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.
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.Mueller is too much of a gentleman to call Barr a lying asshole.
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.What ten instances were those, specifically?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
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.
Yes, he did, but you guys refuse to read his report, especially the parts about 10 obstructions of justice charges.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!
Amen! Mueller has once again proven that Barr is a treasonous liar. Not only did Barr spin Mueller's report - he flat out lied about it. Barr should be IMPEACHED for violating his oath of office and lying to the American people.
What did he lie about? Did Mueller present any evidence of a crime being committed by the President?
Nope, he didn’t.
No charges to looney liberals only means guilt.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.
No charges to looney liberals only means guilt.
No charges.
You nailed it with a tenpenny nail, Mr. MudwhistleHeck....impeaching the president will be a gift.Yes and no.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?
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.
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.
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?
You nailed it with a tenpenny nail, Mr. MudwhistleHeck....impeaching the president will be a gift.Yes and no.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?
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.
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.
That's what Democrats thought until Trump beat Hillary in spite of the leftist lockstep Press telling America that Hillary was ahead in every state. They were hoping to tip Middle America into voting for Hillary. It failed. And here's how bad, county by county:
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?
Of course he was after Trump. How does one do an investigation into Russian collusion and not look at the opponent?
Hillary Clinton laundered money to Steele. Steele got some of the information contained in the dossier he sold Hilary from the Russian government. The DNC was also responsible for some of the funding.
Where does it say that he has to present it as an indictment
what does stating that he was not going to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment mean
what does having no confidence that there was no obstruction mean
put the two together should make his intent clear and the meaning that he was going for indisputable but this is where I thing Mueller made a mistake
You can't please all the people all he time
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!
Well summed up.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!
And the first sentence ends the notion of exoneration...though Trump will still claim it clears him - but he is a complete manchild...never to be taken seriously.
BTW - Linda Carter was a REAL ‘WOW’ looking lady. Sheesh.
Yet trump blocks and resists all efforts to get the information to make such a decision as impeachmentMost 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.
Where does it say that he has to present it as an indictment
what does stating that he was not going to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment mean
what does having no confidence that there was no obstruction mean
put the two together should make his intent clear and the meaning that he was going for indisputable but this is where I thing Mueller made a mistake
You can't please all the people all he time
There doesn't have to be an indictment. If Muller found obstruction, he could have put that in his report. He could have stated while he found no collusion between the Trump administration and Russia, he did find obstruction on behalf of the President. Simple as that.
But Mueller could not make that statement because obstruction is in the eyes of the beholder. Obstruction is fragile and subjective. In other words, there was no definitive obstruction, only the possibility of obstruction depending on ones opinion. And the only opinion that counts in this matter is Barr's.
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.
The reading of the report for interpretation by you or me is irrelevant What is relevant is that the researcher and author of the report did not make charges. Was not his task to exhonerate. When your boy Muller chickened out, his boss picked up Muellers slack and you lib loons don’t get to castigate Barr over Muellers failingsI am proud to be ignorant if the emotional forces which drive me to act like a brat in a sandbox like you.10 instances where they can’t find that Trump did anything but he is “covering up” by failing to prove that he did notWhat ten instances were those, specifically?He did. He outlined ten instances.
You're proud to be ignorant. Nice.
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.
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?
Where does it say that he has to present it as an indictment
what does stating that he was not going to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment mean
what does having no confidence that there was no obstruction mean
put the two together should make his intent clear and the meaning that he was going for indisputable but this is where I thing Mueller made a mistake
You can't please all the people all he time
There doesn't have to be an indictment. If Muller found obstruction, he could have put that in his report. He could have stated while he found no collusion between the Trump administration and Russia, he did find obstruction on behalf of the President. Simple as that.
But Mueller could not make that statement because obstruction is in the eyes of the beholder. Obstruction is fragile and subjective. In other words, there was no definitive obstruction, only the possibility of obstruction depending on ones opinion. And the only opinion that counts in this matter is Barr's.
good argument until the last line when the only opinion that counts is Barr's
Barr was recently appointed by Trump after clearly stating his opinions in the matter.
The justice system is based on being judged by a jury of your peers and in the case of a president by the Congress
A
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.
If he couldn't do anything they why investigate to begin with? But he told Barr three times, in front of witnesses the DOJ policy had nothing to do with his non-decision. Of course facts seem to elude you commies.
.
