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

[peach174]

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.

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.

Yes, he did, but you guys refuse to read his report, especially the parts about 10 obstructions of justice charges.

I did and the report said the same thing as Muller said today.
There was insufficient evidence to convict Trump of obstruction.
That means a very weak case that would not win in court.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

.

Yet the man has recently stated

Robert Mueller, in first public remarks, says charging Trump was 'not an option we because of Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president

wow someone is lying

Actually those specific words never passed his lips, it was all insinuation and innuendo. He essentially placed the burden on Trump to prove himself innocent. How do you prove a negative?

.

 

[Kilroy2]

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

Then it's up to Congress whether they want to risk losing the next presidential election and possibly leadership of the house to impeach Trump.

The two things Democrats have to consider: Is it worth risking everything over an impeachment that will go nowhere? What will the retaliation of the next Republican Congress be against a sitting Democrat President in the future?

Remember: one and a half years is a long time when you have an aging Supreme Court. Five and a half years is an eternity.

No guts no glory

Doing the right thing is not always doing the popular thing

Trump is a negative campaigner as well documented from the last election so it will get down and dirty

and the wind does blows in one direction and then blows in another direction

If the demo's fight the good fight then there will always be another day
and the same goes for the repub's

Democracy says there can only be one

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

Yes, he did, but you guys refuse to read his report, especially the parts about 10 obstructions of justice charges.

I did and the report said the same thing as Muller said today.
There was insufficient evidence to convict Trump of obstruction.
That means a very weak case that would not win in court.

Except court is not the issue here, Congress is.

The Democrats will not impeach Trump given our economy and his approval ratings. The public would not support it. They NEEDED Mueller to come out and claim Trump's guilt of something in order to change the minds of the voters. That didn't happen.

Mueller gave them some toys to play with which they will do right up to the next election. As I stated earlier, the only way Democrats would bring up impeachment just before the election if is polls show they have nearly no possibility of winning the White House. Only then will they have no other option.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yet trump blocks and resists all efforts to get the information to make such a decision as impeachment

I wonder why he resisting

McGahn told Mueller that he refused Trump's 2017 directive to have the special counsel fired

Trump fired off a series of tweets denying the event.

yet he also claims executive privileged meaning McGahn should testify to what he says happen and Trump can present his side of the argument with no strings attached

is it because he is innocent

or because he is guilty

The latter is why you use obstruction and it is know what McGahn will say
based on what he told Mueller that is repeated in the report

To claim executive privileged when the person is going to incriminate you is obstruction

If Trump has nothing to hide or be embarrassed about he would release his tax returns just to shut people up but he doesn't and people still talk

Since 1976 all major party nominees have released their returns except for Gerald Ford who eventually lost

otherwise you would just keep your mouth shut and don't even discuss it but Trump seems to can't keep his mouth shut

If the US is a democracy for the people then the people have a right to know that he has released his tax returns as he is the leader of a democracy

Its not saying that most will care about it but if their is embarrassing stuff then it will be aired

They say freedom isn't free, sacrifices are made yet Trump does not want to sacrifice nothing

A president exercising his Article 2 powers can't be criminal, and he has the power to fire anyone within the executive branch. BTW your double negatives are really cute.

.

 

[keepitreal]

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!

Nope...no spin zone here

I prefer to wipe it clean, like, with a cloth

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

Dumbed down is your forte', the foundation of your posts.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Then it's up to Congress whether they want to risk losing the next presidential election and possibly leadership of the house to impeach Trump.

The two things Democrats have to consider: Is it worth risking everything over an impeachment that will go nowhere? What will the retaliation of the next Republican Congress be against a sitting Democrat President in the future?

Remember: one and a half years is a long time when you have an aging Supreme Court. Five and a half years is an eternity.

No guts no glory

Doing the right thing is not always doing the popular thing

Trump is a negative campaigner as well documented from the last election so it will get down and dirty

Democracy says there can only be one

I'm sorry my friend, but this is how politics works. It is a popularity contest if you wish to remain in power.

Look at it this way: An investigation was started with zero evidence of wrongdoing. The investigation was not limited to any specific crime. It was given broad powers to investigate anything and everything. Over two years later and millions spent, the supposed original crime of Russian collusion was not found.

So now the Democrats want to impeach Trump on some stupid process crime of a charge that is ambiguous. Obstructing an investigation that was never supposed to happen in the first place.

This is the only way any informed voter can look at this.

 

[peach174]

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!

It's going to be interesting to see, if there has been FISA court abuse.

 

[Kilroy2]

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.

.

Yet the man has recently stated

Robert Mueller, in first public remarks, says charging Trump was 'not an option we because of Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president

wow someone is lying

Actually those specific words never passed his lips, it was all insinuation and innuendo. He essentially placed the burden on Trump to prove himself innocent. How do you prove a negative?

.

How do you prove a negative ?

well if the negative is wrong then it is easy to overcome

ie - the Sun revolves around the Earth now we know that it is the opposite

ie - if I owe 20 bucks and I earn 30 bucks now it is all good in a positive way

The only way is using the justice system in place.

Now people will always have their opinions

but once the system has played out and a decision of guilt or innocent was made, the only things that matter is the outcome

We will all have opinions on the positive outcome or negative outcome

Trump was doing the happy dance when no collusion was established so he clearly overcame the negative in that situation.

So we are still on the obstruction portion and a conclusion must be reached and as hard as he tries to do that happy dance, there are those who say

whoa, save that dance till the end

 

[OKTexas]

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.

.

Yet the man has recently stated

Robert Mueller, in first public remarks, says charging Trump was 'not an option we because of Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president

wow someone is lying

Actually those specific words never passed his lips, it was all insinuation and innuendo. He essentially placed the burden on Trump to prove himself innocent. How do you prove a negative?

.

How do you prove a negative ?

well if the negative is wrong then it is easy to overcome

ie - the Sun revolves around the Earth now we know that it is the opposite

ie - if I owe 20 bucks and I earn 30 bucks now it is all good in a positive way

The only way is using the justice system in place.

Now people will always have their opinions

but once the system has played out and a decision of guilt or innocent was made, the only things that matter is the outcome

We will all have opinions on the positive outcome or negative outcome

Trump was doing the happy dance when no collusion was established so he clearly overcame the negative in that situation.

So we are still on the obstruction portion and a conclusion must be reached and as hard as he tries to do that happy dance, there are those who say

whoa, save that dance till the end

So when did you stop beating your wife?

.

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Mueller ran and hid like a scalded dog!!

He now knows he will be charged with high treason


Mueller the coward would not take any questions because that would prove he is guilty of high treason

Barr must take his passport quickly while he investigates the unequal and hypocritical justice from
Mueller

 

[skye]

this traitor Mueller belongs with those two


Traitors will have to pay!

 

[skye]

and .....

 

[ThisIsMe]

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!

IMPEACH HIM NOW, DEMOCRATS!!! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING ON? THAT STATEMENT ALONE IS ENOUGH!!!

You know why. They dont want impeachment, they want to try and cast enough doubt to sway voters.

This will likely continue well into next year. I'm with you, however. If they have the smoking gun, then seek justice and impeach him.

I dont suspect this is about justice though. This is likely purely partisan.

I'm curious though, let's say they actually managed to get trump removed. How long do you think it would take before rumors started to surface about pence? I say about a week. As soon as Pence took office, there would likely be stories mysteriously found about him and the media would be running then non stop.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

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.

Mueller should be disbarred, he told AG Barr, not once but on three occasions, in front of witnesses, that the DOJ policy that a sitting president couldn't be indicted had nothing to do with his non-decision. Then, in his report and now on TV he insinuated that wasn't the case. That flies in the face of 240 years of American jurisprudence. It is unethical for a prosecutor to insinuate someone is guilty of something without actually charging them. Barr looked at all the arguments the special counsels office made and said they were full of shit, the hand of Weissman was very evident in the report. End of case, end of story.

.

/thread

 

[Hale]

Mueller:
"The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation, and we conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work, and as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

It's simply "game over", there's no other way a sane person can interpret this. This is not a "blueprint for impeachment", this is the dying gasps of an investigator desperate to avoid prosecution for treason.

 

[Kilroy2]

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

Then it's up to Congress whether they want to risk losing the next presidential election and possibly leadership of the house to impeach Trump.

The two things Democrats have to consider: Is it worth risking everything over an impeachment that will go nowhere? What will the retaliation of the next Republican Congress be against a sitting Democrat President in the future?

Remember: one and a half years is a long time when you have an aging Supreme Court. Five and a half years is an eternity.

No guts no glory

Doing the right thing is not always doing the popular thing

Trump is a negative campaigner as well documented from the last election so it will get down and dirty

Democracy says there can only be one

I'm sorry my friend, but this is how politics works. It is a popularity contest if you wish to remain in power.

Look at it this way: An investigation was started with zero evidence of wrongdoing. The investigation was not limited to any specific crime. It was given broad powers to investigate anything and everything. Over two years later and millions spent, the supposed original crime of Russian collusion was not found.

So now the Democrats want to impeach Trump on some stupid process crime of a charge that is ambiguous. Obstructing an investigation that was never supposed to happen in the first place.

This is the only way any informed voter can look at this.

well in the context that you just explain how did the Clinton affair relate to the Trump affair except for obvious differences in one was about sex and the other about contacts, it was pretty much the same

The investigation was started on Trump campaign officials meeting with Russians of which they have plead guilty and Collusion is suspected

Sixteen Trump campaign officials are known to have had direct contact with a Russian government official or a Russian-linked operative, and at least an additional nine campaign officials were aware of these contacts during his campaign

Cohen was having contact in 2016

2016 George P is meeting with Russians to set up met and greet then lies about it as a Trump campaign official

2016 Manfort is sharing polling data with a Russian operative

2016 Sessions and Kurshner are meeting with Russian and Session lies about it
Trump has always wanted to meet Putin beginning in his days when the Miss Universe pageant was in Russia. Putin didn't want to meet him

When he became president then Putin wants to meet him

So with the meeting and lies it appears there warrant further investigation and when you put that with the Russian interference with the US election which clearly supported Trump then who would not investigate this. The Russian interference is well documented during the campaign

Putin even said I wanted Trump to win and as the leader for live in Russia why would anyone believe that he did NOT give the okay for Russian interference

In the end, Trump was cleared of collusion by Mueller

I still feel that there was collusion but the decision was made by people who have more info than I.

 

[JusticeHammer]

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!

I listened to the whole speech. Right after that he said there was no evidence of a crime. You idiots are pathetic.

 

[deanrd]

It’s actually laid out quite nicely in this video