Mueller : Trump is guilty of obstruction. Congress should handle it. Don't bother me again.

[Hutch Starskey]

As stated time and time and time again. Mueller was never going to indict the president, he was prohibited per DOJ policy of doing just that.

What he could have done is list out possible indictments, explicitly, that Congress could use for Impeachment.

He didn't even do that.

He did. He outlined ten instances.

What ten instances were those, specifically?

What ten instances were those, specifically

Tsk..Tsk....someone didn't read the report.

View attachment 263046

Again.....if there were no obstructive acts.....there was no obstruction..
Hillary obstructed justice, destroyed evidence, was never put under oath for some strange reason....and she never faced charges......yet Trump never destroyed evidence or prevented anyone from investigating him.

I guess you must think that we have two legal systems in this country. One for us and another for you and Democrats.

What does this have to do with what I posted?
The red is evidence of obstructive acts.

 

[skookerasbil]

Why obstruction and cover-up charges smack of desperation

Let's not forget s0ns......Bill Barr bringin' the bumpy real soon!

It's called the level the playing field play

The politically astute will recognize the timing of this today.....alot of DUMS in DC pooping their shorts!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Conversely, if there is no confidence to charge a crime, tough titty. The burden of proof is on you.

As stated time and time and time again. Mueller was never going to indict the president, he was prohibited per DOJ policy of doing just that.

What he could have done is list out possible indictments, explicitly, that Congress could use for Impeachment.

He didn't even do that.

He did. He outlined ten instances.

He made sort of kind of references to things that maybe could be construed as might be close to near to obstruction.

No. He described the elements necessary for obstruction and then showed which elements each of the ten instances of obstruction met. There were at least four that met all of the elements necessary to charge.

View attachment 263045

 

[Votto]

Most important thing said: MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

But, the GOP are going to continue to spin, spin, spin!

To continually insist that Trump is guilty while the Dims sit on their hands not impeaching him is embarrassing to say the least.

Dolts.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As stated time and time and time again. Mueller was never going to indict the president, he was prohibited per DOJ policy of doing just that.

What he could have done is list out possible indictments, explicitly, that Congress could use for Impeachment.

He didn't even do that.

He listed specific instances where the president attempted to obstruct justice in the report

indictments was a waste of time as per DOJ regulations that as a sitting president Mueller lacks the ability to indict Trump

Thus it is quite obvious that the report was meant for Congress who has the only means of holding a sitting president accountable

It would be a circus if the President had to go through a regular trial in the judicial system especially with appeals and delays and whatnot. How would you get jurists. Ask them if they are repubs or demos. Sounds like a hung jury.

Also Mueller could not even get trump to give statements in the normal way. I mean submit questions to the defendant and wait for the response. The response by Trump in most questions was "no recollection"

just as Clinton was never indicted for lying in the judicial system , but instead the senate did the trial as the house who has the sole power to impeach recommended impeachment but the Senate (the court) found him not guilty

Mueller had no way to indict him per DOJ regulations, he could only hand over the material that can be used in the impeachment process

As Trump would suggest this is not a do over, this is a continuation of the process

It may have ended if Mueller had exonerated him in the obstruction of justice matter

Congress still has it say

He could have presented the report as an indictment. He didn't.

He could have served congress a sliver platter if he actually thought he had a case.

he didn't.

Conversely, if there is no confidence to charge a crime, tough titty. The burden of proof is on you.

Think so?

'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'​

--- did they say so?

It's not what they said. It's what they wrote. Democrats wanted to know if Trump colluded with the Russians. Mueller wrote that there was no evidence of collusion. That's what he said his findings were.

President Trump did not do what the Democrats claimed he did in a dossier that has been proven to be all lies. This was political sophistry taken to the maximum level that the Democrats can mouth off and start a ground war that results in dissolution of the United States, which works in favor of the Democrat Socialist Communist Party.

It's not what they said. It's what they wrote. Democrats wanted to know if Trump colluded with the Russians. Mueller wrote that there was no evidence of collusion. That's what he said his findings were.

That's not what he concluded at all.
He said there was not sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to prosecute.

That certainly does not mean " no evidence of collusion".

What was stated was the vague "if he wasn't president it would be obstruction" which could mean either he is protected by being president, or he can't obstruct what he is accused of obstructing because he is president.

I fail to see how acting dopey serves you.

Is English your native language?

 

[Jitss617]

Mueller had the option to charge and pass to the DOJ.. he’s obviously not a smart man

 

[martybegan]

What he could have done is list out possible indictments, explicitly, that Congress could use for Impeachment.

He didn't even do that.

He listed specific instances where the president attempted to obstruct justice in the report

indictments was a waste of time as per DOJ regulations that as a sitting president Mueller lacks the ability to indict Trump

Thus it is quite obvious that the report was meant for Congress who has the only means of holding a sitting president accountable

It would be a circus if the President had to go through a regular trial in the judicial system especially with appeals and delays and whatnot. How would you get jurists. Ask them if they are repubs or demos. Sounds like a hung jury.

Also Mueller could not even get trump to give statements in the normal way. I mean submit questions to the defendant and wait for the response. The response by Trump in most questions was "no recollection"

just as Clinton was never indicted for lying in the judicial system , but instead the senate did the trial as the house who has the sole power to impeach recommended impeachment but the Senate (the court) found him not guilty

Mueller had no way to indict him per DOJ regulations, he could only hand over the material that can be used in the impeachment process

As Trump would suggest this is not a do over, this is a continuation of the process

It may have ended if Mueller had exonerated him in the obstruction of justice matter

Congress still has it say

He could have presented the report as an indictment. He didn't.

He could have served congress a sliver platter if he actually thought he had a case.

he didn't.

Conversely, if there is no confidence to charge a crime, tough titty. The burden of proof is on you.

Think so?

'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'​

--- did they say so?

It's not what they said. It's what they wrote. Democrats wanted to know if Trump colluded with the Russians. Mueller wrote that there was no evidence of collusion. That's what he said his findings were.

President Trump did not do what the Democrats claimed he did in a dossier that has been proven to be all lies. This was political sophistry taken to the maximum level that the Democrats can mouth off and start a ground war that results in dissolution of the United States, which works in favor of the Democrat Socialist Communist Party.

It's not what they said. It's what they wrote. Democrats wanted to know if Trump colluded with the Russians. Mueller wrote that there was no evidence of collusion. That's what he said his findings were.

That's not what he concluded at all.
He said there was not sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to prosecute.

That certainly does not mean " no evidence of collusion".

What was stated was the vague "if he wasn't president it would be obstruction" which could mean either he is protected by being president, or he can't obstruct what he is accused of obstructing because he is president.

I fail to see how the acting dopey serves you.

Is English your native language?

You ignore the reality of the situation in a pathetic attempt to keep some shred of the lies constructed in your quixotic attempt to get rid of Trump by whatever means nessasary.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As stated time and time and time again. Mueller was never going to indict the president, he was prohibited per DOJ policy of doing just that.

What he could have done is list out possible indictments, explicitly, that Congress could use for Impeachment.

He didn't even do that.

He did. He outlined ten instances.

He made sort of kind of references to things that maybe could be construed as might be close to near to obstruction.

No. He described the elements necessary for obstruction and then showed which elements each of the ten instances of obstruction met. There were at least four that met all of the elements necessary to charge.

View attachment 263045

Too much at once? Sorry. Sometimes I forget to dumb it down. Do you have questions?

 

[mudwhistle]

What he could have done is list out possible indictments, explicitly, that Congress could use for Impeachment.

He didn't even do that.

He did. He outlined ten instances.

What ten instances were those, specifically?

What ten instances were those, specifically

Tsk..Tsk....someone didn't read the report.

View attachment 263046

Again.....if there were no obstructive acts.....there was no obstruction..
Hillary obstructed justice, destroyed evidence, was never put under oath for some strange reason....and she never faced charges......yet Trump never destroyed evidence or prevented anyone from investigating him.

I guess you must think that we have two legal systems in this country. One for us and another for you and Democrats.

What does this have to do with what I posted?
The red is evidence of obstructive acts.

Bullshit.
It's not evidence.
It's not even circumstantial evidence.
It's hearsay.

 

[WEATHER53]

As stated time and time and time again. Mueller was never going to indict the president, he was prohibited per DOJ policy of doing just that.

What he could have done is list out possible indictments, explicitly, that Congress could use for Impeachment.

He didn't even do that.

He did. He outlined ten instances.

What ten instances were those, specifically?

10 instances where they can’t find that Trump did anything but he is “covering up” by failing to prove that he did not

You're proud to be ignorant. Nice.

I am proud to be ignorant if the emotional forces which drive me to act like a brat in a sandbox like you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He listed specific instances where the president attempted to obstruct justice in the report

indictments was a waste of time as per DOJ regulations that as a sitting president Mueller lacks the ability to indict Trump

Thus it is quite obvious that the report was meant for Congress who has the only means of holding a sitting president accountable

It would be a circus if the President had to go through a regular trial in the judicial system especially with appeals and delays and whatnot. How would you get jurists. Ask them if they are repubs or demos. Sounds like a hung jury.

Also Mueller could not even get trump to give statements in the normal way. I mean submit questions to the defendant and wait for the response. The response by Trump in most questions was "no recollection"

just as Clinton was never indicted for lying in the judicial system , but instead the senate did the trial as the house who has the sole power to impeach recommended impeachment but the Senate (the court) found him not guilty

Mueller had no way to indict him per DOJ regulations, he could only hand over the material that can be used in the impeachment process

As Trump would suggest this is not a do over, this is a continuation of the process

It may have ended if Mueller had exonerated him in the obstruction of justice matter

Congress still has it say

He could have presented the report as an indictment. He didn't.

He could have served congress a sliver platter if he actually thought he had a case.

he didn't.

Think so?

'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'​

--- did they say so?

It's not what they said. It's what they wrote. Democrats wanted to know if Trump colluded with the Russians. Mueller wrote that there was no evidence of collusion. That's what he said his findings were.

President Trump did not do what the Democrats claimed he did in a dossier that has been proven to be all lies. This was political sophistry taken to the maximum level that the Democrats can mouth off and start a ground war that results in dissolution of the United States, which works in favor of the Democrat Socialist Communist Party.

It's not what they said. It's what they wrote. Democrats wanted to know if Trump colluded with the Russians. Mueller wrote that there was no evidence of collusion. That's what he said his findings were.

That's not what he concluded at all.
He said there was not sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to prosecute.

That certainly does not mean " no evidence of collusion".

What was stated was the vague "if he wasn't president it would be obstruction" which could mean either he is protected by being president, or he can't obstruct what he is accused of obstructing because he is president.

I fail to see how the acting dopey serves you.

Is English your native language?

You ignore the reality of the situation in a pathetic attempt to keep some shred of the lies constructed in your quixotic attempt to get rid of Trump by whatever means nessasary.

So far you seem to be well behind the understanding curve but by all means.
Enlighten us to the true reality, professor.

 

[mudwhistle]

What he could have done is list out possible indictments, explicitly, that Congress could use for Impeachment.

He didn't even do that.

He did. He outlined ten instances.

He made sort of kind of references to things that maybe could be construed as might be close to near to obstruction.

No. He described the elements necessary for obstruction and then showed which elements each of the ten instances of obstruction met. There were at least four that met all of the elements necessary to charge.

View attachment 263045

Too much at once? Sorry. Sometimes I forget to dumb it down. Do you have questions?

No charges to looney liberals only means guilt.
No charges.

 

[martybegan]

He could have presented the report as an indictment. He didn't.

He could have served congress a sliver platter if he actually thought he had a case.

he didn't.

It's not what they said. It's what they wrote. Democrats wanted to know if Trump colluded with the Russians. Mueller wrote that there was no evidence of collusion. That's what he said his findings were.

President Trump did not do what the Democrats claimed he did in a dossier that has been proven to be all lies. This was political sophistry taken to the maximum level that the Democrats can mouth off and start a ground war that results in dissolution of the United States, which works in favor of the Democrat Socialist Communist Party.

It's not what they said. It's what they wrote. Democrats wanted to know if Trump colluded with the Russians. Mueller wrote that there was no evidence of collusion. That's what he said his findings were.

That's not what he concluded at all.
He said there was not sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to prosecute.

That certainly does not mean " no evidence of collusion".

What was stated was the vague "if he wasn't president it would be obstruction" which could mean either he is protected by being president, or he can't obstruct what he is accused of obstructing because he is president.

I fail to see how the acting dopey serves you.

Is English your native language?

You ignore the reality of the situation in a pathetic attempt to keep some shred of the lies constructed in your quixotic attempt to get rid of Trump by whatever means nessasary.

So far you seem to be well behind the understanding curve but by all means.
Enlighten us to the true reality, professor.

I did. That you can't fathom it because of your TDS is your problem, not mine.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What he could have done is list out possible indictments, explicitly, that Congress could use for Impeachment.

He didn't even do that.

He did. He outlined ten instances.

What ten instances were those, specifically?

10 instances where they can’t find that Trump did anything but he is “covering up” by failing to prove that he did not

You're proud to be ignorant. Nice.

I am proud to be ignorant if the emotional forces which drive me to act like a brat in a sandbox like you.

Brat? Oh.... You mean you are agitated due to your inability to keep up.

Try reading the report. Maybe you won't need to ask so many dopey questions.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That's not what he concluded at all.
He said there was not sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to prosecute.

That certainly does not mean " no evidence of collusion".

What was stated was the vague "if he wasn't president it would be obstruction" which could mean either he is protected by being president, or he can't obstruct what he is accused of obstructing because he is president.

I fail to see how the acting dopey serves you.

Is English your native language?

You ignore the reality of the situation in a pathetic attempt to keep some shred of the lies constructed in your quixotic attempt to get rid of Trump by whatever means nessasary.

So far you seem to be well behind the understanding curve but by all means.
Enlighten us to the true reality, professor.

I did. That you can't fathom it because of your TDS is your problem, not mine.

Wow...that was a genuine effort from you?

 

[martybegan]

What was stated was the vague "if he wasn't president it would be obstruction" which could mean either he is protected by being president, or he can't obstruct what he is accused of obstructing because he is president.

I fail to see how the acting dopey serves you.

Is English your native language?

You ignore the reality of the situation in a pathetic attempt to keep some shred of the lies constructed in your quixotic attempt to get rid of Trump by whatever means nessasary.

So far you seem to be well behind the understanding curve but by all means.
Enlighten us to the true reality, professor.

I did. That you can't fathom it because of your TDS is your problem, not mine.

Wow...that was a genuine effort from you?

I already made the effort. You are not worth repeating said effort.

Now try to make another "point" or continue to get ridiculed.

I can keep this up for FUCKING EVER.

 

[beautress]

Mueller is too much of a gentleman to call Barr a lying asshole.

Mueller's passive-aggressive words called out volumes, dear, to the fact that this was a witch-hunt and he himself was chief wizard, and I mean that in a dictionary way.

Conversely, if there is no confidence to charge a crime, tough titty. The burden of proof is on you.

As stated time and time and time again. Mueller was never going to indict the president, he was prohibited per DOJ policy of doing just that.

What he could have done is list out possible indictments, explicitly, that Congress could use for Impeachment.

He didn't even do that.

He did. He outlined ten instances.

What ten instances were those, specifically?

What ten instances were those, specifically

Tsk..Tsk....someone didn't read the report.

View attachment 263046

Unfortunately, bullshit on a report does not measure up to my standards that a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. The little red blocks you are cheering are so holey they could save a liar cop's ass.

 

[mudwhistle]

So confident he didnt want to do it under oath......LLMMAAOOOO

You guys need to make up your minds. Was Mueller after Trump or did he exonerate him?

Yes and no.
The absence of evidence isn't an exoneration to Mueller, because he wasn't selected to exonerate Trump.

You don't seem to be able to be logical about this.
Mueller was after Trump.....and because of that he chose not to exonerate him.
Again......a prosecutor's job is to prove his case.....not prove innocence.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.....and because proof wasn't found (nor existed) the case is closed.

Plus none of this stops congress, in particular the House of Representatives from starting impeachment hearings, using the Muller Report, and starting their own, Constitutionally mandated process.

Heck....impeaching the president will be a gift.
They just want to act like they're going to do it till after the election.
They think their base is so stupid that they'll buy anything.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

He did. He outlined ten instances.

What ten instances were those, specifically?

What ten instances were those, specifically

Tsk..Tsk....someone didn't read the report.

View attachment 263046

Again.....if there were no obstructive acts.....there was no obstruction..
Hillary obstructed justice, destroyed evidence, was never put under oath for some strange reason....and she never faced charges......yet Trump never destroyed evidence or prevented anyone from investigating him.

I guess you must think that we have two legal systems in this country. One for us and another for you and Democrats.

What does this have to do with what I posted?
The red is evidence of obstructive acts.

Bullshit.
It's not evidence.
It's not even circumstantial evidence.
It's hearsay.

It's a graphic of what's in the report. You should try reading it someday since you like to talk about it so much.

 

[martybegan]

So confident he didnt want to do it under oath......LLMMAAOOOO

You guys need to make up your minds. Was Mueller after Trump or did he exonerate him?

Yes and no.
The absence of evidence isn't an exoneration to Mueller, because he wasn't selected to exonerate Trump.

You don't seem to be able to be logical about this.
Mueller was after Trump.....and because of that he chose not to exonerate him.
Again......a prosecutor's job is to prove his case.....not prove innocence.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.....and because proof wasn't found (nor existed) the case is closed.

Plus none of this stops congress, in particular the House of Representatives from starting impeachment hearings, using the Muller Report, and starting their own, Constitutionally mandated process.

Heck....impeaching the president will be a gift.
They just want to act like they're going to do it till after the election.
They think their base is so stupid that they'll buy anything.

Dangerous game. The less the move towards Impeachment, the more likely the base votes for a Presidential Candidate who guarantees prosecution of Trump after they win, which would be a kiss of death to the voters they lost last election.