It's Mueller Time!

[Faun]

Please explain to me why the GOP is so helpless to do anything about Hillary. Trump has his lackey AG in Barr. Why are they so feckless?

Why do they let her get away with it? Trump's been threatening to lock her up for years. Is it because he's too dotardly? Too stupid?

Last I heard, they are going after Hillary, Comey, Obama, Brennan, Lynch, and the whole mob, right now. I suppose they don't want to rush it.

I sense they might be timing to go full blast just before the 2020 election.

Shit, the last you heard, there was this new fangled thing called ... a light bulb.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

You have proven to be an uninformed ignorant Leftist. My case is closed.

 

[bripat9643]

nope, you should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.

BTW, I can't help your ignorance of the law.

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

I watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?

I know what he was correcting and I know thru ALL of his other comments in the hearing on it, what he was talking about and what he needed to correct.

He did not want the public to think he did not CHARGE the president with a crime due to the OLC memo, because he never made the determination, one way or the other, due to the OLC memo guidelines. He also said and confirmed this was not an exoneration either.... he said they did not make any determination....

period... end of story.

Here's my take away...

Mueller was very clear, he said he would not seek indictment on trump because a sitting president can't be indicted according to the OLC's opinion on that matter. Had there been no evidence to support a criminal charge on obstruction, Mueller would have cleared him of any wrong doing, just as he did regarding conspiring with Russia's election hacking. But he didn't clear trump of obstruction because hd found evidence of obstruction.

In other words, he could clear the president when the evidence supports clearing him since that would not result in an indictment of a sitting president. That's exactly what Mueller did in volume one of his report.

But if the evidence shows a crime may have been committed, then Mueller could neither clear trump, nor could he seek indictment because trump is a sitting president and sitting presidents can't be indicted. That's exactly what Mueller did in volume two of his report.

Clearing trump of conspiracy proves trump did not collude with Russia. Not clearing trump of obstruction, and including possible evidence of obstruction in his report, proves trump may have obstructed justice.

It's now up to the Congress to decide the next step.

I think Mueller said there was not sufficient evidence of collusion with Russia to prove a crime. I believe he mentioned that Trump seemed to know what WikiLeaks would do before Wikileaks did it.

so?

So, Mueller did not say there was NO COLLUSION, he said there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump feloniously conspired with non-Americans to flip an election, but there is evidence sufficicient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he feloniously conspired to obstruct justice. And Trump lies about what Mueller said.

Wrong. The report said there was no evidence.

 

[NotYourBody]

President Trump engages in hyperbole, humor that the MSM takes literally, misspeaks, gets facts wrong now and then. But he has kept faith with the American people, and nothing President Trump has ever done so far is even remotely anything like the lies told by Clinton or Obama or Hillary, etc.

I have to vehemently disagree with you on this. Trump does not have a sense of humor at all. NONE.

He is the most thin-skinned precious little flower that has ever held the oval office. He cannot handle even the mildest criticism.

I think most things he has done are pretty horrific. Far worse than any other president of my entire lifetime.

It's all a matter of which side of the fence you sit on. I am a target of his policies.

 

[protectionist]

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.

You dumbfuck. Mueller's an OPPORTUNIST, who took a job as a meaningless puppet, to pose as the author of a report written by 13 Hillary DEMOCRATS, and then exposed himself (at this point what does he care ?), as the prop that he is, who is clueless about what those Dems wrote in that fake "report", only designed to lawyer up $35 Million, while Democrat suckers had (and still don't) no idea what the hell was going on.

Wanna buy a bridge ?

 

[Faun]

prosecutors would have serious difficulty proving "corrupt intent" on any of the alleged "obstructive acts".

not really hard though, Trump made it clear when he asked McGahn to lie about Trump asking him to fire Mueller and to create a false memo about it... when he tried to have Don McGann cover up his initial firing of Mueller request.... that was... consciousness of guilt, corrupt intent.

That's not what the report said.

The fourth instance revolves around Mr. Trump's reaction to Mueller's appointment. Upon hearing the news that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had tasked Mueller with investigating the Russia matter in May 2017, the president privately declared it was "the end of his presidency." Mr. Trump then demanded Sessions' resignation, although he did not accept it at the time, and told aides Mueller had conflicts of interest that should preclude him from acting as the special counsel.

It was then reported in June that Mueller was investigating Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice, prompting the president to publicly attack Mueller and the Justice Department. Within days of the first report, he told McGahn to tell Rosenstein that Mueller had conflicts of interest and must be removed.

McGahn ignored the request, explaining that he would rather resign.

"In the same meeting, the president also asked McGahn why he had told the special counsel about the president's efforts to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the president," the report states. "McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the president to be testing his mettle."


He didn't ask him to deny anything. He asked him why he (the White House Counsel) breached the attorney-client communication privilege in telling the Special Counsel about their discussion regarding the removal of the Special Counsel for having a conflict of interest.

So, asking your own lawyer why he breached privilege is now an obstructive act?

.

the white-house gave McGahn permission to testify, thus he did.


And this explains what I was referring to...

Trump ordered former White House counsel to lie, Mueller confirms

Robert Mueller confirmed former White House counsel Don McGahn was pressured to lie by the White House about whether he was ever asked by Donald Trump to fire the former special counsel while testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

"The president told the White House staff secretary, Rob Porter, to try to pressure [Don] McGahn to make a false denial. Is that correct?" Democrat Karen Bass asked Mr Mueller.


"That's correct,” he replied.


The former special counsel’s public testimony on Wednesday and 448-page report detailed numerous examples of alleged obstruction of justice on the part of the president. At one point, the report notes how Mr Trump told Mr Porter he would fire the former White House counsel if he refused to craft a statement claiming he was never directed to fire Mr Mueller.

“If he doesn’t write a letter, then maybe I’ll have to get rid of him,” Mr Trump said, according to the report.

Trump has the right to fire him. a replacement would be provided and the investigation would continue. so there is no obstruction. it's why no obstruction was actually called out in the report.

No, he doesn't.

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.​

You rightards are absolutely ineducable. That's what you get for dumbing yourself down by relying on sites like gatewaypundit and infowars.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

What he does on his own time in his private life is between him and maybe his wife and/or whatever law enforcement is involved if it is something illegal. It is none of our business. The public knew about Gennifer Flowers and decided that was his personal business and elected him anyway. The public decided the same re any of President Trump's private history.

But what the President does in the Oval Office is our business. He works for us. Trying to get other people to commit a felony to cover up your own misconduct when you're on the U.S. payroll is our business. He works for us. President Clinton clearly committed felonies. He admitted to them.

President Trump has not been charged with even a misdemeanor, let alone a felony, nor is there any evidence that he has committed one since he has been campaigning and since he has been President of the United States.

 

[NotYourBody]

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.

I am also pro choice. But I don't have any particular targets in mind, lol. Too bad we can't retro abort Trump. That would be my target.

 

[Faun]

LOL

No, the case is not closed. Even you know this as demonstrated by your usd of an ellipsis in place of the actual words which followed -- "it also does not exonerate him"

Meaning Mueller did not conclude the president didn't commit a crime because no crime was committed; but because his report made no determination whether or not a crime was committed. And he's repeatedly said the reason he offered no such opinion is because of the OLC's opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted, not because trump didn't break the law

Legally meaningless. We don't charge or even smear anyone who has not been found to have committed a crime and in his correction yesterday Mueller admitted the OLC reg did not impede his ability to conclude that a crime had been committed. He just didn't find any.

Prosecutorial witch-hunts neither seek nor proclaim anyone's exoneration.

In terms of obstruction, Mueller did not report trump has not been found to have committed a crime. That's where your argument goes off the rails when you have to make up shit that isn't there.

Mueller could not make a case for obstruction.

LOLOL

Just how brain-dead are you? Mueller could not make a case because a sitting president can't be indicted, not because he didn't commit a crime.

In fact, Mueller's implication is that trump did commit obstruction of justice. It's now in Congress' hands to take action on it, if they so choose. And as I said earlier, I hope they don't. I hope they leave it up to the American electorate to decide trump's fate next year.

Too bad for the brain dead like you that Mueller himself stated under oath that he was NOT obstructed or interfered with. Oops. There was NO obstruction since Trump has the power to fire Mueller at any time and did not. All documents and evidence requested were given to Mueller. No executive privilege was used. Hence, you have no case.

LOLOLOLOL

Your cultists crack me up with your ignorance....

CICILLINE: an unsuccessful attempt to obstruct justice is still a crime, is that correct?

MUELLER: That is correct.​

 

[protectionist]

I have to vehemently disagree with you on this. Trump does not have a sense of humor at all. NONE.

He is the most thin-skinned precious little flower that has ever held the oval office. He cannot handle even the mildest criticism.

I think most things he has done are pretty horrific. Far worse than any other president of my entire lifetime.

It's all a matter of which side of the fence you sit on. I am a target of his policies.

DO YOU KNOW >>>>

that Trump has brought about the lowest black unemployment in US history ?

that Trump has brought about the lowest Hispanic unemployment in US history ?

that Trump has brought about the lowest disabled unemployment in US history ?

that Trump has brought about the highest median income in US history ? ($61,400)

That Trump took Obama's sinking GDP (2.3 > 1.8), and raised it to 4.2% GDP

You are a target of WHAT policies ? The ones I just mentioned ?

Do you have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about ?

 

[protectionist]

LOLOLOLOL

Your cultists crack me up with your ignorance....

CICILLINE: an unsuccessful attempt to obstruct justice is still a crime, is that correct?

MUELLER: That is correct.​

You are one sorry ass, pathetic, programmed putz.

 

[Faun]

Yes, it does. Mueller's actions speak for him.

He couldn't indict a sitting president but he could clear him of wrong doing since that does not indict a sitting president.

In terms of collusion/conspiracy, he cleared trump.

In terms of obstruction he couldn't clear him nor could he indict him.

See Post # 1983 and 1504.

PS - you need a new avatar.

Why do I need a new avatar? The one I have still triggers you.

 

[protectionist]

Why do I need a new avatar? The one I have still triggers you.

"Triggers" me ? The only thing it does, is show that you are just as much a lost in space, pile of malfunctioning mess, as the pathetic, old fool in your avatar, needing to find a nursing home.

I wonder if you truly know how idiotic that avatar now makes you look. Maybe you could take a survey. Ask a couple of dozen posters. Go ahead. Ask them why you need a new avatar.
If you're that lost.

 

[Faun]

Why do I need a new avatar? The one I have still triggers you.

"Triggers" me ? The only thing it does, is show that you are just as much a lost in space, pile of malfunctioning mess, as the pathetic, old fool in your avatar, needing to find a nursing home.

I wonder if you truly know how idiotic that avatar now makes you look. Maybe you could take a survey. Ask a couple of dozen posters. Go ahead. Ask them why you need a new avatar.
If you're that lost.

LOL

And yet, it still triggers you.

 

[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.

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.

LOLOL

No worries. Your derangement is noted, laughed at, and summarily discarded.

 

[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.

I agree.

He almost read his report for the first time.

 

[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.

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.

It's up to the [current] Attorney General. Should trump lose the next election, the new Attorney General will rise to his/her own determinations, at which time, Trump will no longer be shielded by being a sitting president. Meanwhile, it's up to the current Congress what to do for now within their powers.

 

[basquebromance]

Mueller sucked the life out of the impeachment movement. After his testimony more Americans saw the bizarre choices Mueller made to diminish the real collusion that occurred Democrats and Ruskies

 

[daveman]

There was no obstruction.
There was no collusion.
There was no Russian interference in the election.

Lots of obstruction but you know that and are you on crack or are you tramp posing as lennypartiv.

anyway you are lying right now.

You mean the obstruction Mueller testified didn't happen?

 

[daveman]

Mueller discredited your entire narrative established by Barr. You are reduced to attacking his appearance and demeanor rather than the substance of the report. The truth is now out there straight from Mueller.

You took a hit whether you recognize it yet or not.

What did Mueller say that discredited anyone?

I’ll wait for the quotes.

What did Mueller say that discredited anyone?

I’ll wait for the quotes.

Derp...

Prosecutors never exonerate in America, Dufus.

In America we find people guilty of crimes, not guilty until innocent, Comrade.

No shit, dope. Exoneration is Trump's discredited line.

Holy shit you moron. NOBODY is exonerated because they start with the level of innocent until proven not guilty. You're exonerated from day one or until the prosecution can prove a case. You don't ******* prove not guilty you dumbass. You have to prove guilty.

The opinions of anyone who believes otherwise can be immediately discarded as worthless.