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

[HappyJoy]

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

You guys need to make up your minds. Was Mueller after Trump or did he exonerate him?

 

[Manonthestreet]

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

You guys need to make up your minds. Was Mueller after Trump or did he exonerate him?

Both

 

[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.

What ten instances were those, specifically?

What ten instances were those, specifically

Tsk..Tsk....someone didn't read the report.

 

[beautress]

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?....

Of course he can't. It's a lie, and the DNC told him he had to perpetrate the lie.

 

[Pogo]

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

Well then we can't wait to see what happens at the convention. In Wisconsin, on wet trolley tracks. In December.

You'll let us know about that, right? When the photos of it are "newly discovered"?

 

[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.

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

You're proud to be ignorant. Nice.

 

[Pogo]

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.

There was no "House upset" Becki. The midterm elections traditionally lose seats for whichever party has the WH. It's been that way literally as long as we've had these two party. There have been exactly three exceptions since Lincoln. That's not an 'upset', it's the expected.

 

[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 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

You're proud to be ignorant. Nice.

And you know what the ten instances are specifically? Please share.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

I'm referencing the report, fool.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Criminal conduct while in office tends to give political advantage to one's opponents.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

You're proud to be ignorant. Nice.

And you know what the ten instances are specifically? Please share.

I did. Do you have me on ignore, dear?

 

[mudwhistle]

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

You guys need to make up your minds. Was Mueller after Trump or did he exonerate him?

Yes and no.
The absence of evidence isn't an exoneration to Mueller, because he wasn't selected to exonerate Trump.

You don't seem to be able to be logical about this.
Mueller was after Trump.....and because of that he chose not to exonerate him.
Again......a prosecutor's job is to prove his case.....not prove innocence.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.....and because proof wasn't found (nor existed) the case is closed.

 

[Crixus]

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!

Nope, sorry Bob, you got splaining to do.

 

[Lakhota]

Mueller is too much of a gentleman to call Barr a lying asshole.

 

[captkaos]

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!

He's just setting himself up for the Big bucks on the Talk show MSM circuit!

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

What ten instances were those, specifically

Tsk..Tsk....someone didn't read the report.

View attachment 263046

Again.....if there were no obstructive acts.....there was no obstruction..
Hillary obstructed justice, destroyed evidence, was never put under oath for some strange reason....and she never faced charges......yet Trump never destroyed evidence or prevented anyone from investigating him.

I guess you must think that we have two legal systems in this country. One for us and another for you and Democrats.

 

[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.

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".

What was stated was the vague "if he wasn't president it would be obstruction" which could mean either he is protected by being president, or he can't obstruct what he is accused of obstructing because he is president.

 

[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.

There was no "House upset" Becki. The midterm elections traditionally lose seats for whichever party has the WH. It's been that way literally as long as we've had these two party. There have been exactly three exceptions since Lincoln. That's not an 'upset', it's the expected.

Thank you for sharing your opinion, Pogo.
I know this may sound a tad paranoid to you, but this incident: (source: Wikipedia)

On June 14, 2017, during a practice session for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity in Alexandria, Virginia, James Hodgkinson shot U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, U.S. Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner, congressional aide Zack Barth, and lobbyist Matt Mika. A ten-minute shootout took place between Hodgkinson and officers from the Capitol and Alexandria Police before officers fatally shot Hodgkinson, who died from his wounds later that day at the George Washington University Hospital.[7][8] Scalise and Mika were taken to nearby hospitals where they underwent surgery.[9]

Hodgkinson was a left-wing activist[10][11] from Belleville, Illinois, while Scalise was a Republican member of Congress. The Virginia Attorney General concluded Hodgkinson's attack was "an act of terrorism...fueled by rage against Republican legislators".[12] Scalise was the first sitting member of Congress to have been shot since Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in 2011.[13]
​

This incident fueled fear for not only their personal safety, but for that of their families, and discouraged conservative representatives to go home and take care of their loved ones instead of the untenable hardship of being picked off by leftist activists inflamed by the false charges leveled against our President, to eliminate the enemies of the right-winger Congress who had abuse of the President, his family, his cabinet, and even White House office personnel. This registered Democrat and gun-happy leftist activist gave his life to pick off the House Majority whip and others. He was shot, and in his pocket was a list of people he intended to murder, all of them Republicans.

The event was downplayed, and the vote went in favor of enough new Democrats to put Democrats in charge with a new speaker of the House, and Democrat chairmen of every committee. The bad thing is, the Democrats weaponized their power to taking out Donald Trump and hamstringing his ambitions to make America great again by opposing all the things he planned to do to strengthen the economy, stop the border bleeding, and give human beings the right to live from conception rather than birth. I know these things are unpopular in some sectors, but people across the face of the map are discouraged that politics have become more important than the needs of the American people.

That's just my opinion and that of "Red State" voters. Here's the Red State by county in 2016:

​

These people believed in President Trump and voted for him. People in the blue area want to take away the power of the people, agreed to many years ago by constructing the American electoral college to give even small states a voice. Without the Electoral College, I guarantee you there will be a very unfortunate dissolution of the United States. Our socialistic enemies worldwide would be thrilled. Unfortunately for the blue areas, their food prices will go through their penthouse roofs. And that's what I think, Pogo.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

When republicans "weaponized" the press against Obama

Funniest thing I've read all week.

 

[martybegan]

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

You guys need to make up your minds. Was Mueller after Trump or did he exonerate him?

Yes and no.
The absence of evidence isn't an exoneration to Mueller, because he wasn't selected to exonerate Trump.

You don't seem to be able to be logical about this.
Mueller was after Trump.....and because of that he chose not to exonerate him.
Again......a prosecutor's job is to prove his case.....not prove innocence.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.....and because proof wasn't found (nor existed) the case is closed.

Plus none of this stops congress, in particular the House of Representatives from starting impeachment hearings, using the Muller Report, and starting their own, Constitutionally mandated process.