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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sure it was. Ken Starr did it

Sorry, but that's completely different. Ken Starr was operating under an old law and his purview was not the same as Mueller's. Go look it up, so you don't make the same poor comparison again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It does, however, require a specific motive,

Haha, no it doesn't. The motive is to obstruct. It doesn't matter why. Stop making stuff up.

 

[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.

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.

Barr clarified the issue here......Barr says Mueller "could've reached a decision" on whether Trump obstructed justice

"Barr said Thursday he did not know what Mueller was "suggesting" in his statement.

"The Department of Justice doesn't use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress," he added.

Asked about accusations that he has been shielding the president from scrutiny since taking office, Barr said he expected the flurry of criticism, which he noted "goes with the territory of being attorney general in a hyper-partisan period of time."

"The Department of Justice is all about the law, and the facts and the substance," he said. "And I'm going to make the decisions based on the law and the facts and I realize that's in tension with the political climate we live in because people are more interested in getting their way politically.""​

 

[edward37]

If Obama pulled half the shit Trump has he'd have been impeached in a nano second Now no matter what, the punk pos republicans are afraid to open their yaps They're all afraid of the pussy grabber

 

[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.

Barr clarified the issue here......Barr says Mueller "could've reached a decision" on whether Trump obstructed justice

"Barr said Thursday he did not know what Mueller was "suggesting" in his statement.

"The Department of Justice doesn't use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress," he added.

Asked about accusations that he has been shielding the president from scrutiny since taking office, Barr said he expected the flurry of criticism, which he noted "goes with the territory of being attorney general in a hyper-partisan period of time."

"The Department of Justice is all about the law, and the facts and the substance," he said. "And I'm going to make the decisions based on the law and the facts and I realize that's in tension with the political climate we live in because people are more interested in getting their way politically.""​

As they are here, they are going to ignore anything Barr says. As many of us pointed out repeatedly, Barr got conformation from Muller on why he came to his decisions. They ignore it. Instead, they decide how to interpret what Mueller said.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Obama pulled half the shit Trump has he'd have been impeached in a nano second Now no matter what, the punk pos republicans are afraid to open their yaps They're all afraid of the pussy grabber

You are so FOS. If Trump could get away with half of what DumBama did, you'd be having riots in the street.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If Obama pulled half the shit Trump has he'd have been impeached in a nano second Now no matter what, the punk pos republicans are afraid to open their yaps They're all afraid of the pussy grabber

You are so FOS. If Trump could get away with half of what DumBama did, you'd be having riots in the street.

^^

Peak trump cultism

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure it was. Ken Starr did it

Sorry, but that's completely different. Ken Starr was operating under an old law and his purview was not the same as Mueller's. Go look it up, so you don't make the same poor comparison again.

The case took place in the later 90's. So what law are you talking about?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The case took place in the later 90's. So what law are you talking about?

The 1978 law governing the office of the Independent Counsel. Again, go read up. It is not a good comparison.

 

[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.

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.

Yeah, republicans really hate Trump. I guess that explains why Trump has a 90% job approval rating from them

 

[WEATHER53]

Now that Mueller has ridden off into the sunset the libs are mudding what he was about to begin with.

 

[Flopper]

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.

What could possibly be Trump's motive in obstructing investigations that were trying to discover evidence that he colluded with the Russians to win the election?

 

[Staidhup]

No, answer my question, what examples do you have that he obstructed justice? Come on floppier don’t be a flipper.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

What could possibly be Trump's motive in obstructing investigations that were trying to discover evidence that he colluded with the Russians to win the election?

The better question is why would Trump try to obstruct an investigation on him of something he was never guilty of?

 

[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.

Yeah, republicans really hate Trump. I guess that explains why Trump has a 90% job approval rating from them

Why shouldn't they? And I'm not talking about the voting pubic, I'm talking about other representatives.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The case took place in the later 90's. So what law are you talking about?

The 1978 law governing the office of the Independent Counsel. Again, go read up. It is not a good comparison.

You don't even realize you defeated your own argument.

The Starr investigation took place after 1978. The Mueller investigation took place after 1978. You made claim that a new law was created between the late 90's and today. So what new law was that?

What you just admitted to is that Starr and Mueller were guided by the same exact regulations. I call that an impeccable comparison.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Starr investigation took place after 1978. The Mueller investigation took place after 1978.

And the law that governed Ken Starr in the Independent Counsel position no longer existed when Mueller became Special Counsel.

Seriously, read up.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

By not charging, YES.

Nope. He made it clear right at the outset that POLICY prevented him from doing so, so that wasn't going to happen under any circumstances, within his purview as he understood it.

In other words if he found video with a confession that Rump had shot somebody on Fifth Avenue, "POLICY" would have prevented him from "charging" anything.

Guess you missed the joint statement issued later Wednesday.

The Department of Justice and the Special Counsel’s office released a joint statement late on Wednesday to clarify remarks made earlier in the day at a press conference by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Kerri Kupec, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice and Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsel’s Office, released the following statement:

The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements.

BREAKING: DOJ, Mueller’s Office Release Joint Statement Clarifying Mueller’s Comments

.

 

[OKTexas]

Mueller had no proof, wonder girl.

Yeah, he had no proof that Trump wasn't a damn criminal, Peaches.

Hey commie, in our system of justice the presumption of innocence is afforded even to mass murders, yet you want to throw it out the window just because you're butt hurt. BTW I have no proof you're not a criminal, try proving your not. Use your own standards. LMAO

.

 

[OKTexas]

You folk on the far right need to revisit Sweet Lindsay's views and thoughts about what impeachment means and what a President can be impeached about during the Clinton years.

It's on YouTube, you really should take a look and get up to speed.

The Starr report said Clinton was guilty 11 times. Come up with similar statements in the Mueller report.

.