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

[forkup]

His assignment had zero to do with "opining". He was there to find facts, not "opine".

He was there to do both. It's really simple. If his "facts" made Trump guilty of something, then he should have said they did. If they didn't, then he should have said they didn't.

Again, that wasn't his assignment either. I understand he also didn't check the weather report for Auckland for last October 12th for the same reason.

And I don't know, or care, who was on his staff. I'm sure it was investigators. And no, I'm not willing to plug in comic book fantasies to what is a simple (and boring) mundane operation. I prefer to dabble in Reality.

Apparently you don't, because his legal team were mostly anti-trumpers. A few were A-political, but not one conservative.

Now you're going to try and pass off that an investigation into Russian collusion had nothing to do with a dossier that was supposed to be about Russian collusion?

He was there to do both. It's really simple. If his "facts" made Trump guilty of something, then he should have said they did. If they didn't, then he should have said they didn't.

Actually, that's the point Mueller made in the report. Because he followed the DOJ's guidelines he couldn't charge the president with a crime. He could only conclude, not guilty (as he did in the conspiracy part of the investigation in regards to Trump). Or not, not guilty (as he did in the obstruction of justice part). That means he is prohibited from saying that Trump is guilty, plain and simple.

 

[mudwhistle]

His assignment had zero to do with "opining". He was there to find facts, not "opine".

He was there to do both. It's really simple. If his "facts" made Trump guilty of something, then he should have said they did. If they didn't, then he should have said they didn't.

Again, that wasn't his assignment either. I understand he also didn't check the weather report for Auckland for last October 12th for the same reason.

And I don't know, or care, who was on his staff. I'm sure it was investigators. And no, I'm not willing to plug in comic book fantasies to what is a simple (and boring) mundane operation. I prefer to dabble in Reality.

Apparently you don't, because his legal team were mostly anti-trumpers. A few were A-political, but not one conservative.

Now you're going to try and pass off that an investigation into Russian collusion had nothing to do with a dossier that was supposed to be about Russian collusion?

He was there to do both. It's really simple. If his "facts" made Trump guilty of something, then he should have said they did. If they didn't, then he should have said they didn't.

Actually, that's the point Mueller made in the report. Because he followed the DOJ's guidelines he couldn't charge the president with a crime. He could only conclude, not guilty (as he did in the conspiracy part of the investigation in regards to Trump). Or not, not guilty (as he did in the obstruction of justice part). That means he is prohibited from saying that Trump is guilty, plain and simple.

Horse shit.
The law doesn't prevent him from making a decision on guilt or innocence. If that were the case why in the fuck would they start the probe in the first place?
Nope.....this is just another scam by you fuckers on the left.
If he found any evidence pointing to guilt he should have said so.
Wanna know why he didn't?
Because none exists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So where are the charges and indictments?

Of the president of the united states?

Um...have you not been following? Are you joking?

 

[forkup]

His assignment had zero to do with "opining". He was there to find facts, not "opine".

He was there to do both. It's really simple. If his "facts" made Trump guilty of something, then he should have said they did. If they didn't, then he should have said they didn't.

Again, that wasn't his assignment either. I understand he also didn't check the weather report for Auckland for last October 12th for the same reason.

And I don't know, or care, who was on his staff. I'm sure it was investigators. And no, I'm not willing to plug in comic book fantasies to what is a simple (and boring) mundane operation. I prefer to dabble in Reality.

Apparently you don't, because his legal team were mostly anti-trumpers. A few were A-political, but not one conservative.

Now you're going to try and pass off that an investigation into Russian collusion had nothing to do with a dossier that was supposed to be about Russian collusion?

He was there to do both. It's really simple. If his "facts" made Trump guilty of something, then he should have said they did. If they didn't, then he should have said they didn't.

Actually, that's the point Mueller made in the report. Because he followed the DOJ's guidelines he couldn't charge the president with a crime. He could only conclude, not guilty (as he did in the conspiracy part of the investigation in regards to Trump). Or not, not guilty (as he did in the obstruction of justice part). That means he is prohibited from saying that Trump is guilty, plain and simple.

Horse shit.
The law doesn't prevent him from making a decision on guilt or innocence. If that were the case why in the fuck would they start the probe in the first place?
Nope.....this is just another scam by you fuckers on the left.
If he found any evidence pointing to guilt he should have said so.
Wanna know why he didn't?
Because none exists.

Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible. 3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf page 213,214

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The law doesn't prevent him from making a decision on guilt or innocence.

But longstanding policy did. So he left it to the AG and to the congress. As he said.

Come on people, this is not complicated stuff.

 

[forkup]

The law doesn't prevent him from making a decision on guilt or innocence.

But longstanding policy did. So he left it to the AG and to the congress. As he said.

Come on people, this is not complicated stuff.

No, it's not complicated, but if they recognize that, they have to admit that Trump committed a felony so they try to spin.

 

[mudwhistle]

The law doesn't prevent him from making a decision on guilt or innocence.

But longstanding policy did. So he left it to the AG and to the congress. As he said.

Come on people, this is not complicated stuff.

Sorry, but that's a coward's way out.
His job was to make a decision....not leave it to Congress or the media to decide guilt or innocence.

 

[Flopper]

Oh so all that is required is that a majority don’t like the person? So the articles of impeachment in essence can be or are baseless? Interesting.

Not quite but pretty close. The constitution says very little about impeachment. The House and Senate set the rules. The president can be charged with anything from treason to pissing on the White House lawn to failure to supervise his staff. If the House impeaches the president then it goes to trial in the Senate. The Senators are the jury who just happen to be the people that make up the rules for the trial. Those rules can include who is allowed to testify, length of testimony, etc. One of big difference in criminal trials and impeachment trials, is the jury get's set the rules for the trial.

An impeachment trial is more like a civil service removal herring than a criminal trial. If convicted there is no punishment, just removal from office. One of the main reasons we have an impeachment process was stated by Ben Franklin, "It helps prevent assassinations."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

His job was to make a decision

It absolutely was not, as he very clearly explained. He really couldn't have dumbed it down any further for you cultists. He did try to dumb it down.... Clearly he underestimated the ability of the trump cult to delude itself...

 

[Flopper]

The law doesn't prevent him from making a decision on guilt or innocence.

But longstanding policy did. So he left it to the AG and to the congress. As he said.

Come on people, this is not complicated stuff.

Sorry, but that's a coward's way out.
His job was to make a decision....not leave it to Congress or the media to decide guilt or innocence.

Mueller's decision was not guilt or innocence but rather whether charges would be made against Trump. Since he was not allowed by the regulations he worked under to charge the president, he did exactly the right thing. He left it to congress. As he said, it would be unfair for him to accuse the president without charging him and leave him no legal means of clearing himself.

Many of the accusations being made against the president come more under the category of bad conduct, conduct unbecoming a president, or actions that are borderline criminal behavior. These are the type charges that are more fitting impeachment than a criminal court.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The law doesn't prevent him from making a decision on guilt or innocence.

But longstanding policy did. So he left it to the AG and to the congress. As he said.

Come on people, this is not complicated stuff.

Sorry, but that's a coward's way out.
His job was to make a decision....not leave it to Congress or the media to decide guilt or innocence.

Mueller's decision was not guilt or innocence but rather whether charges would be made against Trump. Since he was not allowed by the regulations he worked under to charge the president, he did exactly the right thing. He left it to congress. As he said, it would be unfair for him to accuse the president without charging him and leave him no legal means of clearing himself.

Many of the accusations being made against the president come more under the category of bad conduct, conduct unbecoming a president, or actions that are borderline criminal behavior. These are the type charges that are more fitting impeachment than a criminal court.

Accusimg trump of a crime in the report would have been a formal accusation. Mueller explicitly said that a formal accusation against the president was not an option he could consider.

 

[Flopper]

Doesn't matter what it "would have" done. It wasn't in the directive. Simple as that.

It didn't have to be. Mueller could have opined on anything he desired. He didn't have any limitations in regards to his report. So he left it ambiguous on purpose. He wanted to make Trump look guilty without actually saying it.

I wouldn't know. I don't claim to speak for him. I guess you do but I wouldn't go there.

All indications point that way, don't they? Do you think it was pure coincidence most of his staff in this investigation were all Trump haters or Hillary lovers? Do you think it was an accident he never looked into the FISA warrant or Steele report?

Mueller himself is a republican and certainly didn't show any favoritism toward Trump. FBI agents, as most law enforcement, tend to be conservative, law-and-order types, so my guess is most would tend to be Republicans or conservative Democrats or just plain Independents.

 

[Clementine]

 

[Flopper]

His assignment had zero to do with "opining". He was there to find facts, not "opine".

He was there to do both. It's really simple. If his "facts" made Trump guilty of something, then he should have said they did. If they didn't, then he should have said they didn't.

Again, that wasn't his assignment either. I understand he also didn't check the weather report for Auckland for last October 12th for the same reason.

And I don't know, or care, who was on his staff. I'm sure it was investigators. And no, I'm not willing to plug in comic book fantasies to what is a simple (and boring) mundane operation. I prefer to dabble in Reality.

Apparently you don't, because his legal team were mostly anti-trumpers. A few were A-political, but not one conservative.

Now you're going to try and pass off that an investigation into Russian collusion had nothing to do with a dossier that was supposed to be about Russian collusion?

He was there to do both. It's really simple. If his "facts" made Trump guilty of something, then he should have said they did. If they didn't, then he should have said they didn't.

Actually, that's the point Mueller made in the report. Because he followed the DOJ's guidelines he couldn't charge the president with a crime. He could only conclude, not guilty (as he did in the conspiracy part of the investigation in regards to Trump). Or not, not guilty (as he did in the obstruction of justice part). That means he is prohibited from saying that Trump is guilty, plain and simple.

Horse shit.
The law doesn't prevent him from making a decision on guilt or innocence. If that were the case why in the fuck would they start the probe in the first place?
Nope.....this is just another scam by you fuckers on the left.
If he found any evidence pointing to guilt he should have said so.
Wanna know why he didn't?
Because none exists.

Rules of DOJ, did not allow him to charge the president regardless of evidence so he decided not to make accusations because it would be unfair to do so. As he said, "It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution..." His job was to determine if there was sufficient evidence to pursuit an indictment before the grand jury. It certainly was not to issue press statements about his opinion of guilt or innocence of the president.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

His assignment had zero to do with "opining". He was there to find facts, not "opine".

He was there to do both. It's really simple. If his "facts" made Trump guilty of something, then he should have said they did. If they didn't, then he should have said they didn't.

Again, that wasn't his assignment either. I understand he also didn't check the weather report for Auckland for last October 12th for the same reason.

And I don't know, or care, who was on his staff. I'm sure it was investigators. And no, I'm not willing to plug in comic book fantasies to what is a simple (and boring) mundane operation. I prefer to dabble in Reality.

Apparently you don't, because his legal team were mostly anti-trumpers. A few were A-political, but not one conservative.

Now you're going to try and pass off that an investigation into Russian collusion had nothing to do with a dossier that was supposed to be about Russian collusion?

He was there to do both. It's really simple. If his "facts" made Trump guilty of something, then he should have said they did. If they didn't, then he should have said they didn't.

Actually, that's the point Mueller made in the report. Because he followed the DOJ's guidelines he couldn't charge the president with a crime. He could only conclude, not guilty (as he did in the conspiracy part of the investigation in regards to Trump). Or not, not guilty (as he did in the obstruction of justice part). That means he is prohibited from saying that Trump is guilty, plain and simple.

Horse shit.
The law doesn't prevent him from making a decision on guilt or innocence. If that were the case why in the fuck would they start the probe in the first place?
Nope.....this is just another scam by you fuckers on the left.
If he found any evidence pointing to guilt he should have said so.
Wanna know why he didn't?
Because none exists.

Rules of DOJ, did not allow him to charge the president regardless of evidence so he decided not to make accusations because it would be unfair to do so. As he said, "It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution..." His job was to determine if there was sufficient evidence to pursuit an indictment before the grand jury. It certainly was not to issue press statements about his opinion of guilt or innocence of the president.

And there he was disingenuous once again. The jury is the Congress in this case.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Doesn't matter what it "would have" done. It wasn't in the directive. Simple as that.

It didn't have to be. Mueller could have opined on anything he desired. He didn't have any limitations in regards to his report. So he left it ambiguous on purpose. He wanted to make Trump look guilty without actually saying it.

I wouldn't know. I don't claim to speak for him. I guess you do but I wouldn't go there.

All indications point that way, don't they? Do you think it was pure coincidence most of his staff in this investigation were all Trump haters or Hillary lovers? Do you think it was an accident he never looked into the FISA warrant or Steele report?

Mueller himself is a republican and certainly didn't show any favoritism toward Trump. FBI agents, as most law enforcement, tend to be conservative, law-and-order types, so my guess is most would tend to be Republicans or conservative Democrats or just plain Independents.

You mean like Stroke-off and Paige?

Yes, Mueller hates Trump as other Republicans do. Just because he's a Republican doesn't mean shit; especially in this case. Yes, before Obama, the FBI was an on-the-level agency; that was until Ears weaponized them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The law doesn't prevent him from making a decision on guilt or innocence.

But longstanding policy did. So he left it to the AG and to the congress. As he said.

Come on people, this is not complicated stuff.

Sorry, but that's a coward's way out.
His job was to make a decision....not leave it to Congress or the media to decide guilt or innocence.

Mueller's decision was not guilt or innocence but rather whether charges would be made against Trump. Since he was not allowed by the regulations he worked under to charge the president, he did exactly the right thing. He left it to congress. As he said, it would be unfair for him to accuse the president without charging him and leave him no legal means of clearing himself.

Many of the accusations being made against the president come more under the category of bad conduct, conduct unbecoming a president, or actions that are borderline criminal behavior. These are the type charges that are more fitting impeachment than a criminal court.

Accusimg trump of a crime in the report would have been a formal accusation. Mueller explicitly said that a formal accusation against the president was not an option he could consider.

Sure it was. Ken Starr did it. He out and out accused Bill Clinton, gave his reasons, and provided his evidence.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

His assignment had zero to do with "opining". He was there to find facts, not "opine".

He was there to do both. It's really simple. If his "facts" made Trump guilty of something, then he should have said they did. If they didn't, then he should have said they didn't.

Again, that wasn't his assignment either. I understand he also didn't check the weather report for Auckland for last October 12th for the same reason.

And I don't know, or care, who was on his staff. I'm sure it was investigators. And no, I'm not willing to plug in comic book fantasies to what is a simple (and boring) mundane operation. I prefer to dabble in Reality.

Apparently you don't, because his legal team were mostly anti-trumpers. A few were A-political, but not one conservative.

Now you're going to try and pass off that an investigation into Russian collusion had nothing to do with a dossier that was supposed to be about Russian collusion?

He was there to do both. It's really simple. If his "facts" made Trump guilty of something, then he should have said they did. If they didn't, then he should have said they didn't.

Actually, that's the point Mueller made in the report. Because he followed the DOJ's guidelines he couldn't charge the president with a crime. He could only conclude, not guilty (as he did in the conspiracy part of the investigation in regards to Trump). Or not, not guilty (as he did in the obstruction of justice part). That means he is prohibited from saying that Trump is guilty, plain and simple.

Then what you are really saying is Barr lied, correct? Because Barr asked Mueller three times if the DOJ standard was what prevented him from making any allegation or charge, and Mueller told Barr no, it had nothing to do with his findings or decisions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mueller clearly walked a fine line, implicating Trump enuff to do nothing more than to imply it is up to Congress to exercise their authority to act as a check on the abuse of power by the executive; just as The Constitution intended.

One would have to be a fool to think that Trump did not obstruct Mueller, Comey, and now congress.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
This is not new.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I do find this rather amazing in that apparently the president may possibly be guilty of obstruction of justice in the commission of a crime that was never committed in the first place. Got to be kidding me, so all I have to do is create a false narrative and anyone attempting to discredit said narrative is possibly guilty of obstruction of justice? So how did the president actually obstruct the investigation?
I think the key is burden of proof? Good luck with that.

Obstruction of justice does not require an underlying crime

It does, however, require a specific motive,m which Mueller could not find.