Honestly, how many Trump acolytes here have actually read the Report?
- Thread starter nat4900
- Start date
We wrote it two years ago.
See if you can find anything in the Mueller pretense that wasn't in the Right's posts from the beginning of the fiasco.
See if you can find anything in the Mueller pretense that wasn't in the Right's posts from the beginning of the fiasco.
Oh.....and whenever you're ready to compare educational resumes......let me know, dope.
Mortis
Diamond Member
We don’t know what Mueller told Barr at the March 5 meeting, but Mueller made it clear in his first-ever public remarks why he had not made a determination of whether Trump committed a crime.
Mueller said he did not make a determination that there wasn’t a crime for two reasons: Department policy doesn’t allow a sitting president to be charged with a federal crime, and, because of that policy, “it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.”
“Those were the principles under which we operated and from them we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller said today.
[A]s set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the department of justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. …
And beyond department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. So that was justice department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated and from them we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.
Mueller said he did not make a determination that there wasn’t a crime for two reasons: Department policy doesn’t allow a sitting president to be charged with a federal crime, and, because of that policy, “it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.”
“Those were the principles under which we operated and from them we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller said today.
[A]s set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel’s office is part of the department of justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. …
And beyond department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. So that was justice department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated and from them we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.
One of us is an Ivy League grad, and the other is you.
Did Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Clown College give you a diploma or just that big red nose?
Those howling that Barr is in contempt of congress for not ILLEGALLY exposing grand jury data - our Hysterical House Dems - evidently do not really want to read it but rather just want to scream like petulant little children when Mommy says "no candy for you."
No Democrats have read the less-redacted Mueller report. But five Republicans have. - CNNPolitics
None of the six Democrats who have been provided access to a less-redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report have gone to the Justice Department to read it, according to a source familiar with the matter.
"Mueller said he did not make a determination that there wasn’t a crime for two reasons: Department policy doesn’t allow a sitting president to be charged with a federal crime, ..."
Actually, he not only didn't say that, but when questioned about same said it played no role.
"For what it's worth, Attorney General William Barr said that Mueller had told him expressly he was not saying that the OLC decision prevented him from finding a crime. At a press conference on April 18, Barr said,
We specifically asked [Mueller] about the OLC opinion and whether or not he was taking the position that he would have found a crime, but for the existence of the OLC opinion. And he made it very clear several times that that was not his position. He was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime. He made it very clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime."
Now, he pretends otherwise.
"Barr said he was “frankly surprised” by Mueller’s decision and peppered him with questions about the reasoning behind it. He also defended his characterization in his March 24 letter that Mueller’s decision not to indict President Trump on obstruction did not take into account the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) rule that it’s impermissible to indict a sitting president. Barr suggested that Mueller’s team merely could not reach a conclusion, when their thought process was more nuanced than that.
“Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found obstruction,” Barr said Wednesday. “He said that in the future, the facts of the case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case.”
Barr Reveals New Details Of Meeting With Mueller About Obstruction Case
Now he claims that the OLC decision prevented him from bringing charges.
Didn't Flynn get charged with lying for this sort of thing????
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
He lied in either case.
william the wie
Gold Member
- Nov 18, 2009
- 16,667
- 2,420
- 280
The left is terrified of Barr and Durham sending at least some house chairmen to jail based on plea bargains by the unraveling weaponized intelligence services.
But, I'd have to see it to believe it.
Repubs never seem to be able to be as ruthless as the Dems......e.g., Scooter Libby.
nat4900
Diamond Member
- Mar 3, 2015
- 42,021
- 5,975
- 1,870
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #36
Read the Constitution...........The evidence MUST be submitted to Congress under Article One where the "trial" COULD be held.....
THIS was Mueller's intent,,,,,and NOT to have a stooge like Barr telling Trump's ilk...."oh, there's nothing in the report...total exoneration....can I have a SCOTUS seat now?"
"...this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..." - R. Mueller III
We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute any American - including D.J. Trump - who after a thorough 2 yr, $35 million witch-hunt is found to not have committed a crime.
Case closed.
2.5 years of acute TDS have rendered poor Nat49 a blithering idiot. Very sad.
Mortis
Diamond Member
"...this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..." - R. Mueller III
We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute any American - including D.J. Trump - who after a thorough 2 yr, $35 million witch-hunt is found to not have committed a crime.
Case closed.
According to nat4900 ...case is not closed. Lol
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Venezuelan national assassin who killed an 18 year old college girl is the poster boy for the Democratic Party.- Started by MarathonMike
- Replies: 0
-
Saudi Leader Is Said to Push Trump to Continue Iran War in Recent Calls
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 0
-
Strait not closed. Map showing allowed ship traffic moving through the Strait of Hormuz (3.24.26)- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 3
-
Dems worried that if TDS begins to subside, they may have to start running electable candidates- Started by Votto
- Replies: 2
