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

[beautress]

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?

It's not what they said. It's what they wrote. Democrats wanted to know if Trump colluded with the Russians. Mueller wrote that there was no evidence of collusion. That's what he said his findings were.

President Trump did not do what the Democrats claimed he did in a dossier that has been proven to be all lies. This was political sophistry taken to the maximum level that the Democrats can mouth off and start a ground war that results in dissolution of the United States, which works in favor of the Democrat Socialist Communist Party.

 

[Yarddog]

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!

Again, I guess you forget what country you live in right? No body is asking Muller to prove Trump innocent, rather he was hired for the last two years to investigate and prove guilt. Until then Trump is innocent until proven so.
Muller is doing his job for the DNC the best he can, to leave it open ended as much as possible.... we all understand that. Destroy Trump anyway possible, got to cash in that insurance policy right?
Giving a public tweet or getting mad and telling someone to fire someone isnt obstruction. There was not anything withheld from Mueller if there was, we sure need him to give us some specifics but he's not able to do that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The crazy left thought for sure that Trump was guilty of collusion but after two years there was no evidence to sustain the charge. Now the left feels it in their gut that President Trump was guilty of obstruction but they offer no evidence to support their claim other than the firing of the FBI director which is up to the President discretion in any administration.

Except for the fact that "thinking" of doing something and not doing it is not against any law. The left thinks we are at the point of Thought Police; not that they wouldn't mind it.

Nobody can go to the police station and tell them I was thinking about robbing a bank, and the authorities charge me with anything.

 

[Siete]

oh brother

 

[dudmuck]

The crazy left thought for sure that Trump was guilty of collusion but after two years there was no evidence to sustain the charge. Now the left feels it in their gut that President Trump was guilty of obstruction but they offer no evidence to support their claim other than the firing of the FBI director which is up to the President discretion in any administration.

Then the sleaze hides behind the "we couldn't indict him so we didn't" cop out....If he had real evidence, it should be produced for the House Judiciary Committee to draw up the articles of impeachment.

That's what happened in the Bill Clinton case. He said he couldn't state that Trump didn't break any laws. That's not why special councils are hired. They are hired to decide if laws were broken. There is no half-way point on this. Either Trump violated a law or he didn't. If he did, be specific on what that law was.

Special council is impaneled to investigate. If the investigation findings can reach the legal requirements for indictment, then that will happen. But, considering the levels of obstruction, that legal threshold could not be reached. Because of this, congress now takes over, along with other state-level investigations.

 

[Oddball]

The crazy left thought for sure that Trump was guilty of collusion but after two years there was no evidence to sustain the charge. Now the left feels it in their gut that President Trump was guilty of obstruction but they offer no evidence to support their claim other than the firing of the FBI director which is up to the President discretion in any administration.

Then the sleaze hides behind the "we couldn't indict him so we didn't" cop out....If he had real evidence, it should be produced for the House Judiciary Committee to draw up the articles of impeachment.

That's what happened in the Bill Clinton case. He said he couldn't state that Trump didn't break any laws. That's not why special councils are hired. They are hired to decide if laws were broken. There is no half-way point on this. Either Trump violated a law or he didn't. If he did, be specific on what that law was.

Special council is impaneled to investigate. If the investigation findings can reach the legal requirements for indictment, then that will happen. But, considering the levels of obstruction, that legal threshold could not be reached. Because of this, congress now takes over, along with other state-level investigations.

What's your next cheap-assed cop out excuse?....THE SUN WAS IN MY EYES!!

 

[Crepitus]

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!

Yeah, he didn't say that.

But good luck with that impeachment thingy.

Ummm, that's a direct quote.

So yes, he did say that.

 

[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.

What he could have done is list out possible indictments, explicitly, that Congress could use for Impeachment.

He didn't even do that.

He listed specific instances where the president attempted to obstruct justice in the report

indictments was a waste of time as per DOJ regulations that as a sitting president Mueller lacks the ability to indict Trump

Thus it is quite obvious that the report was meant for Congress who has the only means of holding a sitting president accountable

It would be a circus if the President had to go through a regular trial in the judicial system especially with appeals and delays and whatnot. How would you get jurists. Ask them if they are repubs or demos. Sounds like a hung jury.

Also Mueller could not even get trump to give statements in the normal way. I mean submit questions to the defendant and wait for the response. The response by Trump in most questions was "no recollection"

just as Clinton was never indicted for lying in the judicial system , but instead the senate did the trial as the house who has the sole power to impeach recommended impeachment but the Senate (the court) found him not guilty

Mueller had no way to indict him per DOJ regulations, he could only hand over the material that can be used in the impeachment process

As Trump would suggest this is not a do over, this is a continuation of the process

It may have ended if Mueller had exonerated him in the obstruction of justice matter

Congress still has it say

 

[Geaux4it]

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!

But those comments are irrelevant in our law and judicial systems

-Geaux

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It may have ended if Mueller had exonerated him in the obstruction of justice matter

Congress still has it say

Congress, especially the democrats, will do not one goddamn thing about it. They will sit there and cry in their appletinis and do NOTHING.

So, sit there and take your mouth-full of what Trump's issuing....and SWOLLOW IT!!! Nothing will happen.



.

 

[depotoo]

Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction, releases document to provide more context

 

[beautress]

Mueller: "There was insufficient evidence to charge broader conspiracy."

So nutty Nadler narrows in on impeachment in order to negate knowledge of constitutional infidelities needed for naysaying the Constitution, which says a person is "innocent until proven guilty."

Beating up on President Trump with lies for 2.5 years was not enough to win two elections for the Democrats. Again, their only platform is "Trump is bad."
That was proven again and again to be a lie.

 

[miketx]

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!

 

[deanrd]

Mueller lives in this country. He was paid to do a job and he works for the taxpayers. He can spend a few minutes standing in front of his bosses and explaining what it was that he did.

At least they found trump’s transcript.

And who said Trump didn’t graduate?

 

[beautress]

The crazy left thought for sure that Trump was guilty of collusion but after two years there was no evidence to sustain the charge. Now the left feels it in their gut that President Trump was guilty of obstruction but they offer no evidence to support their claim other than the firing of the FBI director which is up to the President discretion in any administration.

Except for the fact that "thinking" of doing something and not doing it is not against any law. The left thinks we are at the point of Thought Police; not that they wouldn't mind it.

Nobody can go to the police station and tell them I was thinking about robbing a bank, and the authorities charge me with anything.

I guess Mueller got deep state orders to say anything to buy them two more years of beating up on President Donald Trump which will give them the false face of legitimacy as they prolong their "get Trump" lies until after the next election.

This changes my neutral view of Mueller and his 15 get-trump assistants who found him not guilty of collusion with the Russians as the Clinton Democrats clamored to seize the day's evil to do evil, and now they have another ticket to destroy America. This time, they may succeed in starting a civil war and an excuse that all socialistic unions require--murder of the capitalists and 200,000,000 people, leaders, farmers, and dissidents of the opposition.

So that's what Nadler wants. And Mueller handed it to him.

Edit: correction: should have said Mueller instead of Trump, so I fixed it. My bad.

 

[beautress]

It may have ended if Mueller had exonerated him in the obstruction of justice matter

Congress still has it say

Congress, especially the democrats, will do not one goddamn thing about it. They will sit there and cry in their appletinis and do NOTHING.

So, sit there and take your mouth-full of what Trump's issuing....and SWOLLOW IT!!! Nothing will happen.

.

Mr. Farnsworth, not only did the Senate find President Trump not guilty of any crime, so did the House of Representatives before Mueller's report of no collusion and no evidence of obstruction. What he said today did not bring forth any evidence of either of those two crimes. I think Congressman Nadler has a certainty of submitting impeachment papers to Nancy Pelosi, who just needs one little tap to maker her dreams of making America a sordid Socialist Republic and a one-party state with her party in charge of the killings they will have to do to get rid of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[Rambunctious]

Mueller lives in this country. He was paid to do a job and he works for the taxpayers. He can spend a few minutes standing in front of his bosses and explaining what it was that he did.

At least they found trump’s transcript.

And who said Trump didn’t graduate?

And you can detail how he committed treason?....

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Most important thing said: MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

Imagine what he would have said if there were evidence of a crime.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The crazy left thought for sure that Trump was guilty of collusion but after two years there was no evidence to sustain the charge. Now the left feels it in their gut that President Trump was guilty of obstruction but they offer no evidence to support their claim other than the firing of the FBI director which is up to the President discretion in any administration.

Except for the fact that "thinking" of doing something and not doing it is not against any law. The left thinks we are at the point of Thought Police; not that they wouldn't mind it.

Nobody can go to the police station and tell them I was thinking about robbing a bank, and the authorities charge me with anything.

I guess Mueller got deep state orders to say anything to buy them two more years of beating up on President Donald Trump which will give them the false face of legitimacy as they prolong their "get Trump" lies until after the next election.

This changes my neutral view of Trump and his 15 get-trump assistants who found him not guilty of collusion with the Russians as the Clinton Democrats clamored to seize the day's evil to do evil, and now they have another ticket to destroy America. This time, they may succeed in starting a civil war and an excuse that all socialistic unions require--murder of the capitalists and 200,000,000 people, leaders, farmers, and dissidents of the opposition.

So that's what Nadler wants. And Mueller handed it to him.

Mueller threw them a bone, that's all. He realizes they will harass him as well if he didn't. After all, subpoenas are being handed out for the cause, and the cause is to make Trump look as bad as possible. Mueller doesn't want to get caught in the crossfire.

 

[caddo kid]

Most important thing said: MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

If Trump were guilty as you once again claim, the House would have begun impeachment weeks or even months ago.

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.

The House has always had the power to impeach Trump and hasn't.

BTW, Mueller had the authority to recommend indicting the POTUS in his report to the AG but chose instead to say "...this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Our justice system does not indict or prosecute nor should congress persecute any American who after an exhaustive 2 yr $35 million witch-hunt is found to not have committed a crime.

ONLY the POTUS is protected by the current DOJ OLC theory; Maybe you should correct your statement, dick head.