Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge."
He's DB Cooper.
Yet that is EXACTLY what Mueller just did in his presser before declaring he would never testify / answer questions about his investigation under oath and 'taking his ball and going home'.
Thanks for pointing that out.
He had no problem indicting those "Russian" companies that would get no court resolution.
Bottom line, Mueller has ZERO evidence.
If there was a crime, he had to report it.
There were witnesses to what he told Barr. So Mueller may find himself in a lot more hot water.
Why is he allowed to speak even a single word without being under oath?Special Counsel Robert Mueller to make statement at Justice Dept. (Wednesday morning) amid pressure to testify
"Special Counsel Robert Mueller is expected to deliver his first public statement on his investigation into Russian interference during the 2016 presidential election on Wednesday at 11 a.m. from the Justice Department.
The Justice Department announced Mueller would make a statement on Wednesday morning--his first in the more than two years since he was appointed as special counsel."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller to make statement at Justice Dept. amid pressure to testify
It should be happening RIGHT NOW.....
Yup, listening now. Nothing but a slimy fucking lawyer. Tripping over his words. He is a piece of shit and I hope he dies.
You were bitching about him not accusing Trumpyberra of a crime, and now you're bitching that he did accuse the So-Called President of a crime?
Please cite the page in the report where he does that.
"The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited." -R Mueller
Mueller has never, to include in yesterday's 'drive-by', declared the President of the United States committed a crime, as Starr made clear in his final report about Clinton. He did NOT indict or convict ANYONE of illegal collusion or Obstruction.
Bull Shit - you are completely misrepresenting what the OCL states. It does NOT say a Special Prosecutor can not REPORT that he and his team found evidence of a crime. It states a sitting President can not be INDICTED for a crime.Mueller, (aka db cooper) was not allowed to declare the President committed any crime.
"The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited." -R Mueller
You keep ignoring that on 3 separate occasions, according to US AG Barr's testimony under oath, Mueller declared the OCL's decision HAD NO IMPACT ON HIS RULING / DECISION. That means someone is lying.
-- If I were a betting man, I would bet that the liar is the one who refuses to stand behind / defend / answer questions about his investigation under oath before Congress. All Mueller has to do is agree to testify under oath. (Of course if the Senate Intel Committee were smart they would not give Mueller the option of testifying or not by subpoenaing him.)
You also keep ignoring the fact that the OCL's decision does not prevent the Special Counsel from REPORTING the President broke the law / that his team uncovered evidence that the President broke the law. The only thing preventing him from doing that is a lack of evidence. Mueller had no problem presenting innuendoes and insinuations that the President broke the law - he just never came out and said the President DID break the law and support that statement with evidence.
Bull Shit - you are completely misrepresenting what the OCL states. It does NOT say a Special Prosecutor can not REPORT that he and his team found evidence of a crime. It states a sitting President can not be INDICTED for a crime.Mueller, (aka db cooper) was not allowed to declare the President committed any crime.
Nice try to spin, snowflake....almost as good as Mueller declaring, 'If I was confident the President had not committed a crime I would have said so'...which is NOT the same things as saying, 'The President committed a crime'!
If Mueller and his team went into the investigation with the understanding that they could never REPORT that the President had committed a crime and could never INDICT the President, WHY THE HELL DID THEY WASTE 2 YEARS DIGGING INTO HIS FINANCES, BUSINESS DEALINGS, AND INVESTIGATING HIM SO THOROUGHLY IF IT THEY KNEW IT WAS ALL FOR NOTHING?
Sorry, the entire argument Mueller makes and you defend does not pass the common sense / logic test....
Bullshit!Bull Shit - you are completely misrepresenting what the OCL states. It does NOT say a Special Prosecutor can not REPORT that he and his team found evidence of a crime. It states a sitting President can not be INDICTED for a crime.Mueller, (aka db cooper) was not allowed to declare the President committed any crime.
Nice try to spin, snowflake....almost as good as Mueller declaring, 'If I was confident the President had not committed a crime I would have said so'...which is NOT the same things as saying, 'The President committed a crime'!
If Mueller and his team went into the investigation with the understanding that they could never REPORT that the President had committed a crime and could never INDICT the President, WHY THE HELL DID THEY WASTE 2 YEARS DIGGING INTO HIS FINANCES, BUSINESS DEALINGS, AND INVESTIGATING HIM SO THOROUGHLY IF IT THEY KNEW IT WAS ALL FOR NOTHING?
Sorry, the entire argument Mueller makes and you defend does not pass the common sense / logic test....
The report did find evidence and they presented it in the report they submitted. They cannot say, "based on the evidence we presented we think the President committed such-n-such a crime". It's up to the House to determine. So Congress needs all the evidence Mueller gathered for review before they can make a reasonable determination.
"He had no problem indicting those "Russian" companies that would get no court resolution."You should also learn that saying, 'If we had thought the President had not committed crimes we would have said so' is NOT the same thing as the Special Counsel clearly stating, 'The President of the United States committed crimes'...which is exactly what Starr did in HIS final report regarding the Clinton investigation.
Ken Star was working for Congress and was not operating under the same DOJ guidelines. Mueller made it plain as day why he couldn't use those words.
"The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge."
He's DB Cooper.
Wrong again. Mueller LIED on that and many other points. He had no problem indicting those "Russian" companies that would get no court resolution. Bottom line, Mueller has ZERO evidence. If there was a crime, he had to report it. His job was to make a determination. He failed to do so. I. The real world, that's cause for him to be sued for not providing the service he was paid over $30 million to provide. Then the yellow coward runs away and claims he will never answer questions? Not his decision. Mueller finished embarrassing both himself and the Dems yesterday. There were witnesses to what he told Barr. So Mueller may find himself in a lot more hot water.
^^^ Unhinged rant.Bullshit!Bull Shit - you are completely misrepresenting what the OCL states. It does NOT say a Special Prosecutor can not REPORT that he and his team found evidence of a crime. It states a sitting President can not be INDICTED for a crime.Mueller, (aka db cooper) was not allowed to declare the President committed any crime.
Nice try to spin, snowflake....almost as good as Mueller declaring, 'If I was confident the President had not committed a crime I would have said so'...which is NOT the same things as saying, 'The President committed a crime'!
If Mueller and his team went into the investigation with the understanding that they could never REPORT that the President had committed a crime and could never INDICT the President, WHY THE HELL DID THEY WASTE 2 YEARS DIGGING INTO HIS FINANCES, BUSINESS DEALINGS, AND INVESTIGATING HIM SO THOROUGHLY IF IT THEY KNEW IT WAS ALL FOR NOTHING?
Sorry, the entire argument Mueller makes and you defend does not pass the common sense / logic test....
The report did find evidence and they presented it in the report they submitted. They cannot say, "based on the evidence we presented we think the President committed such-n-such a crime". It's up to the House to determine. So Congress needs all the evidence Mueller gathered for review before they can make a reasonable determination.
IN THE 'CLARIFICATION' OF MUELLER'S PRESS CONFERENCE COMMENTS RELEASED BY MUELLER'S OFFICE HOURS AGO, MUELLER'S OFFICE STATES THAT THE OCL'S DECISION NEVER IMPACTED HIS DECISION - WHICH SUPPORTS THE US AG's TESTIMONY UNDER OATH THAT MUELLER TOLD HIM IN 3 SEPERATE OCCASIONS THE OCL NEVER PLAYED A PART IN HIS DECISION - AND THAT MUELLER DECLARED HE COULD NOT / WOULD NOT COME TO A DECISION AT ALL REGARDING OBSTRUCTION.
HIS OWN OFFICE JUST DECLARED MUELLER DID NOT MAKE A DECISION EITHER WAY ON OBSTRUCTION.
THAT MEANS MUELLER FAILED TO / REFUSED TO MAKE A DECISION TO FIND / ISSUE A RULING THAT TRUMP IS GUILTY OF BREALING THE LAW.
IN THIS NATION AMERICANS HAVE THE AUTOMATIC PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, WHICH MUELLER - ACCORDING TO HIS OWN OFFICE - DID NOT DO!
*** MUELLER ACTUALLY READ HIS PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENT ... THAT MEANS MUELLER SAT DOWN AND TOOK TIME TO WRITE OUT HIS COMMENTS THAT HE READ DURING THE PRESS CONFERENCE ... ONLY TO HAVE HIS OFFICE SEVERAL HOURS LATER ISSUE A 'CLARIFICATION' OF WHAT HE REALLY MEANT TO SAY RATHER THAN WHAT HE ACTUALLY WROTE / SAID.
BTW, MUELLER'S OFFICE'S RUSH TO OFFER A 'CLARIFICATION' OF MUELLER'S COMMENTS IS A DEMONSTRATION OF WHY MUELLER IS SCARED TO DEATH OF TESTIFYING UNDER OATH....
DOJ, Mueller’s Office Release Joint Statement Clarifying Mueller’s Comments
There is also a new thread on Mueller's Office's 'retraction' / 'clarification' of what he 'really' meant in his Press Conference...
"He had no problem indicting those "Russian" companies that would get no court resolution."You should also learn that saying, 'If we had thought the President had not committed crimes we would have said so' is NOT the same thing as the Special Counsel clearly stating, 'The President of the United States committed crimes'...which is exactly what Starr did in HIS final report regarding the Clinton investigation.
Ken Star was working for Congress and was not operating under the same DOJ guidelines. Mueller made it plain as day why he couldn't use those words.
"The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge."
He's DB Cooper.
Wrong again. Mueller LIED on that and many other points. He had no problem indicting those "Russian" companies that would get no court resolution. Bottom line, Mueller has ZERO evidence. If there was a crime, he had to report it. His job was to make a determination. He failed to do so. I. The real world, that's cause for him to be sued for not providing the service he was paid over $30 million to provide. Then the yellow coward runs away and claims he will never answer questions? Not his decision. Mueller finished embarrassing both himself and the Dems yesterday. There were witnesses to what he told Barr. So Mueller may find himself in a lot more hot water.
Why lie? This has already been addressed.
They opportunity for a court resolution was available for those Russians. Whereas there is no court resolution for trump.
This sums up Mueller's theatrics today:
'BOB STIRS THE POT'
With his initial report failing to create the 'Impeachment Talk' push he initially wanted, with the exposed traitorous 'investigators' under investigation and waiting for the US IG report on FISA Abuses expected to put the co-conspirators in serious legal trouble, and with multiple DOJ investigations of exposed Democrat crimes beginning to become the main focus in the post-Mueller investigation.....
Mueller stepped up today to hold a press conference, rather than agree to testify under oath, to make a 2nd effort / attempt to get the exposed seemingly failed coup attempt back on track while diverting attention away from the investigations into his co-conspirators.
Mueller 'stirred the pot', whipping already rabid Trump-hating Democrats / snowflakes into a rejuvenated frenzy and re-igniting their call for Impeachment...without providing any more evidence of crimes committed by Trump or anyone connected to him than he did when he released is written report...which is NONE.
In his 2nd attempt to incite Democrats into initiating Impeachment proceedings against President Trump, Mueller stated that if he and his team had believed President Trump had not committed a crime he and his team would have said so. He and his team did not. Instead, he and his team declared there was no evidence of illegal collusion with the Russians and declared he could not / would not make a judgment regarding obstruction, that he would leave that decision to others.
If he truly believed Trump did NOT commit a crime and would have said so if he had, then it also stands to reason that if he truly believed Trump DID commit a crime he would have also said so. He did NOT do that, either. Again, instead he declared he would refuse to do his job, would instead choose NOT to make an official decision, and instead chose to allow others to speculate and do that part of his job.
-- In other words, Mueller FAILED TO PROVE GUILT, refused to MAKE THAT CALL
When a prosecutor walks away from a case without making an indictment or getting a conviction, that's called failing to prove guilt. The person on trial / being investigated walks away free, 'innocent'...they do not carry an asterisk by their name for the rest of their life with the words:
*** 'He was not indicted, he was not convicted, but the Prosecutor refused to declare he did NOT commit a crime...which we all know means 'he did it'
That's NOT how it works.
Sure, Mueller provided additional narrative in both his report and during his 'theatrical performance' today, but none of it was enough for Mueller and his team to complete their investigation by declaring, 'President Trump BROKE The Law'. Instead, it was added to the report and stated today to incentivize others to do what he and his team could not do, failed to do - declare and Prove the President committed a crime.
ONCE AGAIN Mueller stepped to 'center stage' and all he could manage to do was 'STIR THE POT' in an attempt to get others to do what he failed to do.....take down the President.
Dems ramp up calls for Trump impeachment after Mueller speaks out on Russia probe
'Russian Companies'? Mueller indicted Russian individuals, not 'compamies'. How can you indict an entire 'company', snowflake?"He had no problem indicting those "Russian" companies that would get no court resolution."You should also learn that saying, 'If we had thought the President had not committed crimes we would have said so' is NOT the same thing as the Special Counsel clearly stating, 'The President of the United States committed crimes'...which is exactly what Starr did in HIS final report regarding the Clinton investigation.
Ken Star was working for Congress and was not operating under the same DOJ guidelines. Mueller made it plain as day why he couldn't use those words.
"The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge."
He's DB Cooper.
Wrong again. Mueller LIED on that and many other points. He had no problem indicting those "Russian" companies that would get no court resolution. Bottom line, Mueller has ZERO evidence. If there was a crime, he had to report it. His job was to make a determination. He failed to do so. I. The real world, that's cause for him to be sued for not providing the service he was paid over $30 million to provide. Then the yellow coward runs away and claims he will never answer questions? Not his decision. Mueller finished embarrassing both himself and the Dems yesterday. There were witnesses to what he told Barr. So Mueller may find himself in a lot more hot water.
Why lie? This has already been addressed.
They opportunity for a court resolution was available for those Russians. Whereas there is no court resolution for trump.
^^^ Deranged idiot trying desperately to spin this. Where is the lie? You seem to be claiming those "Russian" companies weren't indicted with Mueller knowing full well they would never see the inside of a court. Seeing as Mueller has no case, he would get laughed out of court if he even brought this case, President or not.
So JFK, LBJ, Billy Clinton, and Obama were “role models?” JFK was an adulterer who even had sex with a 19 year old intern in he and Jackie’s White House bed. LBJ did things far worse than Nixon ever did. Made a profit off Vietnam War, cheated on his wife, and was indicted as a co-conspirator in 11 deaths in Texas after his 1975 passing. Real role model. Bill Clinton would lie if the truth would fit better. Obama won presidency because of slobbering love affair with liberal media. He also accepted a Noble Prize just because he was half black. Real role model as well.You mean loud & clear to bitter leftards who, coincidentally, never have more than 2 brain cells. As you may recall, the clamor for Trump Jr's head and that of Kushner were "loud and clear" as well as calls for anyone connected to the POTUS to be fired & shot at dawn. Y'all were certain they were complicit.I think after that it's clear that Mueller was never going to indict a sitting president rather the constitutional remedy is impeachment. It was loud and clear if you have at least 2 brain cells.
So exactly how many Americans have been convicted or even indicted for conspiring with the foreign meddlers? How many of your media sources have admitted they have been feeding you the LIES you have so eagerly swallowed the last 2 years?
It’s ironic that you question other people’s intelligence, when it’s obvious you are so clueless to have your entire head embedded the the posterior of a pathological liar, a multiple adulter, a six-time bankruptcy deadbeat, who had daddy get him out of serving his country and of course the greatest narcissist ever.
Has there ever been such a horseshit slimeball in the presidency? Not quite a good role model for your kids or grandkids
Are your fingers broken and you can't google it yourself?you say a lot of shit but you never back it up.And lying about their Russian connections, Cohen to Congress about Moscow Trump Tower, and Manafort to the special counsel on his communication with Russians, of which he lost his plea deal over....the special counsel ended it.WRONG!
flynn, gates, and Manafort and papadopoulis and cohen and the guy I don't remember his name ALL lied about their Russian contacts and were charged for it.
Manafort and Cohen were charged with tax evasion
Edit spelled it wrong
.
god forbid, if it doesn't come from Sharyl Attkisson, it ain't news eh?
Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen gives House Intelligence Committee documents revealing alleged edits to false statement about Moscow project
Michael Cohen pleads guilty to lying to Congress
Paul Manafort breached plea deal by repeatedly lying in Russia inquiry, Mueller says
Judge rules Paul Manafort violated Mueller investigation plea deal by "intentionally" lying
where did trump do it again?
nice try but nothing about what i asked. but as usual, the left just has to take jabs at people they don't already approve of.
how "like" you.
How is what Hillary did not getting help from a foreign gov?Are your fingers broken and you can't google it yourself?you say a lot of shit but you never back it up.And lying about their Russian connections, Cohen to Congress about Moscow Trump Tower, and Manafort to the special counsel on his communication with Russians, of which he lost his plea deal over....the special counsel ended it.Manafort and Cohen were charged with tax evasion
Edit spelled it wrong
.
god forbid, if it doesn't come from Sharyl Attkisson, it ain't news eh?
Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen gives House Intelligence Committee documents revealing alleged edits to false statement about Moscow project
Michael Cohen pleads guilty to lying to Congress
Paul Manafort breached plea deal by repeatedly lying in Russia inquiry, Mueller says
Judge rules Paul Manafort violated Mueller investigation plea deal by "intentionally" lying
where did trump do it again?
nice try but nothing about what i asked. but as usual, the left just has to take jabs at people they don't already approve of.
how "like" you.
''you say a lot of shit but you never back it up.''
here's your post, that I commented on by posting links... not that you asked a question, you asked no question, for me to answer
