It's Mueller Time!

[WEATHER53]

It hurts me more that my kids have to grow up in the world with illogical people like you living in it. PC pussies.

You mad, bro?
You seem frustrated.

He probably is, but he's also one of the more reasonable conservatives here so take it easy on the guy.

He hasn't been reasonable as far as I can tell.
He has repeatedly and perhaps deliberately misrepresented the facts.

FACTS - You Leftist Loon:

Ratcliffe: "Your report and today you said at all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So, which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "Can you repeat the last part of that question?"

Ratcliffe: "Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated, if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?"

Mueller: [Silence]

Ratcliffe: "Let me make it easier. Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "I cannot, but this is unique situation."

Ratcliffe: "Well you can't, time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because, I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist."

Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

It's a stupid line of questioning as the president is the only person in America who cannot be indicted of a crime. Because of that dynamic, it will always create unique leagal circumstances.

Baloney. No person is above the law nor beneath it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You mad, bro?
You seem frustrated.

He probably is, but he's also one of the more reasonable conservatives here so take it easy on the guy.

He hasn't been reasonable as far as I can tell.
He has repeatedly and perhaps deliberately misrepresented the facts.

FACTS - You Leftist Loon:

Ratcliffe: "Your report and today you said at all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So, which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "Can you repeat the last part of that question?"

Ratcliffe: "Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated, if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?"

Mueller: [Silence]

Ratcliffe: "Let me make it easier. Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "I cannot, but this is unique situation."

Ratcliffe: "Well you can't, time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because, I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist."

Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

It's a stupid line of questioning as the president is the only person in America who cannot be indicted of a crime. Because of that dynamic, it will always create unique leagal circumstances.

But if he could have been he still would not have been as Mueller stated in the afternoon. The office did not matter.

Huh?
When did Mueller state that?

 

[Care4all]

but did have the authority to determine CRIMINALITY

Who told you that?

Barr?

that is not in the OLC memo anywhere that I am aware? Also, the other Doj guidelines cover him not stating such, if he is not going to be able to charge them?

 

[Foxfyre]

You're fucking CLUELESS. The report was an internal DOJ doc. Mueller could have concluded anything he chose to. He chose "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Bend, fold, and mutilate to your heart's content but there is NOTHING ambiguous about those 11 words.

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

LOLOL

Exactly which part of, he could have but chose not to, leaves you blabbering like a wiggling bowl of jello?

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

Slight correction: We do not prosecute nor should congress prosecute anyone unless a crime has been alleged to have been committed. The conclusion of the investigation was not "Trump did not commit a crime", but it also did not conclude (allege) that he did.

so if there's no conclusion you committed a crime, then what? we let people live in limbo there til we can play pin the crime on the president?

2+ years were spend and many millions on something that came up with less action than i got on my high school prom night.the only saving grace is i spent a hell of a lot less for my nothing.

people have let their emotions rule for far too long and have justified this in their own minds to allow to others what they would NEVER allow to happen to them. i simply can't think of anyone who is willing to be the subject of social anger justice.

you know anyone?

so if we don't want to be subjected to that, why do we put others through it far too often? i'll never understand why we think it's ok to do to someone what we know is wrong by the mere fact we hate them.

I'm of the impression that the Mueller team spent a great deal of time trying to create a case for obstruction for an investigation that had no predicate. The democrats would be wise to let it go and find something to run on for 2020

Well you need to cut them some slack. Because as bad as that hearing was, even Mueller is an easier sell for them than is:

--Abortion on demand right up to the moment of birth or even after birth.
--Open borders along with free health care, free education, free legal advice, free drivers' licenses, subsidized housing, etc. and amnesty for illegals.
--Biological males welcomed in women's restrooms, locker rooms, on women's sports teams etc.
--Government run healthcare for all--no more private insurance or healthcare
--Lots of free stuff including free money that taxing the rich will pay for. (Fact: confiscating ALL the wealth of ALL the billionaires in the country would run the existing government for about nine months extended by a very few months if you add in ALL the wealth of ALL the millionaires. Cut that way down if The Democrats fund all the free stuff they say they want to provide us. And once we impoverish the rich-more likely we will simply drive them elsewhere--BOOM. Within months we are a third world country with a whole bunch more abject poverty.)
--Government control of pretty much every aspect of human life--liberty, religion, speech, how we will be allowed to acquire and use resources, how much wealth we will be allowed to keep, etc.

 

[easyt65]

Since when was it ever a prosecutor's job to prove innocence?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes. The crime was committed when Trump
"endeavored" to obstruct justice. There is nothing in the law that says it had to be successful.

Nope, not until something happened look at the comments in Wikipedia concerning it!

No lawyer would ever take it mueller knew it

Oh, well......Wikipedia. My bad.
You should read the actual statute.

These lawyers said they would take it.

About 800 ex-prosecutors say Trump would be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president

Former prosecutors shouldn't be judges. Here's why

and your post seems to be from medium.com - bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. a twitterwannabe.

It's from the journal of the American Bar Association. You would know that if you actually read it.

Isn't the ABA the organization that disbarred Slick Willy?

I believe it was the state bar association. Arkansas?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope.

You are a LIAR! I provided the link to the article and the transcript that quoted him word for f*ing word.

But you keep clinging on to your own demented reality that is collapsing inside your mind!

You misquoted me , dope.

Please fix it.

Bullshit - cut and paste ... Unless you went back & changed it

I did not type what was attributed to me.
Look what is in your quote box.
Please fix it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You mad, bro?
You seem frustrated.

He probably is, but he's also one of the more reasonable conservatives here so take it easy on the guy.

He hasn't been reasonable as far as I can tell.
He has repeatedly and perhaps deliberately misrepresented the facts.

FACTS - You Leftist Loon:

Ratcliffe: "Your report and today you said at all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So, which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "Can you repeat the last part of that question?"

Ratcliffe: "Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated, if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?"

Mueller: [Silence]

Ratcliffe: "Let me make it easier. Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "I cannot, but this is unique situation."

Ratcliffe: "Well you can't, time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because, I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist."

Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

It's a stupid line of questioning as the president is the only person in America who cannot be indicted of a crime. Because of that dynamic, it will always create unique leagal circumstances.

Baloney. No person is above the law nor beneath it.

What person and what law are you refererring to?

 

[easyt65]

I will ask again, when has it ever been a prosecutor's job to prove innocence?

Democrats falsely accused the president of crimes, and Robert Mueller was appointed the special counsel, which is to say a prosecutor responsible for investigating and providing evidence of GUILT / confirming that a crime had been committed.

Robert Mueller's direct quote has been posted numerous times now, in which he said the olc had nothing to do with him and his team not indicting the president but that they had not found evidence of a crime enabling them to declare he had committed one.

In other words, Mueller and his team found no evidence that President Trump or anyone associated with him had committed a crime that they could take to a quart and convert any of them.

Mueller, himself stated this, and again the quotes have been posted repeatedly.

Despite what Democrats continue to declare, Americans or innocent until proven guilty. That is the standard, no matter what they continue to claim.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

what's the ; doing after your second sentence?

seems a bit out of place to me. it certainly doesn't match your sentence structure and leaves a closed thought open.

then again, i only give a shit cause you're being a grammar nazi.

carry on.

Moi, a grammar nazi?

Faun has crossed to insanity.

Oh? Care to point out where I corrected anyone's grammar?

You just give childish smileys and emojis because you cannot debate logically.

I take that as you can't find it. Thanks for tryin' anyway.

Why do I care about your and grammar? That was not the reason I called you insane.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He probably is, but he's also one of the more reasonable conservatives here so take it easy on the guy.

He hasn't been reasonable as far as I can tell.
He has repeatedly and perhaps deliberately misrepresented the facts.

FACTS - You Leftist Loon:

Ratcliffe: "Your report and today you said at all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So, which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "Can you repeat the last part of that question?"

Ratcliffe: "Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated, if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?"

Mueller: [Silence]

Ratcliffe: "Let me make it easier. Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "I cannot, but this is unique situation."

Ratcliffe: "Well you can't, time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because, I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist."

Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

It's a stupid line of questioning as the president is the only person in America who cannot be indicted of a crime. Because of that dynamic, it will always create unique leagal circumstances.

But if he could have been he still would not have been as Mueller stated in the afternoon. The office did not matter.

Huh?
When did Mueller state that?

When he retracted his initial comment to Ted Lieu.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He probably is, but he's also one of the more reasonable conservatives here so take it easy on the guy.

He hasn't been reasonable as far as I can tell.
He has repeatedly and perhaps deliberately misrepresented the facts.

FACTS - You Leftist Loon:

Ratcliffe: "Your report and today you said at all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So, which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "Can you repeat the last part of that question?"

Ratcliffe: "Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated, if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?"

Mueller: [Silence]

Ratcliffe: "Let me make it easier. Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "I cannot, but this is unique situation."

Ratcliffe: "Well you can't, time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because, I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist."

Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

It's a stupid line of questioning as the president is the only person in America who cannot be indicted of a crime. Because of that dynamic, it will always create unique leagal circumstances.

Baloney. No person is above the law nor beneath it.

What person and what law are you refererring to?

Now you’re playing coy. LOL. I hope they do impeach. Honestly. Do it!

 

[Faun]

You mad, bro?
You seem frustrated.

He probably is, but he's also one of the more reasonable conservatives here so take it easy on the guy.

He hasn't been reasonable as far as I can tell.
He has repeatedly and perhaps deliberately misrepresented the facts.

FACTS - You Leftist Loon:

Ratcliffe: "Your report and today you said at all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So, which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "Can you repeat the last part of that question?"

Ratcliffe: "Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated, if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?"

Mueller: [Silence]

Ratcliffe: "Let me make it easier. Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "I cannot, but this is unique situation."

Ratcliffe: "Well you can't, time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because, I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist."

Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

It's a stupid line of questioning as the president is the only person in America who cannot be indicted of a crime. Because of that dynamic, it will always create unique leagal circumstances.

Baloney. No person is above the law nor beneath it.

Who said anyone is?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He hasn't been reasonable as far as I can tell.
He has repeatedly and perhaps deliberately misrepresented the facts.

FACTS - You Leftist Loon:

Ratcliffe: "Your report and today you said at all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So, which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "Can you repeat the last part of that question?"

Ratcliffe: "Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated, if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?"

Mueller: [Silence]

Ratcliffe: "Let me make it easier. Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "I cannot, but this is unique situation."

Ratcliffe: "Well you can't, time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because, I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist."

Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

It's a stupid line of questioning as the president is the only person in America who cannot be indicted of a crime. Because of that dynamic, it will always create unique leagal circumstances.

But if he could have been he still would not have been as Mueller stated in the afternoon. The office did not matter.

Huh?
When did Mueller state that?

When he retracted his initial comment to Ted Lieu.

When he retracted his initial comment to Ted Lieu.

LOL......OMG
It was a correction to his response to Lieu.
Not a change to the thinking behind the entire investigation.

No, no. You don't misrepresent facts at all.

 

[easyt65]

By the way, Nadler was just on TV giving a press conference with Nancy Pelosi, and during that press conference never publicly lied to the nation.

He lied by saying Robert Mueller declared yesterday that the only reason they did not indict the president was because of the OLC.

Nadler stated that the Democrats would continue to investigate President Trump because Mueller stated yesterday that the only reason they did not indict President Trump was because of the OLC.

AGAIN, this is a proven lie.

After the horrific performance by Mueller, after the embarrassing performance of ineptitude after two and a half years and millions of dollars spent, after Mueller started the second half of his testimony in the afternoon by saying he and his team did not find evidence of crimes, Nadler and Pelosi are standing before the American people and lying in an attempt to recover from the horrible performance and display Yesterday by Robert Mueller.

They are vowinging to continue to undermine the president by investigating him when he is been investigated by the FBI, by Democrats in the House, and by Robert Mueller and his team and none of them have found evidence of crimes.

They are destroying their chances of winning the White House and of keeping control of the house in 2020.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He hasn't been reasonable as far as I can tell.
He has repeatedly and perhaps deliberately misrepresented the facts.

FACTS - You Leftist Loon:

Ratcliffe: "Your report and today you said at all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So, which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "Can you repeat the last part of that question?"

Ratcliffe: "Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated, if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?"

Mueller: [Silence]

Ratcliffe: "Let me make it easier. Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

Mueller: "I cannot, but this is unique situation."

Ratcliffe: "Well you can't, time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because, I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist."

Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

It's a stupid line of questioning as the president is the only person in America who cannot be indicted of a crime. Because of that dynamic, it will always create unique leagal circumstances.

Baloney. No person is above the law nor beneath it.

What person and what law are you refererring to?

Now you’re playing coy. LOL. I hope they do impeach. Honestly. Do it!

I'm not "playing" anything. I asked the poster to clarify his meaning so I could respond, mr reasonable.

 

[easyt65]

10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

The article's author is a liar, and you are an idiot to keep citing this moron. How many times do people have to play back / re-post Mueller's own words from his testimony before Congress, during which time he clearly stated he and his team did NOT FIND EVIDENCE to declare he obstructed Justice or to indict him? Every time you declare that he DID obstruct justice in the face of Mueller's own words you sound as feeble and as confused as Mueller did much of the time during his testimony.

Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope.
The 10 instances of obstruction cited in the linked article come directly from the report.
Like I said. You dopes have no clue what Mueller said in his testimony.

You continue to demand I correct WHAT, snowflake?

I posted Mueller's EXACT quote from the beginning of his 2nd round of testimony where he stated the OLC played no part in his decision not to indict the President...

...and YOU said:

"Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope."

 

[easyt65]

"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.”


Hutch is just as bad of a desperate lying POS as Nadler, who just lied to the world on live TV by claiming Mueller stated the entire reason for not indicting the President was because of the OLC.

It is not that reading comprehension or English is their problem. Their problem is letting go of the lies / false narratives after 3 years.

 

[JWBooth]

 

[easyt65]

Former FBI Agt Page testified that the FBI conducted their own internal investigation and found no evidence of crimal collusion.

Nadler and the House have investigated and have found no evidence of crimal collusion, despite Schiff lying about personally having evidence of criminal collusion that would put President Trump in prison.

Mueller testified yesterday, as the quote again shows, that he and his team found no criminal evidence.

Hutch, like Nadler, however, want to keep investigating and investigating and investigating so this whole fantasy doesn't come to a screeching halt, as it did due to the disastrous performance of Mueller.