If Mueller would have 'had the goods' on Trump he would have indicted him.

[MisterBeale]

Mueller started and ended his comments with Russia helped Trump, PUTIN said they helped trump And yet the AH denies russia helped A degenerate liar in our WH

Literally dozens of Dems voted for Trump because of Russian memes on Facebook.
It was awful.
We need to shutdown Facebook immediately.

 

[MisterBeale]

Okay, people, let's cut through the haze of goalpost-moving and "outrage" du jour.

Mueller's investigation was supposed to be about Russian interference in the 2016 election. As much as you deranged leftists want to ignore it, Mueller cleared him on this:

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

For Mueller to then broaden his investigation to "obstruction of justice", and THEN punt was directly contrary to the basics of good prosecutorial behavior, and was FAR more suspicious than the decision Barr made (which he only had to make because Mueller refused to do so).

Furthermore, his definition of "obstruction of justice" is far broader than the legal standard, and would be ultimately unworkable in our legal system. And even then, after having defined "obstruction of justice" as basically anything that might ever let people know you don't enjoy being investigated, he STILL couldn't come up with enough to say, "Yes, I believe he obstructed justice and should be prosecuted".

As much as the rabid left would like to ignore it and pretend otherwise, Mueller's report provided counter-evidence for every insinuation of obstruction.

So no, lefties. You have nothing. Trump's a jackass; we already knew that. Being a jackass is neither illegal nor grounds for impeachment; it's past time that you leftists learn that.

Just saying, that this is a very good analysis.

Her analysis is total bullshit. Over 800 prosecutors have signed a letter saying that if Trump were NOT the sitting President, he would have been charge with obstruction of justice.

We, the public, watched him do it in real time, on Twitter, in his pressers - threatening witnesses, their families, and dangling pardons. That's not an "overbroad" definition of obstruction. You have to be wilfully blind to ignore it, but "wilfully blind" is the most perfect description of Trumpers ever.

 

[iceberg]

Actually, Mueller said that because he couldn't prove Trump's intent or motive, he wasn't able to bring charges against him, but he also said that the report does not exonerate him either.

couldn't prove hillarys intent either so they just said no intent and let it go.

why am i not surprised the left doesn't want anyone to get the same benefit of doubts they get?

 

[The Original Tree]

any implied right wing fantasy works for the right wing. a DOJ special counsel simply cannot charge his "boss" since it is a Constitutionally provided for issue and should require Congress and a Congressional special counsel.

Forgetting for a minute that US AG Barr testified under oath (something Mueller refuses to do to avoid perjury / answering any questions about his investigation and role in it) that Mueller told him on 3 separate occasions that the OLC's decision PLAYED NO PART in his own investigation and final decision....


"If President Trump actually committed a crime, there is nothing in the OLC’s opinion that would have prevented the special counsel or the attorney general from saying so.

The most relevant concern the OLC raises is that an indictment “exposes the President to an official pronouncement that there is probable cause to believe he committed a criminal act,” which could impair “his credibility in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities.”

A special counsel’s private report to the attorney general ran no such risk, especially since Barr was under no legal obligation to make Mueller’s report public. Special counsels don’t issue indictments – grand juries do.

That’s why the last man with responsibilities similar to Mueller’s – Independent Counsel Ken Starr – had no qualms writing definitively about findings of criminal wrongdoing by the subject of his investigation, President Bill Clinton.

“The Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President /Clinton obstructed justice … the President lied under oath to the grand jury and obstructed justice,” Starr wrote, along with dozens of other unambiguous determinations that President Clinton had committed crimes.

The idea that the OLC somehow stopped Mueller from doing the same thing is absurd."

Joe diGenova: Mueller wants Americans to believe Trump is a criminal and it's up to Congress to impeach him


Mueller's theatrical performance yesterday - safely holding a press conference where he could say anything he wanted to without risk or repercussion instead of under oath testifying before Congress - amounted to a political 'drive-by' intended to 'stir the pot' / to incite Trump-hating Democrats in the House to begin Impeachment proceedings, to accomplish what he could NOT do - take down Trump!

Mueller is a liar and fraud who knew for 18 months there was NO Collusion and that his investigation was a fraud. This is why he refuses to testify under oath. He was part of The Insurance Policy. James Comey even said so. Comey intentionally committed crimes to get Bob Mueller appointed., and Bob Mueller, only. He did not want anyone else, because they might turn out to be Non-partisan. He did not have to risk that with Bob Mueller.

 

[danielpalos]

any implied right wing fantasy works for the right wing. a DOJ special counsel simply cannot charge his "boss" since it is a Constitutionally provided for issue and should require Congress and a Congressional special counsel.

Forgetting for a minute that US AG Barr testified under oath (something Mueller refuses to do to avoid perjury / answering any questions about his investigation and role in it) that Mueller told him on 3 separate occasions that the OLC's decision PLAYED NO PART in his own investigation and final decision....


"If President Trump actually committed a crime, there is nothing in the OLC’s opinion that would have prevented the special counsel or the attorney general from saying so.

The most relevant concern the OLC raises is that an indictment “exposes the President to an official pronouncement that there is probable cause to believe he committed a criminal act,” which could impair “his credibility in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities.”

A special counsel’s private report to the attorney general ran no such risk, especially since Barr was under no legal obligation to make Mueller’s report public. Special counsels don’t issue indictments – grand juries do.

That’s why the last man with responsibilities similar to Mueller’s – Independent Counsel Ken Starr – had no qualms writing definitively about findings of criminal wrongdoing by the subject of his investigation, President Bill Clinton.

“The Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President /Clinton obstructed justice … the President lied under oath to the grand jury and obstructed justice,” Starr wrote, along with dozens of other unambiguous determinations that President Clinton had committed crimes.

The idea that the OLC somehow stopped Mueller from doing the same thing is absurd."

Joe diGenova: Mueller wants Americans to believe Trump is a criminal and it's up to Congress to impeach him


Mueller's theatrical performance yesterday - safely holding a press conference where he could say anything he wanted to without risk or repercussion instead of under oath testifying before Congress - amounted to a political 'drive-by' intended to 'stir the pot' / to incite Trump-hating Democrats in the House to begin Impeachment proceedings, to accomplish what he could NOT do - take down Trump!

what are you talking about? a DOJ special counsel simply doesn't have the authority. A Congressional special counsel can even count blow jobs.

 

[dudmuck]

any implied right wing fantasy works for the right wing. a DOJ special counsel simply cannot charge his "boss" since it is a Constitutionally provided for issue and should require Congress and a Congressional special counsel.

Forgetting for a minute that US AG Barr testified under oath (something Mueller refuses to do to avoid perjury / answering any questions about his investigation and role in it) that Mueller told him on 3 separate occasions that the OLC's decision PLAYED NO PART in his own investigation and final decision....


"If President Trump actually committed a crime, there is nothing in the OLC’s opinion that would have prevented the special counsel or the attorney general from saying so.

The most relevant concern the OLC raises is that an indictment “exposes the President to an official pronouncement that there is probable cause to believe he committed a criminal act,” which could impair “his credibility in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities.”

A special counsel’s private report to the attorney general ran no such risk, especially since Barr was under no legal obligation to make Mueller’s report public. Special counsels don’t issue indictments – grand juries do.

That’s why the last man with responsibilities similar to Mueller’s – Independent Counsel Ken Starr – had no qualms writing definitively about findings of criminal wrongdoing by the subject of his investigation, President Bill Clinton.

“The Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President /Clinton obstructed justice … the President lied under oath to the grand jury and obstructed justice,” Starr wrote, along with dozens of other unambiguous determinations that President Clinton had committed crimes.

The idea that the OLC somehow stopped Mueller from doing the same thing is absurd."

Joe diGenova: Mueller wants Americans to believe Trump is a criminal and it's up to Congress to impeach him


Mueller's theatrical performance yesterday - safely holding a press conference where he could say anything he wanted to without risk or repercussion instead of under oath testifying before Congress - amounted to a political 'drive-by' intended to 'stir the pot' / to incite Trump-hating Democrats in the House to begin Impeachment proceedings, to accomplish what he could NOT do - take down Trump!

Mueller is a liar and fraud who knew for 18 months there was NO Collusion and that his investigation was a fraud. This is why he refuses to testify under oath. He was part of The Insurance Policy. James Comey even said so. Comey intentionally committed crimes to get Bob Mueller appointed., and Bob Mueller, only. He did not want anyone else, because they might turn out to be Non-partisan. He did not have to risk that with Bob Mueller.

You know, there's pretty much no evidence that Trump has ties to Russia, except for the...

Flynn Thing
Manafort Thing
Tillerson Thing
Sessions Thing
Kushner Thing
Wray Thing
Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius "Russian Law Firm of the Year" Thing
Carter Page Thing
Roger Stone Thing
Felix Sater Thing
Boris Epshteyn Thing
Rosneft Thing
Gazprom Thing
Sergey Gorkov banker Thing
Azerbaijan Thing
"I Love Putin" Thing
Lavrov Thing
Sergey Kislyak Thing
Oval Office Thing
Gingrich Kislyak Phone Calls Thing
Russian Business Interest Thing
Emoluments Clause Thing
Alex Schnaider Thing
Hack of the DNC Thing

Guccifer 2.0 Thing
Mike Pence "I don't know anything" Thing
Russians Mysteriously Dying Thing
Trump's public request to Russia to hack Hillary's email Thing
Trump house sale for $100 million at the bottom of the housing bust to the Russian fertilizer king Thing
Russian fertilizer king's plane showing up in Concord, NC during Trump rally campaign Thing
Nunes sudden flight to the White House in the night Thing
Nunes personal investments in the Russian winery Thing
Cyprus bank Thing
Trump not Releasing his Tax Returns Thing
the Republican Party's rejection of an amendment to require Trump to show his taxes thing
Election Hacking Thing
GOP platform change to the Ukraine Thing
Steele Dossier Thing
Sally Yates Can't Testify Thing
Intelligence Community's Investigative Reports Thing
Trump reassurance that the Russian connection is all "fake news" Thing
Chaffetz not willing to start an Investigation Thing
Chaffetz suddenly deciding to go back to private life in the middle of an investigation Thing
Appointment of Pam Bondi who was bribed by Trump in the Trump University scandal appointed to head the investigation Thing The White House going into cover-up mode, refusing to turn over the documents related to the hiring and firing of Flynn Thing
Chaffetz and White House blaming the poor vetting of Flynn on Obama Thing
Poland and British intelligence gave information regarding the hacking back in 2015 to Paul Ryan and he didn't do anything Thing
Agent M16 following the money thing
Trump team KNEW about Flynn's involvement but hired him anyway Thing
Let's Fire Comey Thing
Election night Russian trademark gifts Things
Russian diplomatic compound electronic equipment destruction Thing
let's give back the diplomatic compounds back to the Russians Thing
Let's Back Away From Cuba Thing
Donny Jr met with Russians Thing
Donny Jr emails details "Russian Government's support for Trump" Thing
Trump's secret second meeting with his boss Putin Thing

The Trump tweet admitting Russia helped get him elected Thing

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

any implied right wing fantasy works for the right wing. a DOJ special counsel simply cannot charge his "boss" since it is a Constitutionally provided for issue and should require Congress and a Congressional special counsel.

Forgetting for a minute that US AG Barr testified under oath (something Mueller refuses to do to avoid perjury / answering any questions about his investigation and role in it) that Mueller told him on 3 separate occasions that the OLC's decision PLAYED NO PART in his own investigation and final decision....


"If President Trump actually committed a crime, there is nothing in the OLC’s opinion that would have prevented the special counsel or the attorney general from saying so.

The most relevant concern the OLC raises is that an indictment “exposes the President to an official pronouncement that there is probable cause to believe he committed a criminal act,” which could impair “his credibility in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities.”

A special counsel’s private report to the attorney general ran no such risk, especially since Barr was under no legal obligation to make Mueller’s report public. Special counsels don’t issue indictments – grand juries do.

That’s why the last man with responsibilities similar to Mueller’s – Independent Counsel Ken Starr – had no qualms writing definitively about findings of criminal wrongdoing by the subject of his investigation, President Bill Clinton.

“The Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President /Clinton obstructed justice … the President lied under oath to the grand jury and obstructed justice,” Starr wrote, along with dozens of other unambiguous determinations that President Clinton had committed crimes.

The idea that the OLC somehow stopped Mueller from doing the same thing is absurd."

Joe diGenova: Mueller wants Americans to believe Trump is a criminal and it's up to Congress to impeach him


Mueller's theatrical performance yesterday - safely holding a press conference where he could say anything he wanted to without risk or repercussion instead of under oath testifying before Congress - amounted to a political 'drive-by' intended to 'stir the pot' / to incite Trump-hating Democrats in the House to begin Impeachment proceedings, to accomplish what he could NOT do - take down Trump!

what are you talking about? a DOJ special counsel simply doesn't have the authority. A Congressional special counsel can even count blow jobs.

Congressional special counsel

No such creature.

 

[MAGAman]

Mueller started and ended his comments with Russia helped Trump, PUTIN said they helped trump And yet the AH denies russia helped A degenerate liar in our WH

 

[easyt65]

what are you talking about? a DOJ special counsel simply doesn't have the authority. A Congressional special counsel can even count blow jobs.

What I am talking about is THIS:

The OLCs decision does not affect / prevent a Special Prosecutor from REPORTING that a President did or did not break the law. His REPORT does not INDICT a President. Mueller claiming he could not REPORT that the President did or did not break the law is BULLSHIT.

THE OLC'S DECISION PREVENTS A SITTING PRESIDENT FROM BEING INDICTED FOR A CRIME. IT DOES NOT PREVENT A SPECIAL COUNSEL FROM REPORTING SUCH A CRIME.

And declaring, 'If I believed the President had NOT committed a crime I WOULD HAVE SAID SO" is NOT the same thing as saying 'THE PREIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME.' The ONLY thing that prevented Mueller from declaring, ''THE PREIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME' was his inability to produce indictable evidence.

THAT is why, once again, Mueller attempted to smear the President through Innuendo and Insinuation of potential crimes committed. He could not 'take down the President' because he could not produce the indictable evidence to do so, so he did the only thing he could do - attempt to incite the Trump-hating Dems into beginning Impeachment proceedings.

This eliminates Trump's opportunity to actually face down his accusers and legally defend himself. THIS way the President gets accused and potentially Impeached without ever getting to challenge Mueller's bogus findings / accusation.

Again, this is the complete opposite of how our judicial system is supposed to work .

The Republicans in the House should immediately subpoena Mueller to have him testify under oath in order to defend his accusations / decisions and to answer questions about his investigation.
-- Snowflakes talk about Congress' responsibility to provide oversight of the President. What about the responsibility to provide oversight oh one lone Special Counsel (who should have never been appointed to begin with based on the fact that there was never any crime or evidence of a crime warranting an investigation or the appointment of a Special Counsel) who has the potential to incite Impeachment Proceedings against a President who has not been legally indicted for / convicted of / unquestionably proven to have committed a crime?

The fact that a potential 'political coup Insurance Policy' can accuse a President of wrong-doing, refuse to declare the President has committed a crime without providing solid evidence, and can deny that President of an opportunity to legally defend himself, and can incite a partisan Congress to then Impeach that President is frightening. If this should be allowed to happen, then the 'exposed coup' will have successfully been accomplished...all thanks in the end to the conspirators' 'Insurance Policy'.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, people, let's cut through the haze of goalpost-moving and "outrage" du jour.

Mueller's investigation was supposed to be about Russian interference in the 2016 election. As much as you deranged leftists want to ignore it, Mueller cleared him on this:

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

For Mueller to then broaden his investigation to "obstruction of justice", and THEN punt was directly contrary to the basics of good prosecutorial behavior, and was FAR more suspicious than the decision Barr made (which he only had to make because Mueller refused to do so).

Furthermore, his definition of "obstruction of justice" is far broader than the legal standard, and would be ultimately unworkable in our legal system. And even then, after having defined "obstruction of justice" as basically anything that might ever let people know you don't enjoy being investigated, he STILL couldn't come up with enough to say, "Yes, I believe he obstructed justice and should be prosecuted".

As much as the rabid left would like to ignore it and pretend otherwise, Mueller's report provided counter-evidence for every insinuation of obstruction.

So no, lefties. You have nothing. Trump's a jackass; we already knew that. Being a jackass is neither illegal nor grounds for impeachment; it's past time that you leftists learn that.

Just saying, that this is a very good analysis.

Well, thank you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, people, let's cut through the haze of goalpost-moving and "outrage" du jour.

Mueller's investigation was supposed to be about Russian interference in the 2016 election. As much as you deranged leftists want to ignore it, Mueller cleared him on this:

"Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

For Mueller to then broaden his investigation to "obstruction of justice", and THEN punt was directly contrary to the basics of good prosecutorial behavior, and was FAR more suspicious than the decision Barr made (which he only had to make because Mueller refused to do so).

Furthermore, his definition of "obstruction of justice" is far broader than the legal standard, and would be ultimately unworkable in our legal system. And even then, after having defined "obstruction of justice" as basically anything that might ever let people know you don't enjoy being investigated, he STILL couldn't come up with enough to say, "Yes, I believe he obstructed justice and should be prosecuted".

As much as the rabid left would like to ignore it and pretend otherwise, Mueller's report provided counter-evidence for every insinuation of obstruction.

So no, lefties. You have nothing. Trump's a jackass; we already knew that. Being a jackass is neither illegal nor grounds for impeachment; it's past time that you leftists learn that.

Just saying, that this is a very good analysis.

Her analysis is total bullshit. Over 800 prosecutors have signed a letter saying that if Trump were NOT the sitting President, he would have been charge with obstruction of justice.

We, the public, watched him do it in real time, on Twitter, in his pressers - threatening witnesses, their families, and dangling pardons. That's not an "overbroad" definition of obstruction. You have to be wilfully blind to ignore it, but "wilfully blind" is the most perfect description of Trumpers ever.

Over 800 prosecutors have signed a letter saying that if Trump were NOT the sitting President, he would have been charge with obstruction of justice.

WOW! Sounds serious!

So that's 800 ex-prosecutors out of how many?

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and in this case, those are opinions apart from facts.

Insufficient Evidence means, Not Guilty.

It's really that simple.

Pretty much how it works in this country. It's not what you know or think you know; it's what you can prove.

 

[danielpalos]

any implied right wing fantasy works for the right wing. a DOJ special counsel simply cannot charge his "boss" since it is a Constitutionally provided for issue and should require Congress and a Congressional special counsel.

Forgetting for a minute that US AG Barr testified under oath (something Mueller refuses to do to avoid perjury / answering any questions about his investigation and role in it) that Mueller told him on 3 separate occasions that the OLC's decision PLAYED NO PART in his own investigation and final decision....


"If President Trump actually committed a crime, there is nothing in the OLC’s opinion that would have prevented the special counsel or the attorney general from saying so.

The most relevant concern the OLC raises is that an indictment “exposes the President to an official pronouncement that there is probable cause to believe he committed a criminal act,” which could impair “his credibility in carrying out his constitutional responsibilities.”

A special counsel’s private report to the attorney general ran no such risk, especially since Barr was under no legal obligation to make Mueller’s report public. Special counsels don’t issue indictments – grand juries do.

That’s why the last man with responsibilities similar to Mueller’s – Independent Counsel Ken Starr – had no qualms writing definitively about findings of criminal wrongdoing by the subject of his investigation, President Bill Clinton.

“The Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President /Clinton obstructed justice … the President lied under oath to the grand jury and obstructed justice,” Starr wrote, along with dozens of other unambiguous determinations that President Clinton had committed crimes.

The idea that the OLC somehow stopped Mueller from doing the same thing is absurd."

Joe diGenova: Mueller wants Americans to believe Trump is a criminal and it's up to Congress to impeach him


Mueller's theatrical performance yesterday - safely holding a press conference where he could say anything he wanted to without risk or repercussion instead of under oath testifying before Congress - amounted to a political 'drive-by' intended to 'stir the pot' / to incite Trump-hating Democrats in the House to begin Impeachment proceedings, to accomplish what he could NOT do - take down Trump!

what are you talking about? a DOJ special counsel simply doesn't have the authority. A Congressional special counsel can even count blow jobs.

Congressional special counsel

No such creature.

There is no appeal to ignorance (of history). Congress has the discretion to remove the chief magistrate of the Union; a Congressional special counsel can make that task easier.

 

[TrumpisDaResistance]

#idonthaveconfidencethatmullerdidntcommitacrime

 

[MAGAman]

any implied right wing fantasy works for the right wing. a DOJ special counsel simply cannot charge his "boss" since it is a Constitutionally provided for issue and should require Congress and a Congressional special counsel.

So why is Pelosi refusing to install one?

Is she a Secret Russian Agent?

 

[bripat9643]

He did NOT.

NO EVIDENCE
NO CRIME
NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION
NO OBSTRUCTION...

THUS...

NO INDICTMENTS FOR COLLUSION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR COLLUSION
NO INDICTMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION.

'Nuff time wasted.

'Nuff said.

NEXT!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

 

[MAGAman]

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

Losers are on a losing streak and can't stop losing.

 

[dudmuck]

He did NOT.

NO EVIDENCE
NO CRIME
NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION
NO OBSTRUCTION...

THUS...

NO INDICTMENTS FOR COLLUSION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR COLLUSION
NO INDICTMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION.

'Nuff time wasted.

'Nuff said.

NEXT!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

 

[MAGAman]

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

Mueller's job was to "recommend" indictments on Trump or his campaign members if anyone had committed a crime.

Trump is innocent.

Grow up.

 

[easyt65]

He did NOT.

NO EVIDENCE
NO CRIME
NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION
NO OBSTRUCTION...

THUS...

NO INDICTMENTS FOR COLLUSION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR COLLUSION
NO INDICTMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION.

'Nuff time wasted.

'Nuff said.

NEXT!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

Snowflakes need to learn that saying, "If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime we would have said so' is NOT the same thing as officially reporting, "The President of the United States committed a crime!"

The fact is Mueller never had any evidence that a crime was ever committed involving the President or anyone associated with him that warranted an investigation being opened or a Special Counsel being appointed...

That is why not 1 single person was ever indicted / convicted of illegal collusion or Obstruction as a result of Mueller's investigation.

That is why Mueller was forced to broadcast his innuendoes and insinuations of possible crimes having been committed in an attempt to incite Trump-hating Democrats into initiating Impeachment proceedings to do what he and his team of 19 hand-picked DNC/Hillary supporters and donors could not do - take down the President.

That is also why Mueller declared he refuses to testify or answer questions about his investigation under oath before Congress.

 

[dudmuck]

He did NOT.

NO EVIDENCE
NO CRIME
NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION
NO OBSTRUCTION...

THUS...

NO INDICTMENTS FOR COLLUSION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR COLLUSION
NO INDICTMENTS FOR OBSTRUCTION
NO CONVICTIONS FOR OBSTRUCTION.

'Nuff time wasted.

'Nuff said.

NEXT!

A central reason for the Mueller team’s failure to make that judgment, despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction they have reported, is two opinions rendered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — one from 1973 and another from 2000 — which say that the indictment of an incumbent President is “impermissible.” Mueller concluded that as an operative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), he was bound to follow that guideline, and he lateralled the decision to Congress.

There is disagreement on this issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted. But it was Mueller's prerogative to use the OLC opinion to decline indictment. Lack of evidence doesnt even enter into the equation. There is boatloads of it.

How long are you Trump hating morons going to peddle this lie? It's already been debunked 10,000 times.

Mueller did in fact follow the OLC decision on indicting sitting president.

Snowflakes need to learn that saying, "If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime we would have said so' is NOT the same thing as officially reporting, "The President of the United States committed a crime!"

The fact is Mueller never had any evidence that a crime was ever committed involving the President or anyone associated with him that warranted an investigation being opened or a Special Counsel being appointed...

That is why not 1 single person was ever indicted / convicted of illegal collusion or Obstruction as a result of Mueller's investigation.

That is why Mueller was forced to broadcast his innuendoes and insinuations of possible crimes having been committed in an attempt to incite Trump-hating Democrats into initiating Impeachment proceedings to do what he and his team of 19 hand-picked DNC/Hillary supporters and donors could not do - take down the President.

That is also why Mueller declared he refuses to testify or answer questions about his investigation under oath before Congress.

There are plenty of crimes in the mueller report.
These are the top 10 crimes.

The reason Mueller doesnt want to testify is because he'll just say the same stuff thats in his report. Personally, I think he should testify. He just wants to avoid political spectacle.