Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Most reasonable representatives agree that Nadler is in way over his head as a representative. Whether his many deficiencies are the result his diet, some environmental factor or maybe he's just a bad result of inbreeding. Nobody knows.
Most reasonable representatives know that Jerry Nadler has been handing Trump his ass on a platter for decades now:
Nadler-Trump Feud to Resume -- With Higher Stakes | RealClearPolitics
Trump always does the dumbest shit possible. Like walking out on the Budget Meeting with Pelosi and Schumer, shutting down the government, and now getting into a Constitutional battle with a Constitutional expert. Another smooth move by Trump.
In other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.STOP
1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.
According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.
2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.
If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.
Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.
3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.
As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.
this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.
NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.
You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.
Nice twisting of logic. Sorry, but that letter indicated Mueller was unappy with the MEDIA's misrepresenting the report, not Barr.
BULLFUCKINGSHIT. Did you READ THE LETTER? Nothing about any media in it.
And hey I've got a very simple way for us, and the rest of America to fully settle this one - HAVE MUELLER TESTIFY.
The fact that Trump's admin is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happenning should tell you all you need to know.
So you've read Barr's personal mail?.
HOAX ?? You AH's know all about Hoaxes You were pulling one on Hillary for 30 yearsIn other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.STOP
1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.
According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.
2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.
If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.
Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.
3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.
As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.
this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.
NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.
You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.
Nice twisting of logic. Sorry, but that letter indicated Mueller was unappy with the MEDIA's misrepresenting the report, not Barr.
BULLFUCKINGSHIT. Did you READ THE LETTER? Nothing about any media in it.
And hey I've got a very simple way for us, and the rest of America to fully settle this one - HAVE MUELLER TESTIFY.
The fact that Trump's admin is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happenning should tell you all you need to know.
So you've read Barr's personal mail? I'll take Barr's word over your hysterics. Since Mueller has not denied anything Barr said (remember he did come out and deny the Buzzfeed story so he would have made a statement) that should tell YOU all you need to know. Have Mueller testify? Go ahead. He can't answer most of your questions without breaking the law and then Republicans get to question him too. The matter is settled. For everybody except you people desperate to hold on to this hoax at all costs.
Silly stuff, both Barr and Rosenstein believed Mueller failedIn other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.STOP
1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.
According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.
2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.
If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.
Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.
3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.
As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.
this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.
NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.
You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.
That's bulllshit. He might no be able to indict the President but there was nothing preventing him from drawing a conclusion from the evidence on obstruction as he did on collusion, and if he believed the evidence supported it he could have recommended the Justice Department indict Trump once he left office. What was not proper was for Mueller to recommend that the issue go to Congress. The report was written for the AG and when Mueller declined to reach a conclusion on obstruction, effectively refusing to do his job, it fell to the AG to decide. No honest person would claim the raving lunatics in the House, the Democrats, would be able to reach a just conclusion on anything regarding Trump.
No, actually there is something - DOJ policies of:
1. NOT INDICTING A SITTING PRESIDENT.
2. NOT MAKING DEREGATORY STATEMENTS WITHOUT INDICTMENT
And it's more then policy, Muller seems to have felt that is the RIGHT way of handling this for the sake of this country.
He left any conclusions to be made by congress Are you folks that thick you don't understand?Silly stuff, both Barr and Rosenstein believed Mueller failed in his duties by not reaching a conclusion on obstruction. Apparently no one at Justice believes reaching a conclusion is against DoJ policy.In other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.STOP
1. Barr specifically lobbied for AG position by writing a letter to Trump all about how he could not possibly commit Obstruction of Justice if he obstructed by using on-it's-face normal powers.
According to this crazy fucking theory of presidency, Trump could pocket money from someone (legal) interested in firing an FBI director, and fire FBI director (legal). To all of sane world that is a crime called bribery. But to Barr that is a nothing-to-see-here since you have to infer President's corrupt intent.
2. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE. Barr did not simply present Mueller point of view and then offered his disgreement, Barr MISREPRESENTED Mueller's position that it was up to Congress (NOT AG!!!) to hold Trump accountable for the obstructive episodes report documents.
If you read his 4 page summary you come away with an impression that Mueller could not come to prosecuratorial descision, when in reality his position was that he CAN'T make a negative prosecutorial descision about a sitting POTUS.
Mueller himself wrote a letter of concern to Barr over this.
3. Barr's last testimony full of evasive manuevering and deciet made it perfectly clear to anyone who was not yet convinced that Barr is not there to serve the country as much as he was there to Roy Cohn for Trump.
As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.
this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.
NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.
You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.
That's bulllshit. He might no be able to indict the President but there was nothing preventing him from drawing a conclusion from the evidence on obstruction as he did on collusion, and if he believed the evidence supported it he could have recommended the Justice Department indict Trump once he left office. What was not proper was for Mueller to recommend that the issue go to Congress. The report was written for the AG and when Mueller declined to reach a conclusion on obstruction, effectively refusing to do his job, it fell to the AG to decide. No honest person would claim the raving lunatics in the House, the Democrats, would be able to reach a just conclusion on anything regarding Trump.
No, actually there is something - DOJ policies of:
1. NOT INDICTING A SITTING PRESIDENT.
2. NOT MAKING DEREGATORY STATEMENTS WITHOUT INDICTMENT
And it's more then policy, Muller seems to have felt that is the RIGHT way of handling this for the sake of this country.
If you followed the news, you wouldn't be asking for quotes, asshole. Btw, Barr said he doesn't object to Mueller testifying.Silly stuff, both Barr and Rosenstein believed Mueller failedIn other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.
As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.
this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.
NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.
You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.
That's bulllshit. He might no be able to indict the President but there was nothing preventing him from drawing a conclusion from the evidence on obstruction as he did on collusion, and if he believed the evidence supported it he could have recommended the Justice Department indict Trump once he left office. What was not proper was for Mueller to recommend that the issue go to Congress. The report was written for the AG and when Mueller declined to reach a conclusion on obstruction, effectively refusing to do his job, it fell to the AG to decide. No honest person would claim the raving lunatics in the House, the Democrats, would be able to reach a just conclusion on anything regarding Trump.
No, actually there is something - DOJ policies of:
1. NOT INDICTING A SITTING PRESIDENT.
2. NOT MAKING DEREGATORY STATEMENTS WITHOUT INDICTMENT
And it's more then policy, Muller seems to have felt that is the RIGHT way of handling this for the sake of this country.
Direct quotes please or STFU.
That was not within his jurisdiction, and it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to have suggested it.He left any conclusions to be made by congress Are you folks that thick you don't understand?Silly stuff, both Barr and Rosenstein believed Mueller failed in his duties by not reaching a conclusion on obstruction. Apparently no one at Justice believes reaching a conclusion is against DoJ policy.In other words, you haven't read Barr's memo but you have strong opinions about it anyway. That's a definition of bigotry. While Mueller may not have been able to indict Trump while he was in office,, nothing prevented him from concluding Trump was guilty of obstruction and should be indicted when he leaves office if the evidence supported such a conclusion; the fact that Mueller never reached that conclusion shows he did not believe the evidence supported it.
As for Mueller's position on allowing Congress to decide, it was improper for him to suggest it in his report, since his job ended when he turned in the report. The real reason Mueller didn't offer an opinion on obstruction is that as Barr's memo pointed out the expanded definition of obstruction Mueller was using had no precedent in law and no case law to support it.
this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.
NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.
You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.
That's bulllshit. He might no be able to indict the President but there was nothing preventing him from drawing a conclusion from the evidence on obstruction as he did on collusion, and if he believed the evidence supported it he could have recommended the Justice Department indict Trump once he left office. What was not proper was for Mueller to recommend that the issue go to Congress. The report was written for the AG and when Mueller declined to reach a conclusion on obstruction, effectively refusing to do his job, it fell to the AG to decide. No honest person would claim the raving lunatics in the House, the Democrats, would be able to reach a just conclusion on anything regarding Trump.
No, actually there is something - DOJ policies of:
1. NOT INDICTING A SITTING PRESIDENT.
2. NOT MAKING DEREGATORY STATEMENTS WITHOUT INDICTMENT
And it's more then policy, Muller seems to have felt that is the RIGHT way of handling this for the sake of this country.
That was not within his jurisdiction, and it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to have suggested it.He left any conclusions to be made by congress Are you folks that thick you don't understand?Silly stuff, both Barr and Rosenstein believed Mueller failed in his duties by not reaching a conclusion on obstruction. Apparently no one at Justice believes reaching a conclusion is against DoJ policy.this is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.
NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.
You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.
That's bulllshit. He might no be able to indict the President but there was nothing preventing him from drawing a conclusion from the evidence on obstruction as he did on collusion, and if he believed the evidence supported it he could have recommended the Justice Department indict Trump once he left office. What was not proper was for Mueller to recommend that the issue go to Congress. The report was written for the AG and when Mueller declined to reach a conclusion on obstruction, effectively refusing to do his job, it fell to the AG to decide. No honest person would claim the raving lunatics in the House, the Democrats, would be able to reach a just conclusion on anything regarding Trump.
No, actually there is something - DOJ policies of:
1. NOT INDICTING A SITTING PRESIDENT.
2. NOT MAKING DEREGATORY STATEMENTS WITHOUT INDICTMENT
And it's more then policy, Muller seems to have felt that is the RIGHT way of handling this for the sake of this country.
He was not a special investigator, he was a special counsel, working for the Justice Department under the supervision of the AG. He has no authority to decide what happens to his report once he turns it over to the AG.That was not within his jurisdiction, and it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to have suggested it.He left any conclusions to be made by congress Are you folks that thick you don't understand?Silly stuff, both Barr and Rosenstein believed Mueller failed in his duties by not reaching a conclusion on obstruction. Apparently no one at Justice believes reaching a conclusion is against DoJ policy.That's bulllshit. He might no be able to indict the President but there was nothing preventing him from drawing a conclusion from the evidence on obstruction as he did on collusion, and if he believed the evidence supported it he could have recommended the Justice Department indict Trump once he left office. What was not proper was for Mueller to recommend that the issue go to Congress. The report was written for the AG and when Mueller declined to reach a conclusion on obstruction, effectively refusing to do his job, it fell to the AG to decide. No honest person would claim the raving lunatics in the House, the Democrats, would be able to reach a just conclusion on anything regarding Trump.
No, actually there is something - DOJ policies of:
1. NOT INDICTING A SITTING PRESIDENT.
2. NOT MAKING DEREGATORY STATEMENTS WITHOUT INDICTMENT
And it's more then policy, Muller seems to have felt that is the RIGHT way of handling this for the sake of this country.
Based on what? He was a special investigator, why was it NOT within his juristiction?
He was not a special investigator, he was a special counsel, working for the Justice Department under the supervision of the AG. He has no authority to decide what happens to his report once he turns it over to the AG.That was not within his jurisdiction, and it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to have suggested it.He left any conclusions to be made by congress Are you folks that thick you don't understand?Silly stuff, both Barr and Rosenstein believed Mueller failed in his duties by not reaching a conclusion on obstruction. Apparently no one at Justice believes reaching a conclusion is against DoJ policy.No, actually there is something - DOJ policies of:
1. NOT INDICTING A SITTING PRESIDENT.
2. NOT MAKING DEREGATORY STATEMENTS WITHOUT INDICTMENT
And it's more then policy, Muller seems to have felt that is the RIGHT way of handling this for the sake of this country.
Based on what? He was a special investigator, why was it NOT within his juristiction?
When Mueller sent the report to Barr, his job was over. What happened to the report after than was above his pay grade, so for him to suggest that Congress should make the decision on obstruction, was improper and perhaps cowardly.He was not a special investigator, he was a special counsel, working for the Justice Department under the supervision of the AG. He has no authority to decide what happens to his report once he turns it over to the AG.That was not within his jurisdiction, and it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to have suggested it.He left any conclusions to be made by congress Are you folks that thick you don't understand?Silly stuff, both Barr and Rosenstein believed Mueller failed in his duties by not reaching a conclusion on obstruction. Apparently no one at Justice believes reaching a conclusion is against DoJ policy.
Based on what? He was a special investigator, why was it NOT within his juristiction?
Mueller DIDN'T descide what happened to the report. Barr released it if you recall.
However within the report he is surely entitled to state why he felt he could not make a prosecuratorial descision and why it is up to Congress, not DOJ to ultimately hold a sitting president accountable.
When Mueller sent the report to Barr, his job was over. What happened to the report after than was above his pay grade, so for him to suggest that Congress should make the decision on obstruction, was improper and perhaps cowardly.He was not a special investigator, he was a special counsel, working for the Justice Department under the supervision of the AG. He has no authority to decide what happens to his report once he turns it over to the AG.That was not within his jurisdiction, and it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to have suggested it.He left any conclusions to be made by congress Are you folks that thick you don't understand?
Based on what? He was a special investigator, why was it NOT within his juristiction?
Mueller DIDN'T descide what happened to the report. Barr released it if you recall.
However within the report he is surely entitled to state why he felt he could not make a prosecuratorial descision and why it is up to Congress, not DOJ to ultimately hold a sitting president accountable.
Are you brain damaged?When Mueller sent the report to Barr, his job was over. What happened to the report after than was above his pay grade, so for him to suggest that Congress should make the decision on obstruction, was improper and perhaps cowardly.He was not a special investigator, he was a special counsel, working for the Justice Department under the supervision of the AG. He has no authority to decide what happens to his report once he turns it over to the AG.That was not within his jurisdiction, and it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to have suggested it.
Based on what? He was a special investigator, why was it NOT within his juristiction?
Mueller DIDN'T descide what happened to the report. Barr released it if you recall.
However within the report he is surely entitled to state why he felt he could not make a prosecuratorial descision and why it is up to Congress, not DOJ to ultimately hold a sitting president accountable.
Wrong.
Are you brain damaged?When Mueller sent the report to Barr, his job was over. What happened to the report after than was above his pay grade, so for him to suggest that Congress should make the decision on obstruction, was improper and perhaps cowardly.He was not a special investigator, he was a special counsel, working for the Justice Department under the supervision of the AG. He has no authority to decide what happens to his report once he turns it over to the AG.Based on what? He was a special investigator, why was it NOT within his juristiction?
Mueller DIDN'T descide what happened to the report. Barr released it if you recall.
However within the report he is surely entitled to state why he felt he could not make a prosecuratorial descision and why it is up to Congress, not DOJ to ultimately hold a sitting president accountable.
Wrong.
If you are not brain damaged then why is it you seem unable to support any of your post with arguments?Are you brain damaged?When Mueller sent the report to Barr, his job was over. What happened to the report after than was above his pay grade, so for him to suggest that Congress should make the decision on obstruction, was improper and perhaps cowardly.He was not a special investigator, he was a special counsel, working for the Justice Department under the supervision of the AG. He has no authority to decide what happens to his report once he turns it over to the AG.
Mueller DIDN'T descide what happened to the report. Barr released it if you recall.
However within the report he is surely entitled to state why he felt he could not make a prosecuratorial descision and why it is up to Congress, not DOJ to ultimately hold a sitting president accountable.
Wrong.
No, but you are.
His testimony on these issues is in his report. There is no plausible reason for him not to have stated he thought Trump was guilty of obstruction if he believed the evidence supported that conclusion.Mueller did testify to what he believed to be true in his reportthis is EXACTLY the misrepresentation of Muller’s position I was talking about.
NO, him not reaching a conclusion WAS NOT due to lack of evidence but due to his belief that it is not proper for him, an unelected person, to make a negative prosecutorial judgement on a sitting president.
You can agree with that view, you can disagree with that view, but Barr very specifically mislead the country on Special Prosecutor’s position.
Nice twisting of logic. Sorry, but that letter indicated Mueller was unappy with the MEDIA's misrepresenting the report, not Barr.
BULLFUCKINGSHIT. Did you READ THE LETTER? Nothing about any media in it.
And hey I've got a very simple way for us, and the rest of America to fully settle this one - HAVE MUELLER TESTIFY.
The fact that Trump's admin is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happenning should tell you all you need to know.
You need to stop doing drugs son, Mueller never testified.
When Mueller sent the report to Barr, his job was over. What happened to the report after than was above his pay grade, so for him to suggest that Congress should make the decision on obstruction, was improper and perhaps cowardly.He was not a special investigator, he was a special counsel, working for the Justice Department under the supervision of the AG. He has no authority to decide what happens to his report once he turns it over to the AG.That was not within his jurisdiction, and it was improper and perhaps unethical for him to have suggested it.He left any conclusions to be made by congress Are you folks that thick you don't understand?
Based on what? He was a special investigator, why was it NOT within his juristiction?
Mueller DIDN'T descide what happened to the report. Barr released it if you recall.
However within the report he is surely entitled to state why he felt he could not make a prosecuratorial descision and why it is up to Congress, not DOJ to ultimately hold a sitting president accountable.
If you are not brain damaged then why is it you seem unable to support any of your post with arguments?Are you brain damaged?When Mueller sent the report to Barr, his job was over. What happened to the report after than was above his pay grade, so for him to suggest that Congress should make the decision on obstruction, was improper and perhaps cowardly.Mueller DIDN'T descide what happened to the report. Barr released it if you recall.
However within the report he is surely entitled to state why he felt he could not make a prosecuratorial descision and why it is up to Congress, not DOJ to ultimately hold a sitting president accountable.
Wrong.
No, but you are.
It only seems that way to crazy people. Other people listen to what is actually said and not the voices in their heads.His testimony on these issues is in his report. There is no plausible reason for him not to have stated he thought Trump was guilty of obstruction if he believed the evidence supported that conclusion.Mueller did testify to what he believed to be true in his reportNice twisting of logic. Sorry, but that letter indicated Mueller was unappy with the MEDIA's misrepresenting the report, not Barr.
BULLFUCKINGSHIT. Did you READ THE LETTER? Nothing about any media in it.
And hey I've got a very simple way for us, and the rest of America to fully settle this one - HAVE MUELLER TESTIFY.
The fact that Trump's admin is fighting tooth and nail to prevent that from happenning should tell you all you need to know.
You need to stop doing drugs son, Mueller never testified.
He did state that Trump was guilty of obstruction, he just didn't use those exact words.
