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

[mudwhistle]

Even the judge on FOX Napliatano {sp{ says Trump is guilty

Judge Nap is pissed at Trump for not nominating him as SCOTUS.

 

[mudwhistle]

FOX NEWS Shooter

Didn't you just argue that Mueller could not accuse, or potentially accuse, much less conclude, the President committed a crime?

Didn't barr say that?

So you DO agree - Mueller did not accuse, or potentially accuse, much less conclude, the President committed a crime.
Good to know!

True He didn't accuse or conclude BUT potentially accuse ?? There are TEN potential damning cases of obstruction

What are you.....a fucking Parrot?

There are 10 "potential" damned cases of obstruction.

This from the same DOJ that couldn't see one case of obstruction when Hillary destroyed here server, her commo devices, and 30,000 emails.

 

[edward37]

There are TEN potential damning cases of obstruction

For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Per Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Well?

If you're looking for an answer I can't help you BUT I'm sure that among those 10 potential cases there will be more than one that pins the tail on the monkey

 

[edward37]

Even the judge on FOX Napliatano {sp{ says Trump is guilty

Judge Nap is pissed at Trump for not nominating him as SCOTUS.

That might be but are all republicans that think trump is an ass also pissed at trump for only personal reasons?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are TEN potential damning cases of obstruction

For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Per Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Well?

If you're looking for an answer I can't help you BUT I'm sure that among those 10 potential cases there will be more than one that pins the tail on the monkey

Mueller could not concretely demonstrate corrupt intent - how can YOU be "sure" it exists?

 

[edward37]

There are TEN potential damning cases of obstruction

For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Per Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Well?

If you're looking for an answer I can't help you BUT I'm sure that among those 10 potential cases there will be more than one that pins the tail on the monkey

Mueller could not concretely demonstrate corrupt intent - how can YOU be "sure" it exists?

LOL All I need is one out of 10 ,,I like those odds

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are TEN potential damning cases of obstruction

For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Per Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Well?

If you're looking for an answer I can't help you BUT I'm sure that among those 10 potential cases there will be more than one that pins the tail on the monkey

Mueller could not concretely demonstrate corrupt intent - how can YOU be "sure" it exists?

LOL All I need is one out of 10 ,,I like those odds

You avoided the question:
Mueller could not concretely demonstrate corrupt intent - how can YOU be "sure" it exists?

 

[M14 Shooter]

True He didn't accuse or conclude BUT potentially accuse ?? There are TEN potential damning cases of obstruction

YOU said Mueller could not conclude trump committed a crime.
YOU said Mueller could not accuse - or even potentially accuse - Trump of a crime.
Did he or did he not do any of those things?

 

[edward37]

There are TEN potential damning cases of obstruction

For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Per Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Well?

If you're looking for an answer I can't help you BUT I'm sure that among those 10 potential cases there will be more than one that pins the tail on the monkey

Mueller could not concretely demonstrate corrupt intent - how can YOU be "sure" it exists?

LOL All I need is one out of 10 ,,I like those odds

You avoided the question:
Mueller could not concretely demonstrate corrupt intent - how can YOU be "sure" it exists?

I can't be sure of anything I just feel that the chances are good that sooner or later the truth about that ALL TIME piece of garbage will come out and IF it does will you still support him?

 

[WEATHER53]

Why is this not in the Conspiracy section????
All we have now is libbies rehashing what has already been disproven.

 

[OKTexas]

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. When Trumps fights, he uses every means at his disposal. Issues of legality, he leaves to his lawyers.

Exactly what did he do that affected Mueller doing his job?

.

obviously you did not read the report; you so funny

What's wrong commie, can't answer the question. The fact is Mueller completed his investigation, NO ONE interfered with him.

.

 

[edward37]

True He didn't accuse or conclude BUT potentially accuse ?? There are TEN potential damning cases of obstruction

YOU said Mueller could not conclude trump committed a crime.
YOU said Mueller could not accuse - or even potentially accuse - Trump of a crime.
Did he or did he not do any of those things?

Those 10 cases of possible obstruction are potentially going to hang Trump

 

[WEATHER53]

There are 10 examples of -potential- obstruction in the report.
For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Hows firing Comey when he wouldn't halt russian investigation? And preventing his lawyer from testifying to tell how he was told to lie for trump?

For -actual- obstruction to exist, corrupt intent must be proven.
Burden of proof lies with the accuser.

Per Mueller:
As an initial matter, the term “corruptly” sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an “improper advantage for [him]self or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

Well?

Mueller report: read the 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice ...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and.../mueller-report-obstruction-of-justice-summary
Apr 18, 2019 - Special counsel Robert Mueller's report contains 10instances where President Donald Trump potentially committed obstruction of justice.

10 what if’s and Zero what is equals Zero charges.

 

[edward37]

Why is this not in the Conspiracy section????
All we have now is libbies rehashing what has already been disproven.

10 cases of obstruction HAVE NOT been disproven

 

[WEATHER53]

Why is this not in the Conspiracy section????
All we have now is libbies rehashing what has already been disproven.

10 cases of obstruction HAVE NOT been disproven

10 instances of “what if’s” remain unproven thus uncharged. Theory does not bring charges.

 

[edward37]

Why is this not in the Conspiracy section????
All we have now is libbies rehashing what has already been disproven.

Go back to the presidential 2000 board

 

[edward37]

Maybe throw enough crap at trump something will stick that even his most loyal ass kissers will admit to

 

[WEATHER53]

Maybe throw enough crap at trump something will stick that even his most loyal ass kissers will admit to

Lib 101
Thank you for raising your hand

 

[Thinker101]

Maybe throw enough crap at trump something will stick that even his most loyal ass kissers will admit to

Yep, do what you do best.

 

[WEATHER53]

Maybe throw enough crap at trump something will stick that even his most loyal ass kissers will admit to

Yep, do what you do best.

It’s all they have and he just admitted it and I thank him profusely for self identifying.
They slung the spaghetti but it was undone and would not stick so now splatter the walls with dung and pray that works
You know, if we could lift these people out of their bitter morass I doubt they would take the escape.