Mueller explicitly says he can't clear Trump of obstruction of justice

[caddo kid]

According to the Mueller report Trump CLEARLY had the intention to obstruct the investigation. Trump's actions clearly demonstrate this. Mueller laid out in the report those actions by Trump himself & by Trump's instructions to subordinates, that demonstrate Trump was active in his attempts to circumvent Mueller's function as SC. There is no debating those facts. Thus Mueller's statement, "The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."
That statement has real potential to be both politically & legally damning for Trump.

It seems that those replying to your OP either refuse to acknowledge the fact, or they are just too stupid to understand that the so called 'collusion' issue is a completely different issue than the obstruction of justice concept. No surprises though as these folks typically seem to play stupid.

What did Trump actually DO to "circumvent" Mueller's function as Special Counsel? Call it a witch hunt? It was! Rail about who was on the Mueller team? Who wouldn't be angry that a supposedly unbiased investigation was stacked with people that just did a smear campaign against you in the election that you won?

With a response such as that at least I know you are not playing stupid.

And with your response it's quite obvious that you ARE playing stupid! It's a simple question, Caddo...what did Trump actually DO to prevent Mueller from investigating what he was charged with?

There are at least 10 instances that are clearly indicated in the report that demonstrate Trump's intent to obstruct the SC investigation.
Why don't you try reading the report & you may learn something; why ask me for my opinion?
All you will do is come back and sling shit like everyone else in the thread.
Go read the report yourself; the 10 incidents are in there for you to read about.

Intent to obstruct? LOL I asked what Trump DID to obstruct Mueller's investigation...and you can't name ANYTHING! Then you turn around and accuse me of slinging shit? Dude that's all you do on this board...24/7! You've been slinging shit at Trump for months now trying desperately to get something...anything...to stick and you've got nada...zilch...nothing!

You really need to go & read Mueller's report, if you actually desire to discuss the issue without looking like the smelly ass shit turd you are

 

[Oldstyle]

"Exonerate" is from the Mueller Report! You know...the thing that was supposed to sink Trump and hasn't?

Hello!?!

You made the statement with 'exonerate' in it (plus, you put the word in quotations) and THEN you said 'Are you serious?'

Am I serious about what? I said NOTHING about 'exonerate'.

Here is a question even you can understand.

Did I use the word 'exonerate' ANYWHERE in the OP? Yes or no?


And where the fuck in the Mueller Report did it specifically say that Trump was 'exonerate'd of any crimes/wrong doing?


And, so EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Fine....I agree. So you are saying that Hilary Clinton is presumed innocent of ANY wrongdoing when it comes to ANYTHING she did while in Obama's White House because she was not convicted of any wrongdoing/illegalities (like Benghazi)?

Yes or no?

Yes, Hillary Clinton...like every other American...is presumed innocent until guilt is proven.

Where did I claim that the Mueller Report said Trump was exonerated? What I said is that it's farce when the best that an investigation can come up with against a person accused of treason is that they didn't find enough evidence to exonerate them! That isn't the way it works in our legal system! Prosecutors need to prove guilt...it isn't up to those accused to prove that they are innocent!

You didn't - I misread you, sorry.

And drop the 'innocent until proven...' shit...WE ALL KNOW THAT.


Now answer the question:

Did I use the word 'exonerate' ANYWHERE in the OP? Yes or no?

Once again...I never claimed you did! Exonerate was what was used in the Mueller Report. What part of this can't you grasp?

Your words:

'LOL...that's amusing, McRocket! So the best that a Mueller "team" has after two plus years of investigations is that they couldn't come up with anything that Trump did but they still can't "exonerate" him? Are you serious?'

You spoke to be by name and then you ask me a question ('are you serious') about something that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the OP.

What the fuck are you asking me about the report not 'exonerate'ing Trump for?

I did not say anything about exoneration.


AND BTW - your 'innocent until proven guilty' point is TOTALLY irrelevant in this case as Mueller said in the report that - basically - under no circumstances was he going to call for a charge against Trump for ANYTHING because he believed you cannot charge a sitting POTUS with a crime.
Which means - Trump could have murdered someone and Mueller STILL would not call for a charge against him.

For the third time! I didn't say that YOU said anything about exoneration...that was a term used in the Mueller Report! When I put "exonerate" in ""'s it was me quoting Mueller's Report...not you! My point all along has been that it isn't the job of a Special Prosecutor to exonerate anyone...the job of a Special Prosecutor is to investigate whether or not criminal acts have taken place. To be quite blunt...if Robert Mueller didn't find enough evidence to recommend an indictment against Trump then he should have said that AND ONLY THAT!

 

[McRocket]

According to the Mueller report Trump CLEARLY had the intention to obstruct the investigation. Trump's actions clearly demonstrate this. Mueller laid out in the report those actions by Trump himself & by Trump's instructions to subordinates, that demonstrate Trump was active in his attempts to circumvent Mueller's function as SC. There is no debating those facts. Thus Mueller's statement, "The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."
That statement has real potential to be both politically & legally damning for Trump.

It seems that those replying to your OP either refuse to acknowledge the fact, or they are just too stupid to understand that the so called 'collusion' issue is a completely different issue than the obstruction of justice concept. No surprises though as these folks typically seem to play stupid.

What did Trump actually DO to "circumvent" Mueller's function as Special Counsel? Call it a witch hunt? It was! Rail about who was on the Mueller team? Who wouldn't be angry that a supposedly unbiased investigation was stacked with people that just did a smear campaign against you in the election that you won?

With a response such as that at least I know you are not playing stupid.

And with your response it's quite obvious that you ARE playing stupid! It's a simple question, Caddo...what did Trump actually DO to prevent Mueller from investigating what he was charged with?

There are at least 10 instances that are clearly indicated in the report that demonstrate Trump's intent to obstruct the SC investigation.
Why don't you try reading the report & you may learn something; why ask me for my opinion?
All you will do is come back and sling shit like everyone else in the thread.
Go read the report yourself; the 10 incidents are in there for you to read about.

Intent to obstruct? LOL I asked what Trump DID to obstruct Mueller's investigation...and you can't name ANYTHING! Then you turn around and accuse me of slinging shit? Dude that's all you do on this board...24/7! You've been slinging shit at Trump for months now trying desperately to get something...anything...to stick and you've got nada...zilch...nothing!

I'll do you one better...I'll give you 11.

Here are the 11 instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump outlined in the Mueller report

 

[Oldstyle]

What did Trump actually DO to "circumvent" Mueller's function as Special Counsel? Call it a witch hunt? It was! Rail about who was on the Mueller team? Who wouldn't be angry that a supposedly unbiased investigation was stacked with people that just did a smear campaign against you in the election that you won?

With a response such as that at least I know you are not playing stupid.

And with your response it's quite obvious that you ARE playing stupid! It's a simple question, Caddo...what did Trump actually DO to prevent Mueller from investigating what he was charged with?

There are at least 10 instances that are clearly indicated in the report that demonstrate Trump's intent to obstruct the SC investigation.
Why don't you try reading the report & you may learn something; why ask me for my opinion?
All you will do is come back and sling shit like everyone else in the thread.
Go read the report yourself; the 10 incidents are in there for you to read about.

Intent to obstruct? LOL I asked what Trump DID to obstruct Mueller's investigation...and you can't name ANYTHING! Then you turn around and accuse me of slinging shit? Dude that's all you do on this board...24/7! You've been slinging shit at Trump for months now trying desperately to get something...anything...to stick and you've got nada...zilch...nothing!

You really need to go & read Mueller's report, if you actually desire to discuss the issue without looking like the smelly ass shit turd you are

Ah, so when you have no response your "go to" is to start calling people juvenile names? Noted...

 

[Oldstyle]

What did Trump actually DO to "circumvent" Mueller's function as Special Counsel? Call it a witch hunt? It was! Rail about who was on the Mueller team? Who wouldn't be angry that a supposedly unbiased investigation was stacked with people that just did a smear campaign against you in the election that you won?

With a response such as that at least I know you are not playing stupid.

And with your response it's quite obvious that you ARE playing stupid! It's a simple question, Caddo...what did Trump actually DO to prevent Mueller from investigating what he was charged with?

There are at least 10 instances that are clearly indicated in the report that demonstrate Trump's intent to obstruct the SC investigation.
Why don't you try reading the report & you may learn something; why ask me for my opinion?
All you will do is come back and sling shit like everyone else in the thread.
Go read the report yourself; the 10 incidents are in there for you to read about.

Intent to obstruct? LOL I asked what Trump DID to obstruct Mueller's investigation...and you can't name ANYTHING! Then you turn around and accuse me of slinging shit? Dude that's all you do on this board...24/7! You've been slinging shit at Trump for months now trying desperately to get something...anything...to stick and you've got nada...zilch...nothing!

I'll do you one better...I'll give you 11.

Here are the 11 instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump outlined in the Mueller report

"Potential obstruction"? Here's a radical concept...why don't you list the ACTUAL obstructions of justice by Trump?

 

[caddo kid]

With a response such as that at least I know you are not playing stupid.

And with your response it's quite obvious that you ARE playing stupid! It's a simple question, Caddo...what did Trump actually DO to prevent Mueller from investigating what he was charged with?

There are at least 10 instances that are clearly indicated in the report that demonstrate Trump's intent to obstruct the SC investigation.
Why don't you try reading the report & you may learn something; why ask me for my opinion?
All you will do is come back and sling shit like everyone else in the thread.
Go read the report yourself; the 10 incidents are in there for you to read about.

Intent to obstruct? LOL I asked what Trump DID to obstruct Mueller's investigation...and you can't name ANYTHING! Then you turn around and accuse me of slinging shit? Dude that's all you do on this board...24/7! You've been slinging shit at Trump for months now trying desperately to get something...anything...to stick and you've got nada...zilch...nothing!

You really need to go & read Mueller's report, if you actually desire to discuss the issue without looking like the smelly ass shit turd you are

Ah, so when you have no response your "go to" is to start calling people juvenile names? Noted...

Try reading the thread, my responses, and TRY reading Mueller's goddamn report. You might learn something.

Prolly not but maybe .........

 

[McRocket]

Hello!?!

You made the statement with 'exonerate' in it (plus, you put the word in quotations) and THEN you said 'Are you serious?'

Am I serious about what? I said NOTHING about 'exonerate'.

Here is a question even you can understand.

Did I use the word 'exonerate' ANYWHERE in the OP? Yes or no?


And where the fuck in the Mueller Report did it specifically say that Trump was 'exonerate'd of any crimes/wrong doing?


And, so EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Fine....I agree. So you are saying that Hilary Clinton is presumed innocent of ANY wrongdoing when it comes to ANYTHING she did while in Obama's White House because she was not convicted of any wrongdoing/illegalities (like Benghazi)?

Yes or no?

Yes, Hillary Clinton...like every other American...is presumed innocent until guilt is proven.

Where did I claim that the Mueller Report said Trump was exonerated? What I said is that it's farce when the best that an investigation can come up with against a person accused of treason is that they didn't find enough evidence to exonerate them! That isn't the way it works in our legal system! Prosecutors need to prove guilt...it isn't up to those accused to prove that they are innocent!

You didn't - I misread you, sorry.

And drop the 'innocent until proven...' shit...WE ALL KNOW THAT.


Now answer the question:

Did I use the word 'exonerate' ANYWHERE in the OP? Yes or no?

Once again...I never claimed you did! Exonerate was what was used in the Mueller Report. What part of this can't you grasp?

Your words:

'LOL...that's amusing, McRocket! So the best that a Mueller "team" has after two plus years of investigations is that they couldn't come up with anything that Trump did but they still can't "exonerate" him? Are you serious?'

You spoke to be by name and then you ask me a question ('are you serious') about something that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the OP.

What the fuck are you asking me about the report not 'exonerate'ing Trump for?

I did not say anything about exoneration.


AND BTW - your 'innocent until proven guilty' point is TOTALLY irrelevant in this case as Mueller said in the report that - basically - under no circumstances was he going to call for a charge against Trump for ANYTHING because he believed you cannot charge a sitting POTUS with a crime.
Which means - Trump could have murdered someone and Mueller STILL would not call for a charge against him.

For the third time! I didn't say that YOU said anything about exoneration...that was a term used in the Mueller Report! When I put "exonerate" in ""'s it was me quoting Mueller's Report...not you! My point all along has been that it isn't the job of a Special Prosecutor to exonerate anyone...the job of a Special Prosecutor is to investigate whether or not criminal acts have taken place. To be quite blunt...if Robert Mueller didn't find enough evidence to recommend an indictment against Trump then he should have said that AND ONLY THAT!

You typed:

''LOL...that's amusing, McRocket! So the best that a Mueller "team" has after two plus years of investigations is that they couldn't come up with anything that Trump did but they still can't "exonerate" him? Are you serious?''

First you address me by name and then you ask me if I am serious? Whom else were you talking to - your inner voice?


And you are missing the point entirely.

Mueller said long ago - and in the report - that he WILL NOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT...NO MATTER WHAT.

Mueller Tells Trump Team He Won’t Indict President: Giuliani

So even if he found 100% proof of illegalities, he was not going to indict Trump.

Why can you not understand that?

But Mueller clearly laid out in the report how he thought Congress could look into the matter if they wanted to indict.

 

[Oldstyle]

And with your response it's quite obvious that you ARE playing stupid! It's a simple question, Caddo...what did Trump actually DO to prevent Mueller from investigating what he was charged with?

There are at least 10 instances that are clearly indicated in the report that demonstrate Trump's intent to obstruct the SC investigation.
Why don't you try reading the report & you may learn something; why ask me for my opinion?
All you will do is come back and sling shit like everyone else in the thread.
Go read the report yourself; the 10 incidents are in there for you to read about.

Intent to obstruct? LOL I asked what Trump DID to obstruct Mueller's investigation...and you can't name ANYTHING! Then you turn around and accuse me of slinging shit? Dude that's all you do on this board...24/7! You've been slinging shit at Trump for months now trying desperately to get something...anything...to stick and you've got nada...zilch...nothing!

You really need to go & read Mueller's report, if you actually desire to discuss the issue without looking like the smelly ass shit turd you are

Ah, so when you have no response your "go to" is to start calling people juvenile names? Noted...

Try reading the thread, my responses, and TRY reading Mueller's goddamn report. You might learn something.

Prolly not but maybe .........

What's amusing is you pretending that you've read even a minute part of the Mueller Report! People like you don't read original source materials...you cut and paste NONSENSE from partisan sites and PRETEND you know what you're talking about!

 

[caddo kid]

With a response such as that at least I know you are not playing stupid.

And with your response it's quite obvious that you ARE playing stupid! It's a simple question, Caddo...what did Trump actually DO to prevent Mueller from investigating what he was charged with?

There are at least 10 instances that are clearly indicated in the report that demonstrate Trump's intent to obstruct the SC investigation.
Why don't you try reading the report & you may learn something; why ask me for my opinion?
All you will do is come back and sling shit like everyone else in the thread.
Go read the report yourself; the 10 incidents are in there for you to read about.

Intent to obstruct? LOL I asked what Trump DID to obstruct Mueller's investigation...and you can't name ANYTHING! Then you turn around and accuse me of slinging shit? Dude that's all you do on this board...24/7! You've been slinging shit at Trump for months now trying desperately to get something...anything...to stick and you've got nada...zilch...nothing!

I'll do you one better...I'll give you 11.

Here are the 11 instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump outlined in the Mueller report

"Potential obstruction"? Here's a radical concept...why don't you list the ACTUAL obstructions of justice by Trump?

you are like a fungal infection EXCEPT you have no fucking brain.

You itch like Hell, someone can scratch you but you still fucking itch, no one wants you near their underwear, and you cannot intelligently discuss the concept of a angstrom.

 

[Dale Smith]

'Special counsel Robert Mueller explicitly stated in his Russia investigation report that he and his team had not cleared President Donald Trump of accusations of obstruction of justice.

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," the report read. "However, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."'

Mueller explicitly says he can't clear Trump of obstruction of justice


If Trump and his Trumpbots think the Mueller report cleared the former of obstruction of justice?

They are 100% wrong.

How can one obstruct "justice" over a crime that was never committed to begin with?

 

[Oldstyle]

Yes, Hillary Clinton...like every other American...is presumed innocent until guilt is proven.

Where did I claim that the Mueller Report said Trump was exonerated? What I said is that it's farce when the best that an investigation can come up with against a person accused of treason is that they didn't find enough evidence to exonerate them! That isn't the way it works in our legal system! Prosecutors need to prove guilt...it isn't up to those accused to prove that they are innocent!

You didn't - I misread you, sorry.

And drop the 'innocent until proven...' shit...WE ALL KNOW THAT.


Now answer the question:

Did I use the word 'exonerate' ANYWHERE in the OP? Yes or no?

Once again...I never claimed you did! Exonerate was what was used in the Mueller Report. What part of this can't you grasp?

Your words:

'LOL...that's amusing, McRocket! So the best that a Mueller "team" has after two plus years of investigations is that they couldn't come up with anything that Trump did but they still can't "exonerate" him? Are you serious?'

You spoke to be by name and then you ask me a question ('are you serious') about something that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the OP.

What the fuck are you asking me about the report not 'exonerate'ing Trump for?

I did not say anything about exoneration.


AND BTW - your 'innocent until proven guilty' point is TOTALLY irrelevant in this case as Mueller said in the report that - basically - under no circumstances was he going to call for a charge against Trump for ANYTHING because he believed you cannot charge a sitting POTUS with a crime.
Which means - Trump could have murdered someone and Mueller STILL would not call for a charge against him.

For the third time! I didn't say that YOU said anything about exoneration...that was a term used in the Mueller Report! When I put "exonerate" in ""'s it was me quoting Mueller's Report...not you! My point all along has been that it isn't the job of a Special Prosecutor to exonerate anyone...the job of a Special Prosecutor is to investigate whether or not criminal acts have taken place. To be quite blunt...if Robert Mueller didn't find enough evidence to recommend an indictment against Trump then he should have said that AND ONLY THAT!

You typed:

''LOL...that's amusing, McRocket! So the best that a Mueller "team" has after two plus years of investigations is that they couldn't come up with anything that Trump did but they still can't "exonerate" him? Are you serious?''

First you address me by name and then you ask me if I am serious? Whom else were you talking to - your inner voice?


And you are missing the point entirely.

Mueller said long ago - and in the report - that he WILL NOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT...NO MATTER WHAT.

Mueller Tells Trump Team He Won’t Indict President: Giuliani

So even if he found 100% proof of illegalities, he was not going to indict Trump.

Why can you not understand that?

But Mueller clearly laid out in the report how he thought Congress could look into the matter if they wanted to indict.

So after two years and 41 million dollars...the best that Bob Mueller could come up with is that Congress could look into the matter if they wanted to indict? Pardon me for pointing out the OBVIOUS here...BUT WASN'T MUELLER'S JOB TO "LOOK INTO THE MATTER"!

 

[skye]

'Special counsel Robert Mueller explicitly stated in his Russia investigation report that he and his team had not cleared President Donald Trump of accusations of obstruction of justice.

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," the report read. "However, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."'

Mueller explicitly says he can't clear Trump of obstruction of justice


If Trump and his Trumpbots think the Mueller report cleared the former of obstruction of justice?

They are 100% wrong.

 

[McRocket]

With a response such as that at least I know you are not playing stupid.

And with your response it's quite obvious that you ARE playing stupid! It's a simple question, Caddo...what did Trump actually DO to prevent Mueller from investigating what he was charged with?

There are at least 10 instances that are clearly indicated in the report that demonstrate Trump's intent to obstruct the SC investigation.
Why don't you try reading the report & you may learn something; why ask me for my opinion?
All you will do is come back and sling shit like everyone else in the thread.
Go read the report yourself; the 10 incidents are in there for you to read about.

Intent to obstruct? LOL I asked what Trump DID to obstruct Mueller's investigation...and you can't name ANYTHING! Then you turn around and accuse me of slinging shit? Dude that's all you do on this board...24/7! You've been slinging shit at Trump for months now trying desperately to get something...anything...to stick and you've got nada...zilch...nothing!

I'll do you one better...I'll give you 11.

Here are the 11 instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump outlined in the Mueller report

"Potential obstruction"? Here's a radical concept...why don't you list the ACTUAL obstructions of justice by Trump?

HELLO?

FOR THE THIRD TIME... MUELLER SAID HE WOULD NEVER INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT. Got it?

Mueller Tells Trump Team He Won’t Indict President: Giuliani

And the goal of the report was NEVER to indict Trump...only to gather information for others to deal with the situation...like Congress.

Mueller is a good 'cop'. And good cops don't decide innocence or guilt...they just collect evidence and present it to the necessary authorities...which is what Mueller did.

For the FOURTH time...MUELLER NEVER WAS GOING TO INDICT OR EVEN DETERMINE IF THERE WAS OBSTRUCTION...JUST COLLECT EVIDENCE.
But he was - like police do - going to state if he thought there was NO EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION. And he clearly stated that he could not do that in this case...that there WAS evidence of obstruction.

 

[Oldstyle]

And with your response it's quite obvious that you ARE playing stupid! It's a simple question, Caddo...what did Trump actually DO to prevent Mueller from investigating what he was charged with?

There are at least 10 instances that are clearly indicated in the report that demonstrate Trump's intent to obstruct the SC investigation.
Why don't you try reading the report & you may learn something; why ask me for my opinion?
All you will do is come back and sling shit like everyone else in the thread.
Go read the report yourself; the 10 incidents are in there for you to read about.

Intent to obstruct? LOL I asked what Trump DID to obstruct Mueller's investigation...and you can't name ANYTHING! Then you turn around and accuse me of slinging shit? Dude that's all you do on this board...24/7! You've been slinging shit at Trump for months now trying desperately to get something...anything...to stick and you've got nada...zilch...nothing!

I'll do you one better...I'll give you 11.

Here are the 11 instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump outlined in the Mueller report

"Potential obstruction"? Here's a radical concept...why don't you list the ACTUAL obstructions of justice by Trump?

you are like a fungal infection EXCEPT you have no fucking brain.

You itch like Hell, someone can scratch you but you still fucking itch, no one wants you near their underwear, and you cannot intelligently discuss the concept of a angstrom.

So fungal infections have brains? God, you're dumb!

 

[McRocket]

You didn't - I misread you, sorry.

And drop the 'innocent until proven...' shit...WE ALL KNOW THAT.


Now answer the question:

Did I use the word 'exonerate' ANYWHERE in the OP? Yes or no?

Once again...I never claimed you did! Exonerate was what was used in the Mueller Report. What part of this can't you grasp?

Your words:

'LOL...that's amusing, McRocket! So the best that a Mueller "team" has after two plus years of investigations is that they couldn't come up with anything that Trump did but they still can't "exonerate" him? Are you serious?'

You spoke to be by name and then you ask me a question ('are you serious') about something that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the OP.

What the fuck are you asking me about the report not 'exonerate'ing Trump for?

I did not say anything about exoneration.


AND BTW - your 'innocent until proven guilty' point is TOTALLY irrelevant in this case as Mueller said in the report that - basically - under no circumstances was he going to call for a charge against Trump for ANYTHING because he believed you cannot charge a sitting POTUS with a crime.
Which means - Trump could have murdered someone and Mueller STILL would not call for a charge against him.

For the third time! I didn't say that YOU said anything about exoneration...that was a term used in the Mueller Report! When I put "exonerate" in ""'s it was me quoting Mueller's Report...not you! My point all along has been that it isn't the job of a Special Prosecutor to exonerate anyone...the job of a Special Prosecutor is to investigate whether or not criminal acts have taken place. To be quite blunt...if Robert Mueller didn't find enough evidence to recommend an indictment against Trump then he should have said that AND ONLY THAT!

You typed:

''LOL...that's amusing, McRocket! So the best that a Mueller "team" has after two plus years of investigations is that they couldn't come up with anything that Trump did but they still can't "exonerate" him? Are you serious?''

First you address me by name and then you ask me if I am serious? Whom else were you talking to - your inner voice?


And you are missing the point entirely.

Mueller said long ago - and in the report - that he WILL NOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT...NO MATTER WHAT.

Mueller Tells Trump Team He Won’t Indict President: Giuliani

So even if he found 100% proof of illegalities, he was not going to indict Trump.

Why can you not understand that?

But Mueller clearly laid out in the report how he thought Congress could look into the matter if they wanted to indict.

So after two years and 41 million dollars...the best that Bob Mueller could come up with is that Congress could look into the matter if they wanted to indict? Pardon me for pointing out the OBVIOUS here...BUT WASN'T MUELLER'S JOB TO "LOOK INTO THE MATTER"!

What are you asking me for - I did not ask Mueller to do it...Trump's own people did.

Talk to them.

 

[skye]

And with your response it's quite obvious that you ARE playing stupid! It's a simple question, Caddo...what did Trump actually DO to prevent Mueller from investigating what he was charged with?

There are at least 10 instances that are clearly indicated in the report that demonstrate Trump's intent to obstruct the SC investigation.
Why don't you try reading the report & you may learn something; why ask me for my opinion?
All you will do is come back and sling shit like everyone else in the thread.
Go read the report yourself; the 10 incidents are in there for you to read about.

Intent to obstruct? LOL I asked what Trump DID to obstruct Mueller's investigation...and you can't name ANYTHING! Then you turn around and accuse me of slinging shit? Dude that's all you do on this board...24/7! You've been slinging shit at Trump for months now trying desperately to get something...anything...to stick and you've got nada...zilch...nothing!

I'll do you one better...I'll give you 11.

Here are the 11 instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump outlined in the Mueller report

"Potential obstruction"? Here's a radical concept...why don't you list the ACTUAL obstructions of justice by Trump?

HELLO?

FOR THE THIRD TIME... MUELLER SAID HE WOULD NEVER INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT. Got it?

Mueller Tells Trump Team He Won’t Indict President: Giuliani

And the goal of the report was NEVER to indict Trump...only to gather information for others to deal with the situation...like Congress.

Mueller is a good 'cop'. And good cops don't decide innocence or guilt..they just collect evidence and present it to the necessary authorities...which is what Mueller did.

For the FOURTH time...MUELLER NEVER WAS GOING TO INDICT OR EVEN DETERMINE IF THERE WAS OBSTRUCTION...JUST COLLECT EVIDENCE.
But he was - like police do - going to state if he thought there was NO EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION. And he clearly stated that he could not do that in this case...that there WAS evidence of obstruction.

 

[Oldstyle]

And with your response it's quite obvious that you ARE playing stupid! It's a simple question, Caddo...what did Trump actually DO to prevent Mueller from investigating what he was charged with?

There are at least 10 instances that are clearly indicated in the report that demonstrate Trump's intent to obstruct the SC investigation.
Why don't you try reading the report & you may learn something; why ask me for my opinion?
All you will do is come back and sling shit like everyone else in the thread.
Go read the report yourself; the 10 incidents are in there for you to read about.

Intent to obstruct? LOL I asked what Trump DID to obstruct Mueller's investigation...and you can't name ANYTHING! Then you turn around and accuse me of slinging shit? Dude that's all you do on this board...24/7! You've been slinging shit at Trump for months now trying desperately to get something...anything...to stick and you've got nada...zilch...nothing!

I'll do you one better...I'll give you 11.

Here are the 11 instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump outlined in the Mueller report

"Potential obstruction"? Here's a radical concept...why don't you list the ACTUAL obstructions of justice by Trump?

HELLO?

FOR THE THIRD TIME... MUELLER SAID HE WOULD NEVER INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT. Got it?

Mueller Tells Trump Team He Won’t Indict President: Giuliani

And the goal of the report was NEVER to indict Trump...only to gather information for others to deal with the situation...like Congress.

Mueller is a good 'cop'. And good cops don't decide innocence or guilt..they just collect evidence and present it to the necessary authorities...which is what Mueller did.

For the FOURTH time...MUELLER NEVER WAS GOING TO INDICT OR EVEN DETERMINE IF THERE WAS OBSTRUCTION...JUST COLLECT EVIDENCE.
But he was - like police do - state if he thought there was NO EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION. And he clearly stated that he could not do that.

So let me see how this works...

"Good cop" Bob Mueller does an extensive investigation into Donald Trump and comes up with no evidence of a crime taking place...but you think THAT means that the Congress should "deal with the situation"? How exactly? How does Congress go ahead with indictments when Mueller found no evidence of criminal acts? Wouldn't Mueller have SAID he found evidence of criminal acts but it wasn't in his power to indict a sitting President and therefore the Congress should act?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

'Special counsel Robert Mueller explicitly stated in his Russia investigation report that he and his team had not cleared President Donald Trump of accusations of obstruction of justice.

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," the report read. "However, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."'

Mueller explicitly says he can't clear Trump of obstruction of justice


If Trump and his Trumpbots think the Mueller report cleared the former of obstruction of justice?

They are 100% wrong.

 

[toobfreak]

'Special counsel Robert Mueller explicitly stated in his Russia investigation report that he and his team had not cleared President Donald Trump of accusations of obstruction of justice.

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," the report read. "However, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."'

Mueller explicitly says he can't clear Trump of obstruction of justice

If Trump and his Trumpbots think the Mueller report cleared the former of obstruction of justice?

They are 100% wrong.

LIAR. Mueller never said any of that. It's not Mueller's place to "clear" anyone. HOW DO YOU CLEAR SOMEONE WHEN THEY'VE NEVER BEEN CHARGED??? He's a prosecutor and he either has grounds to file an indictment or recommend prosecution or he DOESN'T. Since there were a few things which could be interpreted as forms of obstruction and Mueller did not know Trump's INTENT, he wrote the part two hit piece as more media fodder and passed the ball onto Congress to decide how to interpret the findings.

YOU, there is no question on how to interpret you.

 

[McRocket]

There are at least 10 instances that are clearly indicated in the report that demonstrate Trump's intent to obstruct the SC investigation.
Why don't you try reading the report & you may learn something; why ask me for my opinion?
All you will do is come back and sling shit like everyone else in the thread.
Go read the report yourself; the 10 incidents are in there for you to read about.

Intent to obstruct? LOL I asked what Trump DID to obstruct Mueller's investigation...and you can't name ANYTHING! Then you turn around and accuse me of slinging shit? Dude that's all you do on this board...24/7! You've been slinging shit at Trump for months now trying desperately to get something...anything...to stick and you've got nada...zilch...nothing!

I'll do you one better...I'll give you 11.

Here are the 11 instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump outlined in the Mueller report

"Potential obstruction"? Here's a radical concept...why don't you list the ACTUAL obstructions of justice by Trump?

HELLO?

FOR THE THIRD TIME... MUELLER SAID HE WOULD NEVER INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT. Got it?

Mueller Tells Trump Team He Won’t Indict President: Giuliani

And the goal of the report was NEVER to indict Trump...only to gather information for others to deal with the situation...like Congress.

Mueller is a good 'cop'. And good cops don't decide innocence or guilt..they just collect evidence and present it to the necessary authorities...which is what Mueller did.

For the FOURTH time...MUELLER NEVER WAS GOING TO INDICT OR EVEN DETERMINE IF THERE WAS OBSTRUCTION...JUST COLLECT EVIDENCE.
But he was - like police do - state if he thought there was NO EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION. And he clearly stated that he could not do that.

So let me see how this works...

"Good cop" Bob Mueller does an extensive investigation into Donald Trump and comes up with no evidence of a crime taking place...but you think THAT means that the Congress should "deal with the situation"? How exactly? How does Congress go ahead with indictments when Mueller found no evidence of criminal acts? Wouldn't Mueller have SAID he found evidence of criminal acts but it wasn't in his power to indict a sitting President and therefore the Congress should act?

What the hell are you asking me this for? That's up to Congress to decide.

Again...'Special counsel Robert Mueller explicitly stated in his Russia investigation report that he and his team had not cleared President Donald Trump of accusations of obstruction of justice.

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state," the report read. "However, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."'

Apparently you do not understand this.

Why...I do not know. It is crystal clear....Mueller would have said 'Trump is innocent' if they found that he was. They could not say that.

The conclusion is STAGGERINGLY obvious. Mueller found evidence that Trump obstructed justice. But he is leaving it up to others to determine if that evidence is sufficient to bring charges.


The details are SIMPLE to understand and have been laid out before you. But you just don't seem to want to see them.

I try not to waste my time on people whose minds appear to be closed on an issue. So we are done on this (for now).


Good day.