It's Mueller Time!

[Hutch Starskey]

He could recommend it. He completely retracted what he said to Lieu about obstruction and the report always stated there was no conspiracy. These are facts. Pussies like you don’t have the mental capacity to understand basic English.

He could have but he said he chose not to because a sitting president can't be indicted. Obviously, you'll never understand this...

You're fucking CLUELESS. The report was an internal DOJ doc. Mueller could have concluded anything he chose to. He chose "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Bend, fold, and mutilate to your heart's content but there is NOTHING ambiguous about those 11 words.

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime,

I agree generally but that is not what Mueller concluded in this case.

 

[protectionist]

That's your line now? " it was a scam"?

Good job, dope.......

"Line" ? HA HAHA. So you ARE interested in buying that Brooklyn Bridge, huh ? OK. I'll let it go cheap.

How does 10 grand sound ? Boy, you are stupid.

You really haven't figured this out yet ?

 

[Faun]

If there were enough evidence he would. Stating there was not enough to find a crime is the same thing. You pussy. Honestly. You’re a pussy. A wimp. A coward. If there was a smidgeon of wrongdoing he would have been impeached and the Leftists on MSNBC and CNN would not be crying.

"If there were enough evidence he would."

LOLOL

He said he couldn't because a sitting president can't be indicted. You'll never understand that because you lack the ability.

He could recommend it. He completely retracted what he said to Lieu about obstruction and the report always stated there was no conspiracy. These are facts. Pussies like you don’t have the mental capacity to understand basic English.

He could have but he said he chose not to because a sitting president can't be indicted.

Obviously, you'll never understand this.

Do you think Mueller reached the same level of innocence in volume two as he did in volume one?

LMAO. He can be impeached. And Mueller specifically stated there was no conspiracy. I didn't realize you were an anti Trump hack. Wow. Awesome.

And the report could have said Trump committed a crime or crimes (instead of stating he did not) leaving his boss - the USAG - to decide whether or not to indict and/or congress to impeach.

Faun claims to accept that Trump committed no crimes yet authors dozens of posts that expose his belief that Trump is guilty of something. In other words, he pretends to be rational.

I never said trump didn't commit any crimes.

As always, your own ineptness leads you astray.

 

[JoeMoma]

He could recommend it. He completely retracted what he said to Lieu about obstruction and the report always stated there was no conspiracy. These are facts. Pussies like you don’t have the mental capacity to understand basic English.

He could have but he said he chose not to because a sitting president can't be indicted. Obviously, you'll never understand this...

You're fucking CLUELESS. The report was an internal DOJ doc. Mueller could have concluded anything he chose to. He chose "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Bend, fold, and mutilate to your heart's content but there is NOTHING ambiguous about those 11 words.

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

LOLOL

Exactly which part of, he could have but chose not to, leaves you blabbering like a wiggling bowl of jello?

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

Slight correction: We do not prosecute nor should congress prosecute anyone unless a crime has been alleged to have been committed. The conclusion of the investigation was not "Trump did not commit a crime", but it also did not conclude (allege) that he did.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope.
The 10 instances of obstruction cited in the linked article come directly from the report.
Like I said. You dopes have no clue what Mueller said in his testimony.

Mueller's report did not conclude that a crime had been committed. Congress is welcome to make that conclusion and impeach. Of course The House of Representatives could theoretically impeach the president for having two scoops of ice cream if they can muster up the votes.

Conversely, it did not conclude that crimes had not been committed either.

Which means nothing actionable was produced by the report. Pair that with the presumption of innocence and we find there is no need for a conclusion that no crime was committed.

Nope. It doesn't mean that at all. The day Trump leaves the WH, he can be snatched up and perp walked.

Obviously you have never heard of the statute of limitations.
If Trump gets another term he will never be charged.
If he loses in 2020 the SC will end up refusing to hear the case against him.
WIN WIN for President Trump!

I have heard of it. When does it run?
Well after Jan 21,2021.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

The article's author is a liar, and you are an idiot to keep citing this moron. How many times do people have to play back / re-post Mueller's own words from his testimony before Congress, during which time he clearly stated he and his team did NOT FIND EVIDENCE to declare he obstructed Justice or to indict him? Every time you declare that he DID obstruct justice in the face of Mueller's own words you sound as feeble and as confused as Mueller did much of the time during his testimony.

Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope.
The 10 instances of obstruction cited in the linked article come directly from the report.
Like I said. You dopes have no clue what Mueller said in his testimony.

I can’t wait for a judge to see Andrew Weissmanns obstructing charges lol
We are all gonna laugh hahah

Delusional.

Obstructing what, dope?

 

[Faun]

Mueller could have concluded that crimes had been committed in his report if he had the evidence of such. Concluding that crimes have been committed is separate from the ability to indict a setting president. Had the Mueller report exposed Trump of committing high crimes or misdemeanors by laying out the evidence, the democrat led house would most certainly impeach Trump.

There WAS NO MUELLER REPORT. It was a façade made to look like an investigation, with a report at the end. Mueller was a quarter of a Million $$ ACTOR, who had to do nothing more than pose for cameras, and say nothing.

Know why it took so LONGGGGG ? Because the longer it took, the more money the masterminds (Wiseman & Co.) were sucking out if it.

Wanna know how these things really tick ? Always follow the MONEY TRAIL.

It reads like a pre-law comic book. The authors - whoever they were - needed to justify the 2 yrs and $35 million wasted so they fluffed their findings into a 448 page travesty. They could have started and ended with the only words that would matter to any judge, jury, or defense attorney: "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."
BOOM!!! Case closed … let's have a Mueller Beer.

LOLOL

If the case were truly closed, you wouldn't need that ellipsis.

You claim to accept - as the report clearly states - that Trump committed no crimes. If you were telling the truth you wouldn't spend so much time posting otherwise.

The Muel Team could have started and ended with the only words that would matter to any judge, jury, or defense attorney: "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

I claim no such thing. Nor do I agree the report states trump did not commit any crimes. It does say that about volume one. It does not say that about volume two. That you can't discern the difference is on you.

 

[protectionist]

Conversely, it did not conclude that crimes had not been committed either.

It didn't "conclude" ANYTHING, you idiot. It was a ruse to make MONEY for the lawyers$$$$. Why do you think Mueller was oblivious to what was in his …"report" ? Because it was neither "his" nor a "report".

I told you. All Mueller did was pose for cameras for 2 years. Oh brother.

 

[JoeMoma]

The article's author is a liar, and you are an idiot to keep citing this moron. How many times do people have to play back / re-post Mueller's own words from his testimony before Congress, during which time he clearly stated he and his team did NOT FIND EVIDENCE to declare he obstructed Justice or to indict him? Every time you declare that he DID obstruct justice in the face of Mueller's own words you sound as feeble and as confused as Mueller did much of the time during his testimony.

Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope.
The 10 instances of obstruction cited in the linked article come directly from the report.
Like I said. You dopes have no clue what Mueller said in his testimony.

Mueller's report did not conclude that a crime had been committed. Congress is welcome to make that conclusion and impeach. Of course The House of Representatives could theoretically impeach the president for having two scoops of ice cream if they can muster up the votes.

Conversely, it did not conclude that crimes had not been committed either.

Which means nothing actionable was produced by the report. Pair that with the presumption of innocence and we find there is no need for a conclusion that no crime was committed.

Nope. It doesn't mean that at all. The day Trump leaves the WH, he can be snatched up and perp walked.

Someone better conclude that Trump committed a crime before that happens. An indictment can not be brought unless a crime is alleged.

 

[Faun]

Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope.
The 10 instances of obstruction cited in the linked article come directly from the report.
Like I said. You dopes have no clue what Mueller said in his testimony.

The fallacy of the CBS Rahn article you refer to is in the very first sentence of it.

"Although the special counsel's report on Russian interference does not come to a conclusion as to whether President Trump obstructed justice, Robert Mueller's team did examine 10 "discrete acts" in which he may have done so."

There is no "Although". By not coming to a conclusion, that IS a conclusion itself.

The conclusion is obstruction of justice didn't occur. If if had, THAT would have been the conclusion. Thus, the words "he may have done so" are a fallacy.

Rahn needs to think more before tapping his keyboard. You too.

And since the whole thing was nothing but a ruse, it is all MOOT.

Click this link for an hour of wasted time >>

Publicly released Mueller Report

That is not the conclusion, dope.
Mueller explained that to the world just two days ago. You missed it because you are incompetent and a fool.

Is this what you mean by a conclusion, Jackass "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Case closed. Let's take a 6 week vacation.

LOLOLOL

When a case is closed, there's nothing more to come from it;

whereas an ellipsis means there's more to come.

You're such a dolt, it doesn't even occur to you that you contradict yourself every time you post "case closed" after an ellipsis.

 

[protectionist]

I claim no such thing. Nor do I agree the report states trump did not commit any crimes. It does say that about volume one. It does not say that about volume two. That you can't discern the difference is on you.

There IS NO REPORT, fool.

 

[SAYIT]

He could recommend it. He completely retracted what he said to Lieu about obstruction and the report always stated there was no conspiracy. These are facts. Pussies like you don’t have the mental capacity to understand basic English.

He could have but he said he chose not to because a sitting president can't be indicted. Obviously, you'll never understand this...

You're fucking CLUELESS. The report was an internal DOJ doc. Mueller could have concluded anything he chose to. He chose "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Bend, fold, and mutilate to your heart's content but there is NOTHING ambiguous about those 11 words.

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

LOLOL

Exactly which part of, he could have but chose not to, leaves you blabbering like a wiggling bowl of jello?

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

The Mueller report intentionally does not reach towards any conclusions regarding guilt or innocence in volume two. It merely lays out the evidence found and leaves it to the discretion of the reader to determine.

Agree ... it was a political hit piece and Barr treated it as such.

The Hysterical House Dems can now do what they will and the Senate - where 67 must concur to remove the POTUS - will laugh the articles off the floor. Without new blockbuster evidence (and perhaps even with it), impeachment is a dead issue.

You do know how that continuing hysteria will impact already very slim Dem 2020 chances, right? Pelosi seems to.

 

[Faun]

I claim no such thing. Nor do I agree the report states trump did not commit any crimes. It does say that about volume one. It does not say that about volume two. That you can't discern the difference is on you.

There IS NO REPORT, fool.

LOL

Your senility is, as always, noted and laughed at, gramps.

 

[SAYIT]

So after what, 2 years of media hysterics both implying and directly accusing Trump of being a Traitor and shoving it down everyones throat all day every day with "bombshell" after "bombshell"... Those same morons have now done a complete 360 and moon-walked their way into Obstruction without even skipping a beat or apologizing or admitting they were wrong.

"You obstructed justice of an investigation that we planted and amplified that turned out to be false"

~ The left.

 

[protectionist]

Nope. It doesn't mean that at all. The day Trump leaves the WH, he can be snatched up and perp walked.

That won't happen, but even if it did, nobody would care, except Trump and his family. The presidency will be lock, stock and barrel in the hands of the Republican Party for many years to come.

American people are not going to turn over the White House and the nation to Democrat lunatics, so they can do THIS all over again >>

 

[Jitss617]

10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

The article's author is a liar, and you are an idiot to keep citing this moron. How many times do people have to play back / re-post Mueller's own words from his testimony before Congress, during which time he clearly stated he and his team did NOT FIND EVIDENCE to declare he obstructed Justice or to indict him? Every time you declare that he DID obstruct justice in the face of Mueller's own words you sound as feeble and as confused as Mueller did much of the time during his testimony.

Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope.
The 10 instances of obstruction cited in the linked article come directly from the report.
Like I said. You dopes have no clue what Mueller said in his testimony.

I can’t wait for a judge to see Andrew Weissmanns obstructing charges lol
We are all gonna laugh hahah

Delusional.

Obstructing what, dope?

So trump didn’t obstruct justice!? Lol make up your minds

 

[JoeMoma]

This thread reminds me of this:



I think I shall go and do something productive.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

"If there were enough evidence he would."

LOLOL

He said he couldn't because a sitting president can't be indicted. You'll never understand that because you lack the ability.

He could recommend it. He completely retracted what he said to Lieu about obstruction and the report always stated there was no conspiracy. These are facts. Pussies like you don’t have the mental capacity to understand basic English.

He could have but he said he chose not to because a sitting president can't be indicted.

Obviously, you'll never understand this.

Do you think Mueller reached the same level of innocence in volume two as he did in volume one?

LMAO. He can be impeached. And Mueller specifically stated there was no conspiracy. I didn't realize you were an anti Trump hack. Wow. Awesome.

And the report could have said Trump committed a crime or crimes (instead of stating he did not) leaving his boss - the USAG - to decide whether or not to indict and/or congress to impeach.

Faun claims to accept that Trump committed no crimes yet authors dozens of posts that expose his belief that Trump is guilty of something. In other words, he pretends to be rational.

I never said trump didn't commit any crimes.

As always, your own ineptness leads you astray.

So you know more than the AG? Excellent. Your biased goggles are humorous.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I claim no such thing. Nor do I agree the report states trump did not commit any crimes. It does say that about volume one. It does not say that about volume two. That you can't discern the difference is on you.

There IS NO REPORT, fool.

LOL

Your senility is, as always, noted and laughed at, gramps.

The old man is schooling you, Faun. I am laughing at you and your illogic.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOLOL

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

Talking down to me? LOL you chicken shit.

When you talk like an idiot you get treated like an idiot. Mueller never said there is not enough evidence to indict. Not once. Not in his report and not in his testimony. Those are your words, not his.

If there were enough evidence he would. Stating there was not enough to find a crime is the same thing. You pussy. Honestly. You’re a pussy. A wimp. A coward. If there was a smidgeon of wrongdoing he would have been impeached and the Leftists on MSNBC and CNN would not be crying.

If there were enough evidence he would

No he wouldn't. Mueller has explained that 20 different ways. All of which you missed.

Your incompetence on this subject is glaring.

And your explanation was wrong each of the 20 different ways.

You meant Mueller's explanation.