It's Mueller Time!

[Missouri_Mike]

What you're engaging in is speculation. Dopey speculation in an attempt to create a new narrative no doubt.

You are a complete leftist hack, so filter everything through the eyes of a complete leftist hack.

Those of us who are more impartial and intelligent realize that his refusal to answer much less dismiss those questions pertaining to Democrats indicate they most likely WEREN'T as you say "dopey conspiracies". Otherwise, he would have simply denied them.

He did deny them. By not answering them.

Top notch witness there.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You don’t know who he is? Wow. You are a dumbass. Google is your friend.

Why should I care?

Because you claim to be learned. Obviously you’re a hack.

LOL....learned?
Learned doesn't mean knowing every radio host in America by name, dope.

And Shapiro is such a nothing berder. I only know of him because of that BBC interview which is quite hilarious. Not surprising you've never heard of him.

I sort of remember the incident you described but didn't really pay attention to it.
I don't listen to talk radio.

You have a lot of excuses. It’s a podcast. Give it 30 minutes.

 

[Rustic]

Mueller couldn’t even remember which President appointed him!

I just had a 'discussion' with a #resistance troll member in another thread wether Saint Mueller is demented or not...

Let's just say the signs don't look good

...and no one watched.


Robert Mueller Hearings Draw 13M Viewers, Fox News and MSNBC Lead

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I never asserted that they did say he committed a crime, dope.

That is precisely what you asserted

Quote me, dope.

You’re a dope

Where's the quote?

What quote? Stop the shenanigans.
Do you believe Mueller and his team found Trump guilty of any crimes? Yes or no?

The assertion you said I made, liar.

Post it up, loser

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That is precisely what you asserted

Quote me, dope.

You’re a dope

Where's the quote?

What quote? Stop the shenanigans.
Do you believe Mueller and his team found Trump guilty of any crimes? Yes or no?

The assertion you said I made, liar.

Post it up, loser

LOL answer the question or STFU. Your whole thread is the assertion that he is guilty.

 

[NotYourBody]

About Shapiro being a whiny *****? No I didn't. I provided video proof.

I don't need to listen to his puerile analysis. I read the report.

So one event defines him? You’re a dumbass

It was the immature arrogance that was such a turn off. And he couldn't even take his spanking like a man. Honestly he's just kind of cringey. He has a whiny weak personality.

So he answer is yes. You judge people by one moment. Thank you. Run along to your troll farm.

In this case, yes. He needs to mature. But I sure won't try to stop you from listening to him.

OK then it’s fair to judge you on your weakest moment. You have many I bet.

So many! You can judge, I don't mind.

We will never meet and I am not trying to have a public career. I'm okay with your judgements. We all do it.

 

[longknife]

The Dims got a dud, the Goops got a winner.

 

[Faun]

^^^ Another lie. Mueller never said there isn't enough evidence to indict on obstruction.

FALSE! He said it at least once in the morning, and again in the afternoon, and NBC News even put it in a graphic on the TV screen.

And be sure to see my Post # 1901.

LOL

You poor thing. You're too old and senile to comprehend simple English. Once again, for the hard of learning ... Mueller's stated reason for not indicting trump on obstruction charges....

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. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 2 Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible .3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. 4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in

1

A Sitting President 's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, 222, 260 (2000) (OLC Op.).

2

See U .S. CONST. Art. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President).

3

OLC Op. at 257 n.36 ("A grand jury could continue to gather evidence throughout the period of immunity").

4

OLC Op. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude suc h prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment").​

 

[Rustic]

Again, no shit, dope.
Tell that to Trump. That's his dopey narrative. Not mine.

Little advice stupid ****, pick up your teeth and ooze off to your safe space. Stop sticking your mouth in the path of his on coming foot, you ******* retard.

I found this narrative in the trash? I think you lost it.

Totally discredited.

What a ******* retard.

I'm not sure who is more retarded. Trump for continuing his narrative after being so thoroughly discredited or you for running behind him and repeating it.

I would think it's you. You have a choice whereas Trump is sort of stuck with it lest he admit defeat.

Lol
Who gives a shit... no one watched.

Robert Mueller Hearings Draw 13M Viewers, Fox News and MSNBC Lead

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Don't be like that. As a prosecutor, after nearly what two years? They didn't have enough to indict. Period. End of Story.

^^^ Another lie. Mueller never said there isn't enough evidence to indict on obstruction.

Except he did. LOL.

"As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

yep...

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Meaning there was not enough to indict. It is basic English. If there were enough they would and would impeach. That was what happened with Starr and Clinton. Again your fellow Leftists agree. You're an outlier.

No, it doesn't mean that. Mueller even explained he couldn't indict trump because trump is the sitting president and a sitting president can't be indicted. Not surprisingly, you're just not bright enough to understand.

Nope. He came back and stated there was not enough evidence. Keep trying.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So one event defines him? You’re a dumbass

It was the immature arrogance that was such a turn off. And he couldn't even take his spanking like a man. Honestly he's just kind of cringey. He has a whiny weak personality.

So he answer is yes. You judge people by one moment. Thank you. Run along to your troll farm.

In this case, yes. He needs to mature. But I sure won't try to stop you from listening to him.

OK then it’s fair to judge you on your weakest moment. You have many I bet.

So many! You can judge, I don't mind.

We will never meet and I am not trying to have a public career. I'm okay with your judgements. We all do it.

Fair. So in my opinion you’re a waste of space and one of the reasons I am pro Choice.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why should I care?

Because you claim to be learned. Obviously you’re a hack.

LOL....learned?
Learned doesn't mean knowing every radio host in America by name, dope.

And Shapiro is such a nothing berder. I only know of him because of that BBC interview which is quite hilarious. Not surprising you've never heard of him.

I sort of remember the incident you described but didn't really pay attention to it.
I don't listen to talk radio.

You have a lot of excuses. It’s a podcast. Give it 30 minutes.

No. Judging by your brain rot, it's toxic.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Because you claim to be learned. Obviously you’re a hack.

LOL....learned?
Learned doesn't mean knowing every radio host in America by name, dope.

And Shapiro is such a nothing berder. I only know of him because of that BBC interview which is quite hilarious. Not surprising you've never heard of him.

I sort of remember the incident you described but didn't really pay attention to it.
I don't listen to talk radio.

You have a lot of excuses. It’s a podcast. Give it 30 minutes.

No.

Well then. Remain ignorant. Such is your right.

 

[Faun]

^^^ Another lie. Mueller never said there isn't enough evidence to indict on obstruction.

Except he did. LOL.

"As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

yep...

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Meaning there was not enough to indict. It is basic English. If there were enough they would and would impeach. That was what happened with Starr and Clinton. Again your fellow Leftists agree. You're an outlier.

there's enough for the House to indict on obstruction, and for the senate to convict, but no so on collusion.

Except there isn't. What was he obstructing. There was no underlying crime and he is the boss and could have fired Mueller. If there were true cause then I would support your argument but there was not. No crime. No obstruction. No conspiracy. No win in 2020 for the Democrats. They blew it.

"As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

LOLOLOL

You dumbfuck ... no, trump could not fire Mueller. If he could have, he would have. It was clear Trump wanted Mueller gone.

28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability.

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.​

 

[NotYourBody]

I don't see any impeachment hearings taking place. I think they did learn. I think they will let 2020 be the decider and I'm good with that. Impeachment is silly unless he can be removed from office. Democrats are trying to figure that out. They'll get there.

And the whole point is Billy didn't act like a whiny little *****.

Trump should have been taking notes.

Billy was guilty as sin. We don't know how he would have behaved if he had been innocent.

President Trump is innocent as essentially were at least most of the people Mueller ruined trying to get to President Trump.

Guilty of lying about a blow job. And he was pretending to be innocent. And he still didn't act like a pre-teen.

Guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. Serious enough offenses that he was held in contempt of court by a New York Federal judge, was disbarred by the Arkansas Bar, and stripped of all rights to argue cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

All because of a blow job. That's some super serious shit and can't be allowed to happen again!

Guilty of a blow job in the Oval Office with a young intern--he's lucky he wasn't charged with sexual harassment--on our time and on our dime. Guilty of lying to a Grand Jury and then trying to illegally obstruct justice by encouraging people to lie under oath. Guilty of looking earnest and seriously into the camera on national television and saying emphatically: "But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie. Not a single time. Never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people." Not only a bald faced lie but he put her name out there to defend himself. Not cool.

Did these offense rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? No. I didn't think so at the time and the Republican controlled Senate didn't think so they did not remove him from office. But crimes so obvious that he was found in contempt by a federal judge, was disbarred, and lost right to argue before SCOTUS.

Nothing President Trump has ever done so far is even remotely anything like that.

We already knew her name for pete's sake!!!

Lying about a consensual blow job in the oval office because you are afraid for your career and afraid of your wife
vs
Pay off a porn star so you can win a presidential election and you (might be) afraid of your wife.

Both pretty nasty. Seems to be about the same degree of skank.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What you're engaging in is speculation. Dopey speculation in an attempt to create a new narrative no doubt.

You are a complete leftist hack, so filter everything through the eyes of a complete leftist hack.

Those of us who are more impartial and intelligent realize that his refusal to answer much less dismiss those questions pertaining to Democrats indicate they most likely WEREN'T as you say "dopey conspiracies". Otherwise, he would have simply denied them.

He did deny them. By not answering them.

Top notch witness there.

I agree.

 

[Care4all]

So? He also said he didn't reach such a determination because of the OLC opinion, not because the evidence exonerated trump's culpability.

Don't be like that. As a prosecutor, after nearly what two years? They didn't have enough to indict. Period. End of Story.

^^^ Another lie. Mueller never said there isn't enough evidence to indict on obstruction.

Except he did. LOL.

"As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

yep...

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Meaning there was not enough to indict. It is basic English. If there were enough they would and would impeach. That was what happened with Starr and Clinton. Again your fellow Leftists agree. You're an outlier.

Nope, not at all....

He did not make any determination on criminality or the lack of criminality, when it came to the president, because he was not allowed to make an indictment, even if he did find colossal evidence that he committed a crime..... thus, he was not going to make a definitive decision that us in the public would see....

if you had watched the hearing, Mueller made that very clear... and thru the congressional questioning it became clear that the president likely committed obstruction of an official hearing, multiple times.... but Mueller was not going to hand down that determination, express such, out loud...

it is up to Congress to handle it in other constitutional means if they deem such is necessary, so that we do not become a lawless Nation, where the president, is above the law and constitution.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL....learned?
Learned doesn't mean knowing every radio host in America by name, dope.

And Shapiro is such a nothing berder. I only know of him because of that BBC interview which is quite hilarious. Not surprising you've never heard of him.

I sort of remember the incident you described but didn't really pay attention to it.
I don't listen to talk radio.

You have a lot of excuses. It’s a podcast. Give it 30 minutes.

No.

Well then. Remain ignorant. Such is your right.

LOL...
Happy to avoid your kind of brain rot.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

You dumbfuck. Mueller's a registered Republican. He was appointed by a registered Republican who was filling in for another registered Republican who recused himself, who was also appointed by a registered Republican who was elected President by a vast majority of registered Republicans.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Don't be like that. As a prosecutor, after nearly what two years? They didn't have enough to indict. Period. End of Story.

^^^ Another lie. Mueller never said there isn't enough evidence to indict on obstruction.

Except he did. LOL.

"As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

yep...

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

Meaning there was not enough to indict. It is basic English. If there were enough they would and would impeach. That was what happened with Starr and Clinton. Again your fellow Leftists agree. You're an outlier.

Nope, not at all....

He did not make any determination on criminality or the lack of criminality, when it came to the president, because he was not allowed to make an indictment, even if he did find colossal evidence that he committed a crime..... thus, he was not going to make a definitive decision that us in the public would see....

if you had watched the hearing, Mueller made that very clear... and thru the congressional questioning it became clear that the president likely committed obstruction of an official hearing, multiple times.... but Mueller was not going to hand down that determination, express such, out loud...

it is up to Congress to handle it in other constitutional means if they deem such is necessary, so that we do not become a lawless Nation, where the president, is above the law and constitution.

It's Mueller Time!

It’s up to the AG. This is tiresome. You see what you want to see.