New Wolff book claimed Mueller had Obstruction indictments ready

[Lesh]

"New book claims Mueller drew up an obstruction indictment against Trump" New book claims Mueller drew up an obstruction indictment against Trump

Much of Fast and Furious has been proven. I expect this is true. The lawyer from Mueller's team picked his words carefully....

Congress needs to find out why Mueller shelved the indictment....if it existed. Barr and Rosenstein running protection for Donald?

The way the Special Counsel charge was written...Congress was supposed to be informed of any actions that changed or impeded Mueller.

If this is true Congress was supposed to have been notified

 

[M14 Shooter]

The way the Special Counsel charge was written...Congress was supposed to be informed of any actions that changed or impeded Mueller.
If this is true Congress was supposed to have been notified

So... one of two things is true:
- Mueller was impeded, but decided to break the law, cover it up, and not tell Congress
- Mueller was not impeded.

 

[caddo kid]

“The documents described do not exist," Mueller spokesman Peter Carr told Fox News.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously stated, "do not exist" is a current term, which in no way precludes that such documents may have actually existed, at one time

Wow. Just when I thought you could not get more desperate.

There is nothing "desperate" about the post; it is a comment concerning language & how many, yourself included, jump to conclusions because you do NOT understand the nuance of language.

Thank you for further illustrating how desperate you are to keep the narrative going,

Funny how you haven't you thought about the necessities inherent to your supposition, that the documents did indeed exist and were destroyed, on Mueller's orders, in violation of federal law, with the intent to protect the President.

Let us look at my quote from post #14:
As previously stated, "do not exist" is a current term, which in no way precludes that such documents may have actually existed, at one time.

I utilized the caveat 'may have' which is a nuance of language.
Utilizing the term 'may have' is not a claim said documents did, or did not exist, at all.
You (again) FAILED to recognize that, which I have already pointed this out to you.

I never made any claim, as you state, "that that the documents did indeed exist and were destroyed," which are your words; not mine.

You really need to dig your head out of your ass, go to English class, learn the English language, and STOP posting on internet forums, until which time you can communicate effectively without making FALSE claims about other's use of language.
You really are a dumb ass.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I never made any claim, as you state, "that that the documents did indeed exist and were destroyed," which are your words; not mine.

Thank you for agreeing that you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
That being the case, why don't you admit the ridiculousness of said possibility and move on?

 

[Jackson]

"New book claims Mueller drew up an obstruction indictment against Trump" New book claims Mueller drew up an obstruction indictment against Trump

Much of Fast and Furious has been proven. I expect this is true. The lawyer from Mueller's team picked his words carefully....

Congress needs to find out why Mueller shelved the indictment....if it existed. Barr and Rosenstein running protection for Donald?

Another book claims... uh huh.

 

[caddo kid]

I never made any claim, as you state, "that that the documents did indeed exist and were destroyed," which are your words; not mine.

Thank you for agreeing that you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
That being the case, why don't you admit the ridiculousness of said possibility and move on?

Admit? I will admit that you made an ass out of yourself by putting words in my mouth that I never stated & by failing to understand the (proper) use of language.
As I previously stated, you need to become more familiar with the use of language.
That isn't my problem but it sure seems to be (one of) yours.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I never made any claim, as you state, "that that the documents did indeed exist and were destroyed," which are your words; not mine.

Thank you for agreeing that you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
That being the case, why don't you admit the ridiculousness of said possibility and move on?

Admit?

Yes. That you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
Well?

 

[caddo kid]

I never made any claim, as you state, "that that the documents did indeed exist and were destroyed," which are your words; not mine.

Thank you for agreeing that you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
That being the case, why don't you admit the ridiculousness of said possibility and move on?

Admit?

Yes. That you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
Well?

You missed this:

I will admit that you made an ass out of yourself by putting words in my mouth that I never stated & by failing to understand the (proper) use of language.
As I previously stated, you need to become more familiar with the use of language.
That isn't my problem but it sure seems to be (one of) yours.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Anyone think the OP feels stupid for buying into FAKE NEWS again?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I never made any claim, as you state, "that that the documents did indeed exist and were destroyed," which are your words; not mine.

Thank you for agreeing that you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
That being the case, why don't you admit the ridiculousness of said possibility and move on?

Admit?

Yes. That you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
Well?

You missed this....

I'm sorry you're upset that you failed to think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised - but really the only person you have to blame is you.
A little more actual thought and a lot less partisan bigotry would serve you well - eh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone think the OP feels stupid for buying into FAKE NEWS again?

The left is desperate.
Desperate leftists are fully capable of each and every level of insanity.

 

[caddo kid]

I never made any claim, as you state, "that that the documents did indeed exist and were destroyed," which are your words; not mine.

Thank you for agreeing that you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
That being the case, why don't you admit the ridiculousness of said possibility and move on?

Admit?

Yes. That you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
Well?

You missed this....

I'm sorry you're upset that you failed to think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised - but really the only person you have to blame is you.
A little more actual thought and a lot less partisan bigotry would serve you well - eh?

Understanding the proper use of language is NOT a partisan issue.

You continue to wonder farther from the reality of the purpose of language.

Again; your problem, not mine.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thank you for agreeing that you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
That being the case, why don't you admit the ridiculousness of said possibility and move on?

Admit?

Yes. That you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
Well?

You missed this....

I'm sorry you're upset that you failed to think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised - but really the only person you have to blame is you.
A little more actual thought and a lot less partisan bigotry would serve you well - eh?

Understanding the proper use of language is NOT a partisan issue.
You continue to wonder farther from the reality of the purpose of language.
Again; your problem, not mine.

When you can demonstrate a little more actual thought and a lot less partisan bigotry, let us know.
M'kay?
Thanks.

 

[caddo kid]

Admit?

Yes. That you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
Well?

You missed this....

I'm sorry you're upset that you failed to think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised - but really the only person you have to blame is you.
A little more actual thought and a lot less partisan bigotry would serve you well - eh?

Understanding the proper use of language is NOT a partisan issue.
You continue to wonder farther from the reality of the purpose of language.
Again; your problem, not mine.

When you can demonstrate a little more actual thought and a lot less partisan bigotry, let us know.
M'kay?
Thanks.

MAYBE YOU MISSED THIS:

It is about the use of language, of which you have no idea.



Understanding the proper use of language is NOT a partisan issue.

You continue to wonder farther from the reality of the purpose of language.

Again; your problem, not mine.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. That you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
Well?

You missed this....

I'm sorry you're upset that you failed to think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised - but really the only person you have to blame is you.
A little more actual thought and a lot less partisan bigotry would serve you well - eh?

Understanding the proper use of language is NOT a partisan issue.
You continue to wonder farther from the reality of the purpose of language.
Again; your problem, not mine.

When you can demonstrate a little more actual thought and a lot less partisan bigotry, let us know.
M'kay?
Thanks.

MAYBE YOU MISSED THIS:

Why are you unwilling to demonstrate a little more actual thought and a lot less partisan bigotry?

 

[JimH52]

I never made any claim, as you state, "that that the documents did indeed exist and were destroyed," which are your words; not mine.

Thank you for agreeing that you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
That being the case, why don't you admit the ridiculousness of said possibility and move on?

Admit?

Yes. That you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
Well?

You missed this:

I will admit that you made an ass out of yourself by putting words in my mouth that I never stated & by failing to understand the (proper) use of language.
As I previously stated, you need to become more familiar with the use of language.
That isn't my problem but it sure seems to be (one of) yours.

You are wasting your time arguing with trumpettes. They will defend the Liar in Chief until he is out of office.....all 35% of them.

Mueller clearly laid out a road map for Congress to determine the Obstruction question. Barr and Rosenstein short circuited that plan.

Mueller needs to clarify why he DID NOT bring Obstruction charges against the Liar in Chief. If it was due the DOJ memo....even in part....then there are questions to be asked.

The problem is, even now, the Liar in Chief is obstruction the duties of Congress....by ordering people to defy the law and threatening witnesses. All the while...the GOP does nothing...they let the Dictator break the law. Telling witnesses to defy subpoenas and threatening those who are called to testify is BREAKING THE LAW!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mueller clearly laid out a road map for Congress to determine the Obstruction question.

You mean he laid out the necessary component of obstruction, and made it clear one of them - motive - has a very demanding standard, which cannot be met.

And so, while Congress could very well impeach Trump for the possibly obstructive actions he took, they cannot impeach him for the actual crime of obstruction, because said crime cannot be proven.

Mueller needs to clarify why he DID NOT bring Obstruction charges against the Liar in Chief.

He did.
Motive cannot be proven.

 

[basquebromance]

Mueller: Obstruction indictment against Trump mentioned in Michael Wolff book does not exist

/thread

 

[caddo kid]

I never made any claim, as you state, "that that the documents did indeed exist and were destroyed," which are your words; not mine.

Thank you for agreeing that you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
That being the case, why don't you admit the ridiculousness of said possibility and move on?

Admit?

Yes. That you did not think through the implications and necessities inherent to the possibility you raised.
Well?

You missed this:

I will admit that you made an ass out of yourself by putting words in my mouth that I never stated & by failing to understand the (proper) use of language.
As I previously stated, you need to become more familiar with the use of language.
That isn't my problem but it sure seems to be (one of) yours.

You are wasting your time arguing with trumpettes. They will defend the Liar in Chief until he is out of office.....all 35% of them.

Mueller clearly laid out a road map for Congress to determine the Obstruction question. Barr and Rosenstein short circuited that plan.

Mueller needs to clarify why he DID NOT bring Obstruction charges against the Liar in Chief. If it was due the DOJ memo....even in part....then there are questions to be asked.

The problem is, even now, the Liar in Chief is obstruction the duties of Congress....by ordering people to defy the law and threatening witnesses. All the while...the GOP

Agreed. It is clear as day that Mueller documented several obstructive acts by Trump that would most likely have resulted in multiple indictments being handed down, IF NOT for the fact that Mueller was investigating a sitting POTUS, and from my reading Mueller's agreement with DOJ OLC theory which is, that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted.

IMO this is the only thing that kept Mueller from sending Trump to a court room to make a plea; guilty, not guilty.

Trump supporters really are too stupid to see the simplicity of the scenario & they are too stubborn to admit that yes, Trump really did obstruct the investigation.

I always said AmeriKKKans are stupid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mueller: Obstruction indictment against Trump mentioned in Michael Wolff book does not exist
/thread

The desperate, hyper-partisan bigots will tell you that "does not exist" does not mean they did not exist.
Because, you know, Mueller is more than willing to destroy federal documents in an effort to protect Trump.