Not a single Trumper here has read a word of the Mueller report.

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes it does, dope. They couldn't establish that because a sitting president cannot be indicted, dope.

They said if they could have cleared him they would have. They could not.
They also said that while they could not say if Trump committed obstruction, they did not exonerate him either.

simply stupid. as I just posted in another post, all mueller had to do was seal an indictment. that's it. It was available to him. he chose not to, = exonerated bitch!!!!

Derp....


"it also does not exonerate him."

sure it does, what is it you can do about it? no crime, no punishment, exonerated. it's simple dude. you keep

The report says this ,dope.

"it also does not exonerate him."

Thanks for the perfect examples.

Not a single Trumper here has read a word of the Mueller report.

 

[jc456]

simply stupid. as I just posted in another post, all mueller had to do was seal an indictment. that's it. It was available to him. he chose not to, = exonerated bitch!!!!

Derp....


"it also does not exonerate him."

sure it does, what is it you can do about it? no crime, no punishment, exonerated. it's simple dude. you keep

The report says this ,dope.

"it also does not exonerate him."

Thanks for yhe perfect examples.

Not a single Trumper here has read a word of the Mueller report.

I read more than you. I've posted sentences from it. no where does it say anything should happen to trump. I'm waiting, post the sentence. you read it right? then post it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes. A sitting president cannot be indicted. Therefore he cannot be accused either.

Jus as I said.

sure he can, it's called a sealed indictment. fk, how many times in here do I have to tell you all that. It is the purpose of the sealed indictment.

You're telling me nothing.

cause I told you everything

Everything except what the report says, dope. Your bullshit theories are meaningless.

no indictments to act on nor any sealed. = exonerated. I'm waiting for you to tell what the other option is? what is it if it isn't exoneration? come on step out of the hole.

Evidence of obstruction of justice, dope.

Read the report.

 

[jc456]

simply stupid. as I just posted in another post, all mueller had to do was seal an indictment. that's it. It was available to him. he chose not to, = exonerated bitch!!!!

Derp....


"it also does not exonerate him."

sure it does, what is it you can do about it? no crime, no punishment, exonerated. it's simple dude. you keep

The report says this ,dope.

"it also does not exonerate him."

Thanks for the perfect examples.

Not a single Trumper here has read a word of the Mueller report.

From the report

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

here was the mission..

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Derp....


"it also does not exonerate him."

sure it does, what is it you can do about it? no crime, no punishment, exonerated. it's simple dude. you keep

The report says this ,dope.

"it also does not exonerate him."

Thanks for yhe perfect examples.

Not a single Trumper here has read a word of the Mueller report.

I read more than you. I've posted sentences from it. no where does it say anything should happen to trump. I'm waiting, post the sentence. you read it right? then post it.

You have not read the report at all or you wouldn't be asking such dopey questions.
You have done nothing but mischatacterize and express dopey theories that are not part of the report.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Throughout his report, Mueller signals clearly that he thinks Congress should settle that question, not the attorney general. By spending months investigating incidents of obstruction despite concluding he couldn’t indict a sitting president, Mueller gave lawmakers a starting point.

And he made sure not to get in their way. At one point, Mueller said he wanted to be certain he didn’t take actions that would “preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct” -- a hint that came complete with a footnote referring to impeachment."

 

[jc456]

sure it does, what is it you can do about it? no crime, no punishment, exonerated. it's simple dude. you keep

The report says this ,dope.

"it also does not exonerate him."

Thanks for yhe perfect examples.

Not a single Trumper here has read a word of the Mueller report.

I read more than you. I've posted sentences from it. no where does it say anything should happen to trump. I'm waiting, post the sentence. you read it right? then post it.

You have not read the report at all or you wouldn't be asking such dopey questions.
You have done nothing but mischatacterize and express dopey theories that are not part of the report.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Throughout his report, Mueller signals clearly that he thinks Congress should settle that question, not the attorney general. By spending months investigating incidents of obstruction despite concluding he couldn’t indict a sitting president, Mueller gave lawmakers a starting point.

And he made sure not to get in their way. At one point, Mueller said he wanted to be certain he didn’t take actions that would “preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct” -- a hint that came complete with a footnote referring to impeachment."

I just posted a line from the report. and then you write this? dude, you're truly lost and in a hole. you should really climb out.

 

[jc456]

sure it does, what is it you can do about it? no crime, no punishment, exonerated. it's simple dude. you keep

The report says this ,dope.

"it also does not exonerate him."

Thanks for yhe perfect examples.

Not a single Trumper here has read a word of the Mueller report.

I read more than you. I've posted sentences from it. no where does it say anything should happen to trump. I'm waiting, post the sentence. you read it right? then post it.

You have not read the report at all or you wouldn't be asking such dopey questions.
You have done nothing but mischatacterize and express dopey theories that are not part of the report.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Throughout his report, Mueller signals clearly that he thinks Congress should settle that question, not the attorney general. By spending months investigating incidents of obstruction despite concluding he couldn’t indict a sitting president, Mueller gave lawmakers a starting point.

And he made sure not to get in their way. At one point, Mueller said he wanted to be certain he didn’t take actions that would “preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct” -- a hint that came complete with a footnote referring to impeachment."

which meant, I got shit.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The report says this ,dope.

"it also does not exonerate him."

Thanks for yhe perfect examples.

Not a single Trumper here has read a word of the Mueller report.

I read more than you. I've posted sentences from it. no where does it say anything should happen to trump. I'm waiting, post the sentence. you read it right? then post it.

You have not read the report at all or you wouldn't be asking such dopey questions.
You have done nothing but mischatacterize and express dopey theories that are not part of the report.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Throughout his report, Mueller signals clearly that he thinks Congress should settle that question, not the attorney general. By spending months investigating incidents of obstruction despite concluding he couldn’t indict a sitting president, Mueller gave lawmakers a starting point.

And he made sure not to get in their way. At one point, Mueller said he wanted to be certain he didn’t take actions that would “preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct” -- a hint that came complete with a footnote referring to impeachment."

I just posted a line from the report. and then you write this? dude, you're truly lost and in a hole. you should really climb out.

Derp....

You just didn't post the part that answers your own question that you wouldn't have asked if you had read the report in the first place.

 

[jc456]

sure he can, it's called a sealed indictment. fk, how many times in here do I have to tell you all that. It is the purpose of the sealed indictment.

You're telling me nothing.

cause I told you everything

Everything except what the report says, dope. Your bullshit theories are meaningless.

no indictments to act on nor any sealed. = exonerated. I'm waiting for you to tell what the other option is? what is it if it isn't exoneration? come on step out of the hole.

Evidence of obstruction of justice, dope.

Read the report.

there isn't one piece of evidence. want me to post that too?

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

This was his fking job in this investigation.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The report says this ,dope.

"it also does not exonerate him."

Thanks for yhe perfect examples.

Not a single Trumper here has read a word of the Mueller report.

I read more than you. I've posted sentences from it. no where does it say anything should happen to trump. I'm waiting, post the sentence. you read it right? then post it.

You have not read the report at all or you wouldn't be asking such dopey questions.
You have done nothing but mischatacterize and express dopey theories that are not part of the report.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Throughout his report, Mueller signals clearly that he thinks Congress should settle that question, not the attorney general. By spending months investigating incidents of obstruction despite concluding he couldn’t indict a sitting president, Mueller gave lawmakers a starting point.

And he made sure not to get in their way. At one point, Mueller said he wanted to be certain he didn’t take actions that would “preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct” -- a hint that came complete with a footnote referring to impeachment."

which meant, I got shit.

Which means what it says, dope.

Even Barr cannot indict a sitting president so any remedy will have to come from Congress and not the DOJ.

 

[jc456]

Thanks for yhe perfect examples.

Not a single Trumper here has read a word of the Mueller report.

I read more than you. I've posted sentences from it. no where does it say anything should happen to trump. I'm waiting, post the sentence. you read it right? then post it.

You have not read the report at all or you wouldn't be asking such dopey questions.
You have done nothing but mischatacterize and express dopey theories that are not part of the report.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Throughout his report, Mueller signals clearly that he thinks Congress should settle that question, not the attorney general. By spending months investigating incidents of obstruction despite concluding he couldn’t indict a sitting president, Mueller gave lawmakers a starting point.

And he made sure not to get in their way. At one point, Mueller said he wanted to be certain he didn’t take actions that would “preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct” -- a hint that came complete with a footnote referring to impeachment."

I just posted a line from the report. and then you write this? dude, you're truly lost and in a hole. you should really climb out.

Derp....

You just didn't post the part that answers your own question that you wouldn't have asked if you had read the report in the first place.

sure I did. here's some more...you know, the report I didn't read according to you.

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Exonerate is all that does. plain and simple. doubletalk is doubletalk.

 

[jc456]

Thanks for yhe perfect examples.

Not a single Trumper here has read a word of the Mueller report.

I read more than you. I've posted sentences from it. no where does it say anything should happen to trump. I'm waiting, post the sentence. you read it right? then post it.

You have not read the report at all or you wouldn't be asking such dopey questions.
You have done nothing but mischatacterize and express dopey theories that are not part of the report.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Throughout his report, Mueller signals clearly that he thinks Congress should settle that question, not the attorney general. By spending months investigating incidents of obstruction despite concluding he couldn’t indict a sitting president, Mueller gave lawmakers a starting point.

And he made sure not to get in their way. At one point, Mueller said he wanted to be certain he didn’t take actions that would “preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct” -- a hint that came complete with a footnote referring to impeachment."

which meant, I got shit.

Which means what it says, dope.

Even Barr cannot indict a sitting president so any remedy will have to come from Congress and not the DOJ.

sure they can, they can seal it. As I continue to say over, and over, and over and over and over and over.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're telling me nothing.

cause I told you everything

Everything except what the report says, dope. Your bullshit theories are meaningless.

no indictments to act on nor any sealed. = exonerated. I'm waiting for you to tell what the other option is? what is it if it isn't exoneration? come on step out of the hole.

Evidence of obstruction of justice, dope.

Read the report.

there isn't one piece of evidence. want me to post that too?

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

This was his fking job in this investigation.

LOL...
My god. Use your brain.
It was not, dope. It could not have been a traditional determination as a sitting president cannot be indicted. Even if he had made a determination, what would Barr do with it? Nothing. He can't indict either.

Regardless of the determination, the evidence is the same.

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

How many are we up to, 1000?

 

[jc456]

cause I told you everything

Everything except what the report says, dope. Your bullshit theories are meaningless.

no indictments to act on nor any sealed. = exonerated. I'm waiting for you to tell what the other option is? what is it if it isn't exoneration? come on step out of the hole.

Evidence of obstruction of justice, dope.

Read the report.

there isn't one piece of evidence. want me to post that too?

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

This was his fking job in this investigation.

LOL...
My god. Use your brain.
It was not, dope. It could not have been a traditional determination as a sitting president cannot be indicted. Even if he had made a determination, what would Barr do with it? Nothing. He can't indict either.

Regardless of the determination, the evidence is the same.

they give the option through sealing the indictment. It's why it's there. fk you all are stupid. dude, why else did they ask for a FKNG special counsel then?

 

[jc456]

cause I told you everything

Everything except what the report says, dope. Your bullshit theories are meaningless.

no indictments to act on nor any sealed. = exonerated. I'm waiting for you to tell what the other option is? what is it if it isn't exoneration? come on step out of the hole.

Evidence of obstruction of justice, dope.

Read the report.

there isn't one piece of evidence. want me to post that too?

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

This was his fking job in this investigation.

LOL...
My god. Use your brain.
It was not, dope. It could not have been a traditional determination as a sitting president cannot be indicted. Even if he had made a determination, what would Barr do with it? Nothing. He can't indict either.

Regardless of the determination, the evidence is the same.

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

How many are we up to, 1000?

and again, so what, what is it you think that means? I give absolutely my last shit to what that means. Mueller Report =EXONERATED baby!!!!!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Thanks for yhe perfect examples.

Not a single Trumper here has read a word of the Mueller report.

I read more than you. I've posted sentences from it. no where does it say anything should happen to trump. I'm waiting, post the sentence. you read it right? then post it.

You have not read the report at all or you wouldn't be asking such dopey questions.
You have done nothing but mischatacterize and express dopey theories that are not part of the report.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Throughout his report, Mueller signals clearly that he thinks Congress should settle that question, not the attorney general. By spending months investigating incidents of obstruction despite concluding he couldn’t indict a sitting president, Mueller gave lawmakers a starting point.

And he made sure not to get in their way. At one point, Mueller said he wanted to be certain he didn’t take actions that would “preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct” -- a hint that came complete with a footnote referring to impeachment."

I just posted a line from the report. and then you write this? dude, you're truly lost and in a hole. you should really climb out.

Derp....

You just didn't post the part that answers your own question that you wouldn't have asked if you had read the report in the first place.

sure I did. here's some more...you know, the report I didn't read according to you.

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Exonerate is all that does. plain and simple. doubletalk is doubletalk.

WTF??
LOL..
It says just the opposite, dope.

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

-Yep, so they believe he committed obstruction.


"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."

-Yep, so again, they believe he committed obstruction

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

-Yep, so while we cannot officially say he committed obstruction, we believe he committed obstruction and cannot exonerate him.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Everything except what the report says, dope. Your bullshit theories are meaningless.

no indictments to act on nor any sealed. = exonerated. I'm waiting for you to tell what the other option is? what is it if it isn't exoneration? come on step out of the hole.

Evidence of obstruction of justice, dope.

Read the report.

there isn't one piece of evidence. want me to post that too?

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

This was his fking job in this investigation.

LOL...
My god. Use your brain.
It was not, dope. It could not have been a traditional determination as a sitting president cannot be indicted. Even if he had made a determination, what would Barr do with it? Nothing. He can't indict either.

Regardless of the determination, the evidence is the same.

they give the option through sealing the indictment. It's why it's there. fk you all are stupid. dude, why else did they ask for a FKNG special counsel then?

There is no such option for a sealing an indictment for 6 or 8 years.

 

[jc456]

no indictments to act on nor any sealed. = exonerated. I'm waiting for you to tell what the other option is? what is it if it isn't exoneration? come on step out of the hole.

Evidence of obstruction of justice, dope.

Read the report.

there isn't one piece of evidence. want me to post that too?

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

This was his fking job in this investigation.

LOL...
My god. Use your brain.
It was not, dope. It could not have been a traditional determination as a sitting president cannot be indicted. Even if he had made a determination, what would Barr do with it? Nothing. He can't indict either.

Regardless of the determination, the evidence is the same.

they give the option through sealing the indictment. It's why it's there. fk you all are stupid. dude, why else did they ask for a FKNG special counsel then?

There is no such option for a sealing an indictment for 6 or 8 years.

sure there is, and Barr stated so in his summary.

 

[jc456]

I read more than you. I've posted sentences from it. no where does it say anything should happen to trump. I'm waiting, post the sentence. you read it right? then post it.

You have not read the report at all or you wouldn't be asking such dopey questions.
You have done nothing but mischatacterize and express dopey theories that are not part of the report.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
"Throughout his report, Mueller signals clearly that he thinks Congress should settle that question, not the attorney general. By spending months investigating incidents of obstruction despite concluding he couldn’t indict a sitting president, Mueller gave lawmakers a starting point.

And he made sure not to get in their way. At one point, Mueller said he wanted to be certain he didn’t take actions that would “preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct” -- a hint that came complete with a footnote referring to impeachment."

I just posted a line from the report. and then you write this? dude, you're truly lost and in a hole. you should really climb out.

Derp....

You just didn't post the part that answers your own question that you wouldn't have asked if you had read the report in the first place.

sure I did. here's some more...you know, the report I didn't read according to you.

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Exonerate is all that does. plain and simple. doubletalk is doubletalk.

WTF??
LOL..
It says just the opposite, dope.

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

-Yep, so they believe he committed obstruction.


"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."

-Yep, so again, they believe he committed obstruction

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

-Yep, so while we cannot officially say he committed obstruction, we believe he committed obstruction and cannot exonerate him.

did you notice I said doubletalk?

what judgement did they meet? what other choice is there? either he did, or he didn't? If you didn't charge him, then he didn't. I don't need anymore than no indictment was filed against trump, and one wasn't sealed that === exonerated.

His assignment wasn't to reach a judgement on obstruction, I pasted the assignment, it was for interference, and I quoted that they found none in an earlier post.

double talk
Yep, so while we cannot officially say he committed obstruction, we believe he committed obstruction and cannot exonerate him
too fking funny. that's cyclical. you stupid fk.
It's called no commitment to make a judgement, his fking job, useless waste of 25 million and ==exonerated.

Proven Witch Hunt and HOAX!!! spying.

 

[Timmy]

Its painfully obvious from all the stupid shit they say .

Hey, no one is asking to read the whole 400 page thing. How about the 18 page summary from the man himself . Perhaps you can have some elementary students read it to you !

Really . Fed up . Who’s read the thing ?

https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2019/05/Mueller-Summaries.pdf

This thread didn’t age well.

Why not ? Still the same idiots saying trump was vindicated , Russian involvement was a hoax , there was no obstruction, and no crimes committed .