Opinion---The TWO main questions that Mueller MUST answer under oath.....

[Oddball]

Mr. Mueller, as a respect American citizen, would you conclude, based on your report, that although the evidence was "insufficient" to conclude that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives, that the behavior of the Trump campaign was highly unethical and unpatriotic in their relationship with these operatives from a hostile, foreign country?...............................................Yes or No?

It is not Mueller's role as special counsel to make that determination.

He lies awake at night coming up with this shit.

 

[Thinker101]

was under the impression impeachment was always the objective.

Well, it isn't. Getting trump out of office is the objective.

Ok, so piss and moan it is....enjoy.

 

[nat4900]

You may want to go back and ready your own question, number 2....dumbass.

Cut and paste MY P/P and underline where I used the term "impeachment"........Go on, Mr. Fuckhead........LOL

 

[Thinker101]

You may want to go back and ready your own question, number 2....dumbass.

Cut and paste MY P/P and underline where I used the term "impeachment"........Go on, Mr. Fuckhead........LOL

Ok, so post #22 is for you too.

 

[nat4900]

The first question is a good one.
The second one isn't. First because it's a leading question and because it asks a prosecutor to make a judgement on a subjective question.

When the issues arise about lack of ethics or lack of "patriotism".......the question has to be subjective since it is not directly "objectively" criminal.

 

[forkup]

The first question is a good one.
The second one isn't. First because it's a leading question and because it asks a prosecutor to make a judgement on a subjective question.

When the issues arise about lack of ethics or lack of "patriotism".......the question has to be subjective since it is not directly "objectively" criminal.

True, but you are trying to ask a subjective question in what is a statement under oath. It's highly doubtful that a prosecutor would commit on doing so. Nor I would argue should he. Sorry just answering the premise of the OP.

 

[Oddball]

The first question is a good one.
The second one isn't. First because it's a leading question and because it asks a prosecutor to make a judgement on a subjective question.

When the issues arise about lack of ethics or lack of "patriotism".......the question has to be subjective since it is not directly "objectively" criminal.

So it's basically another day of you sniveling....More Clown World.

 

[nat4900]

ndictment" means that there must of been a high crime or misdemeanor -- grounds for impeachment for a sitting president.

No, my question specifically asks IF the evidence was enough to indict ANY ONE ELSE who may NOT be president.

A simpler way of interpreting my question is this........Since the DOJ's policy DOES place the sitting president above the law.....indicting or not indicting a president is a moot point........However, is the existing evidence enough for any other American.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The first question is a good one.
The second one isn't. First because it's a leading question and because it asks a prosecutor to make a judgement on a subjective question.

When the issues arise about lack of ethics or lack of "patriotism".......the question has to be subjective since it is not directly "objectively" criminal.

So it's basically another day of you sniveling....More Clown World.

View attachment 258842

^^

Triggered cultist

 

[nat4900]

True, but you are trying to ask a subjective question in what is a statement under oath. It's highly doubtful that a prosecutor would commit on doing so. Nor I would argue should he. Sorry just answering the premise of the OP.

Allowing someone like Mueller to answer "yes" or "no" to my second question....was my only intent.

Of course, there WOULD BE then, follow-up questions to Mueller's above response.

 

[JoeMoma]

ndictment" means that there must of been a high crime or misdemeanor -- grounds for impeachment for a sitting president.

No, my question specifically asks IF the evidence was enough to indict ANY ONE ELSE who may NOT be president.

A simpler way of interpreting my question is this........Since the DOJ's policy DOES place the sitting president above the law.....indicting or not indicting a president is a moot point........However, is the existing evidence enough for any other American.

If the president commits a crime, it's congress' job to make that determination and impeach him for it.

 

[forkup]

True, but you are trying to ask a subjective question in what is a statement under oath. It's highly doubtful that a prosecutor would commit on doing so. Nor I would argue should he. Sorry just answering the premise of the OP.

Allowing someone like Mueller to answer "yes" or "no" to my second question....was my only intent.

Of course, there WOULD BE then, follow-up questions to Mueller's above response.

It has nothing to do with "allowing" Mueller to do anything. It's about asking someone with a respected legal background to make a statement under oath on something that is based not on law but on opinions. Not to mention the fact that the way you asked it is leading all in itself. Say you ask it and he answers yes. He would be hit and rightfully so for stating a subjective opinion in this setting. The same goes for if he answers no. He would not answer that question.

 

[forkup]

ndictment" means that there must of been a high crime or misdemeanor -- grounds for impeachment for a sitting president.

No, my question specifically asks IF the evidence was enough to indict ANY ONE ELSE who may NOT be president.

A simpler way of interpreting my question is this........Since the DOJ's policy DOES place the sitting president above the law.....indicting or not indicting a president is a moot point........However, is the existing evidence enough for any other American.

If the president commits a crime, it's congress' job to make that determination and impeach him for it.

Well if an investigation was conducted and congress decides to not impeach, even though it was determined he did commit a crime, I would contend it's a sad day for the country. Now you will undoubtedly contend that Barr said no such crime was committed but that's not what was in the report, making it not just sad but dangerous. The AG in effect has said to the sitting president that the law simply doesn't apply to him in any way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ok, so you're going for impeachment based on unethical and/or unpatriotic behavior?

Actually, obstruction is criminal behavior.

Yet keeping Hillary's warmongering ass out of the White House is STILL not Obstruction

 

[nat4900]

First:

"Mr. Mueller, as an experienced and renowned prosecutor, and based on your thorough report, would the evidence on obstruction of justice be enough to indict ANYONE if that individual were not the sitting president and shielded by the current DOJ policy?....................................Yes or No?

Second:

"Mr. Mueller, as a respect American citizen, would you conclude, based on your report, that although the evidence was "insufficient" to conclude that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives, that the behavior of the Trump campaign was highly unethical and unpatriotic in their relationship with these operatives from a hostile, foreign country?...............................................Yes or No?

Ok, so you're going for impeachment based on unethical and/or unpatriotic behavior?

Sooooo, now "unethical and/or unpatriotic behavior" is acceptable under the Trump corrupt regime ???

 

[Oddball]

The first question is a good one.
The second one isn't. First because it's a leading question and because it asks a prosecutor to make a judgement on a subjective question.

When the issues arise about lack of ethics or lack of "patriotism".......the question has to be subjective since it is not directly "objectively" criminal.

So it's basically another day of you sniveling....More Clown World.

View attachment 258842

^^

Triggered cultist

Bored as hell with the sniveling, sniveler.

 

[Staidhup]

Nat it’s time to change your diapers, rather stinky.

 

[Thinker101]

First:

"Mr. Mueller, as an experienced and renowned prosecutor, and based on your thorough report, would the evidence on obstruction of justice be enough to indict ANYONE if that individual were not the sitting president and shielded by the current DOJ policy?....................................Yes or No?

Second:

"Mr. Mueller, as a respect American citizen, would you conclude, based on your report, that although the evidence was "insufficient" to conclude that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives, that the behavior of the Trump campaign was highly unethical and unpatriotic in their relationship with these operatives from a hostile, foreign country?...............................................Yes or No?

Ok, so you're going for impeachment based on unethical and/or unpatriotic behavior?

Sooooo, now "unethical and/or unpatriotic behavior" is acceptable under the Trump corrupt regime ???

Didn't realize there was a standard....dumbass.

 

[Olde Europe]

First:

"Mr. Mueller, as an experienced and renowned prosecutor, and based on your thorough report, would the evidence on obstruction of justice be enough to indict ANYONE if that individual were not the sitting president and shielded by the current DOJ policy?....................................Yes or No?

Second:

"Mr. Mueller, as a respect American citizen, would you conclude, based on your report, that although the evidence was "insufficient" to conclude that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives, that the behavior of the Trump campaign was highly unethical and unpatriotic in their relationship with these operatives from a hostile, foreign country?...............................................Yes or No?

[Channeling Mueller:]

First, since the president's actions involve specific presidential powers, which anyone other than the president couldn't have wielded, that comparison you are suggesting cannot have validity. There is no yes/no answer to that question.

Second, my report provided ample evidence for collusion - just criminal conspiracy we couldn't establish. Had you actually read the report, and understood the terms used in it, you'd know that. Moreover, I am a prosecutor, as you rightly say, not an inquisitor, and am therefore dealing with criminal matters, not matters of mere morality. If you want to moralize, you can do so on your own time, and rather ought not waste my time with it.

 

[wamose]

First:

"Mr. Mueller, as an experienced and renowned prosecutor, and based on your thorough report, would the evidence on obstruction of justice be enough to indict ANYONE if that individual were not the sitting president and shielded by the current DOJ policy?....................................Yes or No?

Second:

"Mr. Mueller, as a respect American citizen, would you conclude, based on your report, that although the evidence was "insufficient" to conclude that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives, that the behavior of the Trump campaign was highly unethical and unpatriotic in their relationship with these operatives from a hostile, foreign country?...............................................Yes or No?

This episode is over. Mueller will be on the stand to defend himself soon enough.