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

[Dana7360]

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.

He lied to congress too. Which is a felony.

He should be held to the same standard as any other American.

He should face justice for his crimes.

 

[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.

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.

Obstruct means to interfere. What did Trump ever do that interfered in the investigation?

And don't tell me to go read the Muller repot. I seen all the "possibilities" of Trump obstructing, and not a one where you can actually say he did it. The Attorney General found the same.

This is silly.

 

[Kilroy2]

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.



.

Congress still has it say so my suggestion to you is never swallow

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

He lied to congress too. Which is a felony.

He should be held to the same standard as any other American.

He should face justice for his crimes.

Good thing drunk Hillary is in prison now along with Louis Lerner


.

 

[Kilroy2]

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.

Obstruct means to interfere. What did Trump ever do that interfered in the investigation?

And don't tell me to go read the Muller repot. I seen all the "possibilities" of Trump obstructing, and not a one where you can actually say he did it. The Attorney General found the same.

This is silly.

Yet they are statements made to the investigation and it is akin to lying to the FBI and it is a crime to lie to the FBI, public officials, police

Attorney General didn't ask them if it was true, I guess he just assumed that they were lying to an official investigation

Not that is something to investigate all the lying but alias Trump won't allow it because they will say the same-thing before Congress

clearly recalling what Trump had said to halt the investigation by firing people whereas Trump has no recollection

yet we know Trump likes to fire people _ "Your Fired" and then expects to be paid for using those words

 

[Geaux4it]

Again, Mueller's statement is like the tree that falls in the forest...... Irrelevant in the eyes of law and justice

BTW, since we cant prove Michael Obama is woman, then she/it must be a man

-Geaux

 

[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.

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 is the proof that the first House findings were mistaken, because it said that Trump did not collude nor obstruct.

What is the proof that the first Senate findings were mistaken, because it too said that Trump neither colluded nor obstructed.

What is the proof that the Muller Report found no evidence that Trump Colluded and could not prove that Trump obstructed.

Yes, Trump was unhappy about having to fight off the weaponized Press Democrats who reported what the Democrats wanted them to report--that Trump is all bad, and that the Democrats were his victims, all good. They hid behind Bill of Rights to lie, cheat, brainwash, and benefit by getting a handful of states to agree with them on voting day. They didn't stop after other states voted President Trump in. We've had two full years and five months of Democrats saying nonstop lies about the President, traitorous accusations, and conspiracy against President Trump by inspiring Mueller to hire 19 deep state investigators to find anything possible to promote Democrat out-and-out calumny, and while he couldn't prove any bad stuff about the President, he delivered to the Democrat Socialist Communist Party this final non-expose of Trump's alleged but now disproven collusion in his partisan schumck speech. I hold him personally and professionally responsible for the inevitable and permanent civil war to come.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

My statement said nothing about and had nothing to do with current DOJ OLC theory, Leftard, but rather on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." It even applies to the POTUS.

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.

 

[Rambunctious]

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.

He lied to congress too. Which is a felony.

He should be held to the same standard as any other American.

He should face justice for his crimes.

Mueller told Barr that the fact that they couldn't charge a sitting president with a crime had nothing to do with the decision to not charge Trump....so I guess Mueller was caught lying to Barr...what shall we do about that?.....Mueller is as guilty as Comey and is trying to hide in plain sight.....it was a coup attempt and its still ongoing....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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!

That isn't what he said, dumbfuck.

That isn't what he said, dumbfuck.

Sure it is.

 

[martybegan]

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

He could have presented the report as an indictment. He didn't.

He could have served congress a sliver platter if he actually thought he had a case.

he didn't.

 

[beautress]

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.

Yarddog, you are 100% correct, but the Democrats are now going to push their little impeachment party past the November election, screaming about what a terrorist President Trump is in their manipulation of the facts that have proven him innocent. We have a rogue Congress bent on perpetrating itself ad nauseum for the rest of our lives. We are further hamstringed by our honesty of playing by the rules. Democrats are hiding behind the word, "Socialism," when the description of their proposals are Communism in its most vicious form. First, they have to get rid of citizen's guns, hamstring American males with false scenario feminazism as was seen in the Kavanaugh hearings, destruction of the American military through the back door, elimination of health by placing themselves in charge of who gets care and who does not, destruction of the borders to bring in people who they will brainwash into thinking all members of the Republican Party are bad people, and of course, feathering their own nests with all the benefits taken through taxes paid by everyone who works, while they create a class of people who receive more benefits than the workers who paved their way with higher taxes than they could fight against.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

the dems could wait until right before the election in 2020 to start impeachment proceedings-

What's that gonna do?

.

if I need to tell you you're too stupid to understand ----

LOL...
That Dunning-Kruger is kicking their asses.

 

[WEATHER53]

Muller knows that he can only charge. A trial exhonerates, not the investigation.
The investigation yielded no charges but he just could not control his urges to render “I cannot declare Trump white as snow “ which was NEVER his task anyway.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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 did. He outlined ten instances.

 

[WEATHER53]

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 did. He outlined ten instances.

If he had outlined one circumstance he would have charged.

 

[beautress]

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!

That's proof of absolutely zero. Mueller picked 19 Democrat activists to help do in President Trump. He just played his last below-the-belt card because he found no collusion with Russia. His report said so.

He didn't say anything today that he hasn't said in the past. He hinted that the reason was because you can't indict a President. I guess Mueller was pissed off about Trump still bashing him after the report.

it goes beyond that. The other question is can a President actual obstruct members of his own executive branch, who work as his sufferance.

I never heard of someon "obstructing" a person. Do you mean, can he "fire" members in the Executive Branch? I have to say, as unpleasant as the task is, yes, a President can fire people in his employ. And those people, instead of standing corrected for malicious behaviors leading up to their dismissal, often use the occasion to justify malicious behaviors leading up to their dismissal, rather than improving themselves the next time they go to work for someone who may get the same treatment they gave their old boss with guns a-blazin'.

 

[martybegan]

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 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.

 

[blackhawk]

The flip side of that is if they had the evidence to prove Trump did commit a crime they would have said so. Despite all the over the top reactions today all Mueller did was verbally repeat what was in the report it changed nothing he made no decision on obstruction the AG and Deputy AG did the case is closed it's over. If the Democrats want to push impeachment that is their right but it won't end well for them the Senate will not vote to convict and it will give Trump a great talking point to use against them in 2020.

 

[beautress]

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 did. He outlined ten instances.

What ten instances were those, specifically?