy. No win in 2020 for the Democrats. They blew 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.”

 

[jc456]

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."

Meaning there was not enough to indict. It is basic English. If there were enough they would and would impeach. That was what happened with Starr and Clinton. Again your fellow Leftists agree. You're an outlier.

there's enough for the House to indict on obstruction, and for the senate to convict, but no so on collusion.

since when does the house indict?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, Mueller did not say there was NO COLLUSION, he said there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump feloniously conspired with non-Americans to flip an election, but there is evidence sufficicient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he feloniously conspired to obstruct justice. And Trump lies about what Mueller said.

That's not what it actually said.

Mueller said there is evidence of obstructive acts, but that there were difficult legal issues regarding the remaining elements that have not been resolved.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

there's enough for the House to indict on obstruction, and for the senate to convict, but no so on collusion.

Given that the House needs ZERO evidence to impeach (not indict), and the Senate needs ZERO evidence to remove (not convict), I would agree.

It's not a legal process. It is political.

.

 

[protectionist]

So, Mueller did not say there was NO COLLUSION, he said there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump feloniously conspired with non-Americans to flip an election, but there is evidence sufficicient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he feloniously conspired to obstruct justice. And Trump lies about what Mueller said.

He said exactly the opposite of that. That there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump on anything. And why should anybody care what he says ?

He's nothing but a prop, used by Wiseman and his Hillary gang to take down Trump in a frame up, and clear Hillary from all her crimes.

 

[protectionist]

 

[protectionist]

 

[Care4all]

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?

.

the white-house gave McGahn permission to testify, thus he did.


And this explains what I was referring to...

Trump ordered former White House counsel to lie, Mueller confirms

Robert Mueller confirmed former White House counsel Don McGahn was pressured to lie by the White House about whether he was ever asked by Donald Trump to fire the former special counsel while testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

"The president told the White House staff secretary, Rob Porter, to try to pressure [Don] McGahn to make a false denial. Is that correct?" Democrat Karen Bass asked Mr Mueller.


"That's correct,” he replied.


The former special counsel’s public testimony on Wednesday and 448-page report detailed numerous examples of alleged obstruction of justice on the part of the president. At one point, the report notes how Mr Trump told Mr Porter he would fire the former White House counsel if he refused to craft a statement claiming he was never directed to fire Mr Mueller.

“If he doesn’t write a letter, then maybe I’ll have to get rid of him,” Mr Trump said, according to the report.

 

[protectionist]

 

[protectionist]

 

[NotYourBody]

He's nothing but a prop, used by Wiseman and his Hillary gang to take down Trump in a frame up, and clear Hillary from all her crimes.

Please explain to me why the GOP is so helpless to do anything about Hillary. Trump has his lackey AG in Barr. Why are they so feckless?

Why do they let her get away with it? Trump's been threatening to lock her up for years. Is it because he's too dotardly? Too stupid?

 

[protectionist]

 

[iamwhatiseem]