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.

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.

"He made sort of kind of references to things that maybe could be construed as might be close to near to obstruction."
​

He learned it from Alexandria Occasio-Cortez.

 

[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.

What ten instances were those, specifically?

10 instances where they can’t find that Trump did anything but he is “covering up” by failing to prove that he did not

 

[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!

How is this-it sounded like Mueller felt the house should impeach. Mueller did not want any responsibility for making a decision so he punted to Barr. Now, Mueller does not want to testify and he left everything vague enough so both sides can claim that God is on their side. So we are back where we were. The one wild card is impeachment-the Democrats might as well do it, but with a time limit-say end of the year. Trump is either in or out and both sides have a fair shot at presenting a candidate. All of us, D's and R's and I's would like to know what happened and be assured steps have been taken to prevent a repeat. Can we do that as a bipartisan effort without name calling?

Impeaching him will not solve anything. No matter what the evidence is, the republican controlled senate won't vote guilty. mcconnell is already trying to do an end run around the whole matter to stop it in the Senate.

I've been a registered Independent since 1978. I've voted a variety of parties through the years. I vote for the person. Not a party.

The only way to get the truth is to vote. There will be an election next year. The people should be the ones who say if trump stays or not. Let democracy do it's thing.

If people want the truth they will elect a new president, retain the democratic majority in the House and put a democratic majority in the senate. Take the republican's ability to obstruct and evade justice from them and the only way to do it is to VOTE.

It's not enough for you to vote. You need to get everyone you know to vote. You need to help people get registered to vote and actually do vote.

When trump isn't president anymore he can be properly prosecuted. Once he's before a real jury of his peers he will rightly face justice.

That can't happen with president pence. If some miracle happens and the republicans vote trump guilty then throw him out of office, we have president pence who will work with ncconnell in the senate to cover the whole thing up. That's after president pence pardons trump, his family and campaign of any and all crimes.

 

[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

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.

Where does it say that he has to present it as an indictment

what does stating that he was not going to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment mean

what does having no confidence that there was no obstruction mean

put the two together should make his intent clear and the meaning that he was going for indisputable but this is where I thing Mueller made a mistake

You can't please all the people all he time

So should he proceed with something that he can't win because of DOJ guidelines or should he make it simple

So he did it my way

The ball is in th Congress court

They can pass or take it to the hoop

how about they can punt or go for the touchdown

or they can do an intentional walk, or intentional beaning, or just throw the pitch

The meaning doesn't change just they way you get your meaning across

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Democrats will do NOTHING and they will learn to like it.

End of Discussion.

.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

If we had had confidence that the president clearly did commit a crime, we would have said so'


Now what tard?

40 million dollars and TWO FUCKING YEARS and MULEr does what? PUNT.....


Epic fail

 

[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 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.

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.

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.

That's not what he concluded at all.
He said there was not sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to prosecute.

That certainly does not mean " no evidence of collusion".

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It's not enough for you to vote. You need to get everyone you know to vote. You need to help people get registered to vote and actually do vote.

Reeks of massive desperation.

 

[skookerasbil]

Full steam ahead with impeachment, go!!

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

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.

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.

That's not what he concluded at all.
He said there was not sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to prosecute.

That certainly does not mean " no evidence of collusion".

Doesn't matter what Mueller said. His report rules the day. No wonder he made the Comey like bizarre statement he did.

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

This will sink the Democrats in 2020. They have no other options than to try and slander POTUS. At least he is no Slick Willie Clinton who had a host of crimes that were actually proven.

-Geaux

 

[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?

10 instances where they can’t find that Trump did anything but he is “covering up” by failing to prove that he did not

He started the war that was coming if we do not get to the bottom of prosecuting those involved in bringing forth who wrote and proffered off the Steele Dossier as factual, when there was no way to document pure lies found therein accusing the President of acts that go beyond kinky and clobber him professionally for colluding with a hostile government. It was so convenient, because President Trump did business with Russian entrepreneurs when the American government encouraged American businesses to help the Russians become fiscally sound by joining in international trade. Many other American businessmen responded, too. None of them were tortured by the Democrats, and many of them were in fact, Democrat Party members back in 1989 when this encouragement of trading with Russians began to keep the Berlin wall down and restoration of civilities with the Russian people up. The Cold War did nothing to promote peace on earth, it just made everybody mad. So Trump just did what others in America did--try to be good world citizens, sharing prosperity with those in Russia who wanted to prosper and to help their fellow Russians prosper too.

This is truly a snide way to go after a man who has been a good citizen his entire business life. In the ten years preceding his presidency, President Trump gave $102,000,000. through his now-closed Foundation to charities like the American Red Cross, various hospitals and equipment to upgrade health care for his fellow citizens, a police foundation, the American Heart Association, cancer research, everything that helped the most for those who helped the worst diseases, widows of fallen police and firefighters, according most likely to good years the most he could give, which is in accordance with what good business dictates, and also the conscience of a man whose money was spent on good causes and givers of care and service that help the most people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps...-contributions-from-the-last-five-years/2013/

 

[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.

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.

your bull shit drivel ONLY re-enforces the FACT that you FAILED to read the SC Mueller report.

 

[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.

If he had outlined one circumstance he would have charged.

LOL...
He explained why he couldn't and didn't charge, fool.

See it here:

 

[beautress]

This will sink the Democrats in 2020. They have no other options than to try and slander POTUS. At least he is no Slick Willie Clinton who had a host of crimes that were actually proven.

-Geaux

Geaux, I'd give anything if that were true, but attacking President Trump by claiming they would impeach him benefitted the Democrats with a huge house upset, and they're shilling for the chance to destroy the Republican Party with this renewed chance to go after Trump, in which they can make more false charges without getting Treason convictions in the courts. It's why we have so many Democrats screaming for communist causes by changing the vocabulary to call communism "socialism" as a euphemism to fool the free people fo America. It's insidious, but it worked very well for them the last time. Why wouldn't it work for them now?

Your post is without fault and completely true. Unfortunately, Democrats can contort Mueller's speech into getting more votes if pushed to the max.

 

[beautress]

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.

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.

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.

That's not what he concluded at all.
He said there was not sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to prosecute.

That certainly does not mean " no evidence of collusion".

Doesn't matter what Mueller said. His report rules the day. No wonder he made the Comey like bizarre statement he did.

-Geaux

Bless your dear optimism, but I'm buying my first gun in the near future. The Democrats have declared war on goodness and fairness.

 

[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.

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.

When republicans "weaponized" the press against Obama, Obama just ignored it. This is what Trump should have done. Instead he acts like a narcissist snowflake all the time. Also, attempting all this obstruction against Mueller invites more bad press. Therefore, Trump deserves this 100 percent.

Mueller statement can be summarized:

1. We cannot charge the president
   
   
2. We could not clear the president

#1 is due to evidence required by law.
#2 is because of evidence obtained.

 

[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.

He made sort of kind of references to things that maybe could be construed as might be close to near to obstruction.

No. He described the elements necessary for obstruction and then showed which elements each of the ten instances of obstruction met. There were at least four that met all of the elements necessary to charge.

 

[Lesh]

What did Mueller say today?

He said that Barr was lying when he claimed that the DOJ OLC opinion that a President can't be indicted played no part in Mueller's findings

He said that Barr was lying when he claimed that Mueller wanted BARR not Congress to make any further decisions as to charges or impeachment or further investigations

More importantly he said that Trump was lying when he said that Russia did nothing in the election. In fact it was a Russian military operation and a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated effort to help Trump get elected (despite what Trump claims to believe that came FROM Putin)

 

[Manonthestreet]

So confident he didnt want to do it under oath......LLMMAAOOOO