It's Mueller Time!

[AzogtheDefiler]

Post up the transcript.

One last time, and then I am just going to ignore you because, as I stated, you are living proof you can't fix stupid when it's combined with a denial of reality:

"I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say 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.”

Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways | Fox News

.

No shit. I posted the video, dope.

Now where does he say this

Could” doesn’t mean should. He told him that if he were not president he still would not have been charged.

He says “we did not reach the determination whether the President committed a crime” LOL. Nothing to do with OLC. He could have been a cashier at WalMart and still have the same outcome. You’re dumb and a Leftist

Dayum, you're one stupid cultist.

That sentence does not stand on it's own. It's to correct just a portion of Mr. Lieu's question....

Lieu: “I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you [did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime] was because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?”

Mueller: “That is correct.”​

And he took it back. Dummy. Fawn is embarrassing himself.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

LOL

If it was all just a criminal act, when is trump gonna have Mueller locked up?

All in good time, Fail

DOJ Restarting Federal Executions

LOLOLOL

Translation: never

More emojis. Dumbass.

Double down on the dumbassery

 

[Faun]

Post up the transcript.

One last time, and then I am just going to ignore you because, as I stated, you are living proof you can't fix stupid when it's combined with a denial of reality:

"I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say 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.”

Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways | Fox News

.

So replace Mr Lieu's question with Mueller's correction and you'll get:

Lieu: “I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you [did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime] was because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?”

Mueller: “That is correct.”​

Wrong.

Oh look, the ******* moron doesn't understand English.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's from the journal of the American Bar Association. You would know that if you actually read it.

i did -

your article:
About 800 ex-prosecutors say Trump would be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president

links back to:
Grid view copy - Airtable

which links back to:
STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

so - you don't even look to see the actual source of what you're reading, do you? that's some kind of fucked up.

I don't believe 800 prosecutors are that ignorant of the law. You can indict a ham sandwich if you want to, but there has to be evidence of obstruction in order to convict of obstruction. Any judge worth his salt would have thrown any case out of court based on the 'possible but not conclusive' incidents that could have been obstruction described in Mueller's report--could have been obstruction only if they conclusively could have been interpreted as obstruction. In no place in the Mueller report is anything interpreted conclusively as obstruction.

Since Mueller himself stated that there was no conclusive evidence that any obstruction occurred--he was denied no document and received quickly and efficiently 1.4 million of them--and he was denied no witness--500+ subpoenas and hundreds and hundreds of hours of testimony--where did the President obstruct?

Also it is pretty hard to make a case that somebody obstructed justice when there was no crime to obstruct.

Quote Mueller saying there was no conclusive evidence of obstruction....

Here you go. Happy reading:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Oh and here too:
"I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say 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.”

Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways | Fox News

That doesn't say there was no conclusive evidence. In fact, I can only hope you're capable of noticing that neither word, "conclusive" or "evidence" can be found in that quote. He said he didn't determine if a crime was committed because of the OLC's opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted. He never said he didn't determine if a crime was committed due to lack of evidence.

Want even more proof you don't understand what he said...?

There was no conclusive evidence on the charges of conspiracy -- and Mueller said that. He never said that on the charges of obstruction.

If he truly believed there was no conclusive evidence on the charge of obstruction, he would have said so, just like he did about conspiracy.

It says it again and again and again and again. I don't expect you to see or admit that. But the whole report is a statement that they could identify no crime committed by the President for which there was any conclusive evidence. If they had conclusive evidence that the President had committed a crime, they absolutely would have said so. They didn't.

They did word Part Two of the report in a way to obfusicate and provide unsupported innuendo to feed the conspiracy and hopes of the radical left and those who wanted to use it to continue to accuse and denigrate the President. And a whole bunch in that group--all those who are so full of hate they are incapable of any kind of objectivity, intellectual honesty, or fair play--certainly have taken advantage of that.

 

[protectionist]

Yup, they're still talking about the "report"

 

[ColonelAngus]

Mueller testified that his investigation was not impeded.

It’s gonna be a tough sell to a jury to convict Trump of obstructing Justice.

Nah, not really.

Nah, not really,
.

Play that video to a jury,,,no obstruction. Mueller admitted as much.

Thanks for your fact filled post,

 

[Faun]

So replace Mr Lieu's question with Mueller's correction and you'll get:

Lieu: “I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you [did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime] was because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?”

Mueller: “That is correct.”​

Replacing reality with fantasy is your bag ?

No, gramps, I'm replacing the words Mueller said Mr. Lieu got wrong with the words Mueller said should have been used. Didn't they teach you English in elementary school back in the 1700's?

 

[protectionist]

No, gramps, I'm replacing the words Mueller said Mr. Lieu got wrong with the words Mueller said should have been used. Didn't they teach you English in elementary school back in the 1700's?

 

[Faun]

Nah, not really.

Is there a doctor in the house ?

View attachment 271239

 

[easyt65]

Further proving they have NOTHING, further proving they want to continue to undermine this President and divide this country - and attempt to now alter the 2020 election thereby helping out the Russians who they admit are doing the same thing - while wasting millions of more tax dollars with this continued 'Witch Hunt', is the fact that they refuse to just Impeach the President and get it over with.

What better way to hurt this President and his re-election chances than to Impeach him already?!

 

[protectionist]

I believe I'M the violin player in this thread, not you.

 

[Faun]

Post up the transcript.

One last time, and then I am just going to ignore you because, as I stated, you are living proof you can't fix stupid when it's combined with a denial of reality:

"I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say 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.”

Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways | Fox News

.

No shit. I posted the video, dope.

Now where does he say this

Could” doesn’t mean should. He told him that if he were not president he still would not have been charged.

Facts mean nothing to the voices in the heads of these cultists.

It's funny as hell though to watch them scramble for any narrative they can get their hands on no matter how stupid.

Did not reach determination that the President committed a crime. What does that mean to you?

It means he decided not to determine guilt because of the OLC's opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted.

Had he believed trump was not guilty, he would have cleared him -- just as he did over collusion/conspiracy.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

One last time, and then I am just going to ignore you because, as I stated, you are living proof you can't fix stupid when it's combined with a denial of reality:

"I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say 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.”

Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways | Fox News

.

No shit. I posted the video, dope.

Now where does he say this

Could” doesn’t mean should. He told him that if he were not president he still would not have been charged.

Facts mean nothing to the voices in the heads of these cultists.

It's funny as hell though to watch them scramble for any narrative they can get their hands on no matter how stupid.

Did not reach determination that the President committed a crime. What does that mean to you?

It means he decided not to determine guilt because of the OLC's opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted.

Had he believed trump was not guilty, he would have cleared him -- just as he did over collusion/conspiracy.

LMAO. You’re so dumb.

 

[protectionist]

It means he decided not to determine guilt because of the OLC's opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted.

Had he believed trump was not guilty, he would have cleared him -- just as he did over collusion/conspiracy.

Trump's going to be re-elected. You're wasting your time.

Yes, you can revert back to this post after election day 2020.

​

 

[easyt65]

Mueller testified that his investigation was not impeded.

It’s gonna be a tough sell to a jury to convict Trump of obstructing Justice.

The FBI's investigation found no evidence of crime.

The House' investigation has found no evidence of crime.

Mueller just testified they found no evidence to declare a crime was committed.

What Jury?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Post up the transcript.

One last time, and then I am just going to ignore you because, as I stated, you are living proof you can't fix stupid when it's combined with a denial of reality:

"I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say 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.”

Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways | Fox News

.

No shit. I posted the video, dope.

Now where does he say this

Could” doesn’t mean should. He told him that if he were not president he still would not have been charged.

He says “we did not reach the determination whether the President committed a crime” LOL. Nothing to do with OLC. He could have been a cashier at WalMart and still have the same outcome. You’re dumb and a Leftist

Respond to this one, Hutch. LMAO. Dumbass.

LOL...
No

The only reason they could not is precisely because he is the president. If he worked at walmart he could have been indicted.

A president cannot be indicted.
If a he cannot be indicted then he cannot be accused either. Hence, "we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime”

Mueller can't say it was due only to the OLC rule because that would imply the president committed a crime.

Listen to him explain starting at the 4min mark.

 

[Faun]

Mueller testified that his investigation was not impeded.

It’s gonna be a tough sell to a jury to convict Trump of obstructing Justice.

Nah, not really.

Nah, not really,
.

Play that video to a jury,,,no obstruction. Mueller admitted as much.

Thanks for your fact filled post,

Where did I deny Mueller said that? What I'm saying is it doesn't matter if trump was successful or not at obstructing the investigation ... just trying to obstruct it is still a crime.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Mueller testified that his investigation was not impeded.

It’s gonna be a tough sell to a jury to convict Trump of obstructing Justice.

The FBI's investigation found no evidence of crime.

The House' investigation has found no evidence of crime.

Mueller just testified they found no evidence to declare a crime was committed.

What Jury?

They spoke to indictment when Trump leaves office during the hearing. That’s what I am referring to

 

[Faun]

i did -

your article:
About 800 ex-prosecutors say Trump would be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president

links back to:
Grid view copy - Airtable

which links back to:
STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

so - you don't even look to see the actual source of what you're reading, do you? that's some kind of fucked up.

I don't believe 800 prosecutors are that ignorant of the law. You can indict a ham sandwich if you want to, but there has to be evidence of obstruction in order to convict of obstruction. Any judge worth his salt would have thrown any case out of court based on the 'possible but not conclusive' incidents that could have been obstruction described in Mueller's report--could have been obstruction only if they conclusively could have been interpreted as obstruction. In no place in the Mueller report is anything interpreted conclusively as obstruction.

Since Mueller himself stated that there was no conclusive evidence that any obstruction occurred--he was denied no document and received quickly and efficiently 1.4 million of them--and he was denied no witness--500+ subpoenas and hundreds and hundreds of hours of testimony--where did the President obstruct?

Also it is pretty hard to make a case that somebody obstructed justice when there was no crime to obstruct.

Quote Mueller saying there was no conclusive evidence of obstruction....

Here you go. Happy reading:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Oh and here too:
"I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say 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.”

Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways | Fox News

That doesn't say there was no conclusive evidence. In fact, I can only hope you're capable of noticing that neither word, "conclusive" or "evidence" can be found in that quote. He said he didn't determine if a crime was committed because of the OLC's opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted. He never said he didn't determine if a crime was committed due to lack of evidence.

Want even more proof you don't understand what he said...?

There was no conclusive evidence on the charges of conspiracy -- and Mueller said that. He never said that on the charges of obstruction.

If he truly believed there was no conclusive evidence on the charge of obstruction, he would have said so, just like he did about conspiracy.

It says it again and again and again and again. I don't expect you to see or admit that. But the whole report is a statement that they could identify no crime committed by the President for which there was any conclusive evidence. If they had conclusive evidence that the President had committed a crime, they absolutely would have said so. They didn't.

They did word Part Two of the report in a way to obfusicate and provide unsupported innuendo to feed the conspiracy and hopes of the radical left and those who wanted to use it to continue to accuse and denigrate the President. And a whole bunch in that group--all those who are so full of hate they are incapable of any kind of objectivity, intellectual honesty, or fair play--certainly have taken advantage of that.

That's not true. Volume one exonerated trump on conspiracy. Volume two did not exonerate trump on obstruction.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Mueller testified that his investigation was not impeded.

It’s gonna be a tough sell to a jury to convict Trump of obstructing Justice.

Nah, not really.

Nah, not really,
.

Play that video to a jury,,,no obstruction. Mueller admitted as much.

Thanks for your fact filled post,

Where did I deny Mueller said that? What I'm saying is it doesn't matter if trump was successful or not at obstructing the investigation ... just trying to obstruct it is still a crime.

If I tell my pal I want to rob a bank and he tells me I should not rob a bank, and I do not rob a bank, there is no ******* crime.

Do you even law?