It's Mueller Time!

[jc456]

Carter Page worked in russia between 03 and 07. after returning to the US, Page became acquainted with 2 russian intelligence officers, one of whom was charged in 2015 with conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent of Russia.

that's in the report!

And?

 

[jc456]

Felix Sater to Michael Cohen in 2015: “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected ... Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it." - page 79

Is election fraud "very legal & very cool" these days?

So post the evidence

 

[Foxfyre]

Felix Sater to Michael Cohen in 2015: “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected ... Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it." - page 79

Is election fraud "very legal & very cool" these days?

No fraud occurred. What some opportunist puts in an email to finagle a business deal and feather his own financial dress does not make the President complicit in anything. The opportunist (Safer) obviously failed as the deal was ultimately scrapped.

Trump's interest in putting real estate in Moscow goes back as far as I think the late 1980's and continued right up to the 2016 campaign where it was sidelined, perhaps permanently. But of course any business man trying to get building permits in Moscow is going to say nice things about the Russian leader. There is nothing the least bit sinister, much less illegal, about that.

And news flash: Nobody running for office who is a business man or woman shuts down that business in order to campaign. There is never a guarantee that he/she will win the election. In 2015 and well into 2016, Trump had no guarantees that he would be elected. I think he was surprised that he gained the momentum that he gained when his opponents started dropping out of the primaries.

 

[FA_Q2]

The mods need to close this thread. TDS insanity can be tolerated a little bit, but when they are obviously serious TDS victims and continue whining, etc., folks, there is no cure at the present time. And it is a waste of time to assume they can be cured. Very sad. But very true.

Yes, the MODs clearly need to shut down any speech that does not agree with your assertions.
/sarcasm

 

[basquebromance]

Mucarsel-Powell: "Simply attempting to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct?" Mueller: "Yes."

 

[basquebromance]

"The Democrats were trying mightily to revive the badly & irrevocably tarnished Witch Hunt Hoax until Robert Mueller put on the greatest display of ineptitude & incompetence that the Halls of Congress have ever seen. Truth is, he had no facts on his side. Nothing he could do" - Trump on twitter just now

 

[lantern2814]

No, YOU and the other Lsfties WISH he obstructed. Too bad in MUELLER'S own words he was NEVER interfered with. Oops, your case just got thrown out. Barr did nothing wrong. Where we are today is you and other lefties crying and making any excuse and lie to keep this going.

You're smoking some good stuff under that MAGA hat lol

Too bad your senile boy Mueller crashed your obstruction lie by saying he wasn't obstructed. Perhaps you should stop smoking and actually learn something. Nothing to disprove MUELLER'S words. Typical leftist denier.

 

[Faun]

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?

Then you didn't even attempt to rob the bank.

Jeez, you cultists are ******* brain-dead.

Walk into a bank, point a gun at a teller and demand money .... then run out of the bank ......

Guess where you end up if the police catch you even though your attempt to rob the bank failed you.

Trump tells McGhan to fire Muller. McGhan refuses to. Trump had the full authority to fire Muller (and this is not in dispute). Trump does not fire Muller or McGhan.

So why is this scenario equal to the running into the bank and pointing a gun at the teller rather than telling your friend that you want to rob a bank, him refusing and then not robbing the bank?

No, trump did not have ANY authority to fire Mueller. The only ones who don't dispute that are brain-dead cons. Your first clue should have been -- trump would have fired Mueller of he could have when McGhan refused to do so.

Your second clue is the law ...

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.​

 

[Foxfyre]

Carter Page worked in russia between 03 and 07. after returning to the US, Page became acquainted with 2 russian intelligence officers, one of whom was charged in 2015 with conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent of Russia.

that's in the report!

And?

Lots and lots and lots of people have visited, lived in, and worked in Russia in every year that the current generation has been alive. And the vast majority of them were doing so legally, ethically, and without any suspicion. As was Carter Page. A top 10% Naval Academy graduate he was awarded the Trident Scholar program, has worked for the Navy and the U.S. Congress (House Armed Services Committee if I remember right) as well as distinguishing himself in various other ways involving foreign relations. He most lately established his own business but hasn't fully gotten off the ground. His business does work with Russian energy development though.

It is perfectly reasonable and would be expected that he would meet Russian government officials from time to time. It was his knowledge of international workings, especially Russia, that caused him to be drafted briefly as advisor to the Trump campaign though he did little or nothing for it.

Carter Page's name has been dragged through the mud, his colleagues and friends have been harassed, and he has been seriously damaged financially by legal fees Mueller's investigation forced him to incur. And there has not even been a suggestion of any crime, minor misdemeanor or felony, that he has committed.

He is one of many who have been unfairly and maliciously damaged by Mueller's team. And we really should have some way to make people like him whole when we have one of these witch hunts.

 

[Faun]

No shit. I posted the video, dope.

Now where does he say this

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.

I'm still waiting for the specific line in the report which he cleared the President of collusion/conspiracy. Hint: it isn't there.

What is there is a report describing some of the exhaustive investigation done with a conclusion that no evidence was found that ANY AMERICAN had committed any crime related to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.

My interpretation: There was strong evidence that the Clinton Campaign tried to use the Russians for their advantage but he chose not to look at that. And the only way to divert attention from her was to find no evidence that any American is guilty of that. Mueller didn't know who or what Fusion GPS is. Give me a break. 1.4 million documents, 500+ subpoenas, somewhere between $25 and $50 million dollars spent, and he didn't hear about Fusion GPS in any of that? The one entity deliberately and with foresight soliciting information from the Russians? Incredible. I'm hoping the IG or Durham will have no such inclination to refuse to look into that.

Nor did he find any evidence that the President obstructed justice. He cited a lot of instances that COULD BE INTERPRETED AS OBSTRUCTION IF THE INTENT WAS TO OBSTRUCT but he cites no shred of evidence that the intent was to obstruct.

"In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." ~ pg 157

"At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." ~ pg 182

The two volumes reached different conclusions.

The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.

The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I'm still waiting for the specific line in the report which he cleared the President of collusion/conspiracy. Hint: it isn't there.

What is there is a report describing some of the exhaustive investigation done with a conclusion that no evidence was found that ANY AMERICAN had committed any crime related to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.

My interpretation: There was strong evidence that the Clinton Campaign tried to use the Russians for their advantage but he chose not to look at that. And the only way to divert attention from her was to find no evidence that any American is guilty of that. Mueller didn't know who or what Fusion GPS is. Give me a break. 1.4 million documents, 500+ subpoenas, somewhere between $25 and $50 million dollars spent, and he didn't hear about Fusion GPS in any of that? The one entity deliberately and with foresight soliciting information from the Russians? Incredible. I'm hoping the IG or Durham will have no such inclination to refuse to look into that.

Nor did he find any evidence that the President obstructed justice. He cited a lot of instances that COULD BE INTERPRETED AS OBSTRUCTION IF THE INTENT WAS TO OBSTRUCT but he cites no shred of evidence that the intent was to obstruct.

"In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." ~ pg 157

"At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." ~ pg 182

The two volumes reached different conclusions.

The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.

The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

Have you ever been in a courtroom in your life? Have you ever been in a position to sit on a jury or even read up on what the legal criteria is for guilt to be established? If there is insufficient evidence to charge or convict a person with a crime, the person is judged not guilty under the law. Of course a team of 17 Hillary supporting, Trump hating Democrats are not going to say they cleared the President of a crime. And they did their damndest to feed as much crap to the gullible haters out there who gobbled it up and want it to look like something incriminating. But for the record, they didn't clear anybody else they looked at or interrogated either.

But if they couldn't find a crime to accuse him with after looking at 1.4 million documents, after 500+ subpoenas, after spending between $25 and $50 million, it is pretty damn certain that they, you, or nobody else has a single leg to stand on to accuse him of a crime.

I write this as information for the rational and fair minded of course. I don't expect those afflicted with TDS to even read it, much less make any effort to understand it.

 

[Faun]

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.

I'm still waiting for the specific line in the report which he cleared the President of collusion/conspiracy. Hint: it isn't there.

What is there is a report describing some of the exhaustive investigation done with a conclusion that no evidence was found that ANY AMERICAN had committed any crime related to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.

My interpretation: There was strong evidence that the Clinton Campaign tried to use the Russians for their advantage but he chose not to look at that. And the only way to divert attention from her was to find no evidence that any American is guilty of that. Mueller didn't know who or what Fusion GPS is. Give me a break. 1.4 million documents, 500+ subpoenas, somewhere between $25 and $50 million dollars spent, and he didn't hear about Fusion GPS in any of that? The one entity deliberately and with foresight soliciting information from the Russians? Incredible. I'm hoping the IG or Durham will have no such inclination to refuse to look into that.

Nor did he find any evidence that the President obstructed justice. He cited a lot of instances that COULD BE INTERPRETED AS OBSTRUCTION IF THE INTENT WAS TO OBSTRUCT but he cites no shred of evidence that the intent was to obstruct.

"In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." ~ pg 157

"At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." ~ pg 182

The two volumes reached different conclusions.

The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.

The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

Have you ever been in a courtroom in your life? Have you ever been in a position to sit on a jury or even read up on what the legal criteria is for guilt to be established? If there is insufficient evidence to charge or convict a person with a crime, the person is judged not guilty under the law. Of course a team of 17 Hillary supporting, Trump hating Democrats are not going to say they cleared the President of a crime. And they did their damndest to feed as much crap to the gullible haters out there who gobbled it up and want it to look like something incriminating. But for the record, they didn't clear anybody else they looked at or interrogated either.

But if they couldn't find a crime to accuse him with after looking at 1.4 million documents, after 500+ subpoenas, after spending between $25 and $50 million, it is pretty damn certain that they, you, or nobody else has a single leg to stand on to accuse him of a crime.

I write this as information for the rational and fair minded of course. I don't expect those afflicted with TDS to even read it, much less make any effort to understand it.

LOLOL

So to you, Mueller saying he would have so stated trump had not committed obstruction had that been where the evidence led him -- is the same as saying -- there was no evidence trump was involved with Russian election interference??

 

[SAYIT]

Felix Sater to Michael Cohen in 2015: “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected ... Buddy our boy can become President of the USA and we can engineer it." - page 79...

No fraud occurred. What some opportunist puts in an email to finagle a business deal and feather his own financial dress does not make the President complicit in anything. The opportunist (Safer) obviously failed as the deal was ultimately scrapped.

And that is EXACTLY what the 2 yr, $35 million witch-hunt concluded, indicting not one American for conspiring or cooperating with Russian meddling (or collusion).

Small-minded people cannot discern the meaning of adult discourse (or its purpose) because they have no experience with it.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I'm still waiting for the specific line in the report which he cleared the President of collusion/conspiracy. Hint: it isn't there.

What is there is a report describing some of the exhaustive investigation done with a conclusion that no evidence was found that ANY AMERICAN had committed any crime related to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.

My interpretation: There was strong evidence that the Clinton Campaign tried to use the Russians for their advantage but he chose not to look at that. And the only way to divert attention from her was to find no evidence that any American is guilty of that. Mueller didn't know who or what Fusion GPS is. Give me a break. 1.4 million documents, 500+ subpoenas, somewhere between $25 and $50 million dollars spent, and he didn't hear about Fusion GPS in any of that? The one entity deliberately and with foresight soliciting information from the Russians? Incredible. I'm hoping the IG or Durham will have no such inclination to refuse to look into that.

Nor did he find any evidence that the President obstructed justice. He cited a lot of instances that COULD BE INTERPRETED AS OBSTRUCTION IF THE INTENT WAS TO OBSTRUCT but he cites no shred of evidence that the intent was to obstruct.

"In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." ~ pg 157

"At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." ~ pg 182

The two volumes reached different conclusions.

The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.

The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

Have you ever been in a courtroom in your life? Have you ever been in a position to sit on a jury or even read up on what the legal criteria is for guilt to be established? If there is insufficient evidence to charge or convict a person with a crime, the person is judged not guilty under the law. Of course a team of 17 Hillary supporting, Trump hating Democrats are not going to say they cleared the President of a crime. And they did their damndest to feed as much crap to the gullible haters out there who gobbled it up and want it to look like something incriminating. But for the record, they didn't clear anybody else they looked at or interrogated either.

But if they couldn't find a crime to accuse him with after looking at 1.4 million documents, after 500+ subpoenas, after spending between $25 and $50 million, it is pretty damn certain that they, you, or nobody else has a single leg to stand on to accuse him of a crime.

I write this as information for the rational and fair minded of course. I don't expect those afflicted with TDS to even read it, much less make any effort to understand it.

LOLOL

So to you, Mueller saying he would have so stated trump had not committed obstruction had that been where the evidence led him -- is the same as saying -- there was no evidence trump was involved with Russian election interference??

Yep. If he, or probably Weissmann who I believe wrote at least Part 2 of the report, had ANY evidence the President had obstructed in any way, they absolutely would have said so and would have led that portion of the report with it. And Mueller wouldn't have joined Barr in a joint statement verifying that there was no such evidence. And he wouldn't have corrected his misspeak in his testimony on Wednesday.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

I'm still waiting for the specific line in the report which he cleared the President of collusion/conspiracy. Hint: it isn't there.

What is there is a report describing some of the exhaustive investigation done with a conclusion that no evidence was found that ANY AMERICAN had committed any crime related to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.

My interpretation: There was strong evidence that the Clinton Campaign tried to use the Russians for their advantage but he chose not to look at that. And the only way to divert attention from her was to find no evidence that any American is guilty of that. Mueller didn't know who or what Fusion GPS is. Give me a break. 1.4 million documents, 500+ subpoenas, somewhere between $25 and $50 million dollars spent, and he didn't hear about Fusion GPS in any of that? The one entity deliberately and with foresight soliciting information from the Russians? Incredible. I'm hoping the IG or Durham will have no such inclination to refuse to look into that.

Nor did he find any evidence that the President obstructed justice. He cited a lot of instances that COULD BE INTERPRETED AS OBSTRUCTION IF THE INTENT WAS TO OBSTRUCT but he cites no shred of evidence that the intent was to obstruct.

"In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." ~ pg 157

"At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." ~ pg 182

The two volumes reached different conclusions.

The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.

The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

Have you ever been in a courtroom in your life? Have you ever been in a position to sit on a jury or even read up on what the legal criteria is for guilt to be established? If there is insufficient evidence to charge or convict a person with a crime, the person is judged not guilty under the law. Of course a team of 17 Hillary supporting, Trump hating Democrats are not going to say they cleared the President of a crime. And they did their damndest to feed as much crap to the gullible haters out there who gobbled it up and want it to look like something incriminating. But for the record, they didn't clear anybody else they looked at or interrogated either.

But if they couldn't find a crime to accuse him with after looking at 1.4 million documents, after 500+ subpoenas, after spending between $25 and $50 million, it is pretty damn certain that they, you, or nobody else has a single leg to stand on to accuse him of a crime.

I write this as information for the rational and fair minded of course. I don't expect those afflicted with TDS to even read it, much less make any effort to understand it.

LOLOL

So to you, Mueller saying he would have so stated trump had not committed obstruction had that been where the evidence led him -- is the same as saying -- there was no evidence trump was involved with Russian election interference??

Fawn, you’re making an ass out of yourself. Your side lost. Live with it.

 

[hadit]

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.

I'm still waiting for the specific line in the report which he cleared the President of collusion/conspiracy. Hint: it isn't there.

What is there is a report describing some of the exhaustive investigation done with a conclusion that no evidence was found that ANY AMERICAN had committed any crime related to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.

My interpretation: There was strong evidence that the Clinton Campaign tried to use the Russians for their advantage but he chose not to look at that. And the only way to divert attention from her was to find no evidence that any American is guilty of that. Mueller didn't know who or what Fusion GPS is. Give me a break. 1.4 million documents, 500+ subpoenas, somewhere between $25 and $50 million dollars spent, and he didn't hear about Fusion GPS in any of that? The one entity deliberately and with foresight soliciting information from the Russians? Incredible. I'm hoping the IG or Durham will have no such inclination to refuse to look into that.

Nor did he find any evidence that the President obstructed justice. He cited a lot of instances that COULD BE INTERPRETED AS OBSTRUCTION IF THE INTENT WAS TO OBSTRUCT but he cites no shred of evidence that the intent was to obstruct.

"In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." ~ pg 157

"At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." ~ pg 182

The two volumes reached different conclusions.

The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.

The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

Have you ever been in a courtroom in your life? Have you ever been in a position to sit on a jury or even read up on what the legal criteria is for guilt to be established? If there is insufficient evidence to charge or convict a person with a crime, the person is judged not guilty under the law. Of course a team of 17 Hillary supporting, Trump hating Democrats are not going to say they cleared the President of a crime. And they did their damndest to feed as much crap to the gullible haters out there who gobbled it up and want it to look like something incriminating. But for the record, they didn't clear anybody else they looked at or interrogated either.

But if they couldn't find a crime to accuse him with after looking at 1.4 million documents, after 500+ subpoenas, after spending between $25 and $50 million, it is pretty damn certain that they, you, or nobody else has a single leg to stand on to accuse him of a crime.

I write this as information for the rational and fair minded of course. I don't expect those afflicted with TDS to even read it, much less make any effort to understand it.

LOLOL

So to you, Mueller saying he would have so stated trump had not committed obstruction had that been where the evidence led him -- is the same as saying -- there was no evidence trump was involved with Russian election interference??

Fawn, you’re making an ass out of yourself. Your side lost. Live with it.

The funny thing is, we can apply the same standard to Hillary's classified information problems. They admitted she broke the law, but refused to prosecute because she was too stupid to realize she did.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm still waiting for the specific line in the report which he cleared the President of collusion/conspiracy. Hint: it isn't there.

What is there is a report describing some of the exhaustive investigation done with a conclusion that no evidence was found that ANY AMERICAN had committed any crime related to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.

My interpretation: There was strong evidence that the Clinton Campaign tried to use the Russians for their advantage but he chose not to look at that. And the only way to divert attention from her was to find no evidence that any American is guilty of that. Mueller didn't know who or what Fusion GPS is. Give me a break. 1.4 million documents, 500+ subpoenas, somewhere between $25 and $50 million dollars spent, and he didn't hear about Fusion GPS in any of that? The one entity deliberately and with foresight soliciting information from the Russians? Incredible. I'm hoping the IG or Durham will have no such inclination to refuse to look into that.

Nor did he find any evidence that the President obstructed justice. He cited a lot of instances that COULD BE INTERPRETED AS OBSTRUCTION IF THE INTENT WAS TO OBSTRUCT but he cites no shred of evidence that the intent was to obstruct.

"In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." ~ pg 157

"At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." ~ pg 182

The two volumes reached different conclusions.

The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.

The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

Have you ever been in a courtroom in your life? Have you ever been in a position to sit on a jury or even read up on what the legal criteria is for guilt to be established? If there is insufficient evidence to charge or convict a person with a crime, the person is judged not guilty under the law. Of course a team of 17 Hillary supporting, Trump hating Democrats are not going to say they cleared the President of a crime. And they did their damndest to feed as much crap to the gullible haters out there who gobbled it up and want it to look like something incriminating. But for the record, they didn't clear anybody else they looked at or interrogated either.

But if they couldn't find a crime to accuse him with after looking at 1.4 million documents, after 500+ subpoenas, after spending between $25 and $50 million, it is pretty damn certain that they, you, or nobody else has a single leg to stand on to accuse him of a crime.

I write this as information for the rational and fair minded of course. I don't expect those afflicted with TDS to even read it, much less make any effort to understand it.

LOLOL

So to you, Mueller saying he would have so stated trump had not committed obstruction had that been where the evidence led him -- is the same as saying -- there was no evidence trump was involved with Russian election interference??

Fawn, you’re making an ass out of yourself. Your side lost. Live with it.

The funny thing is, we can apply the same standard to Hillary's classified information problems. They admitted she broke the law, but refused to prosecute because she was too stupid to realize she did.

Hillary has a long track record of being really stupid--okay out of kindness maybe more ignorant and clueless?--when it is convenient for her as well as massive periods of amnesia when she can't remember ANYTHING.

youtube Hillary I can't remember - Bing video

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm still waiting for the specific line in the report which he cleared the President of collusion/conspiracy. Hint: it isn't there.

What is there is a report describing some of the exhaustive investigation done with a conclusion that no evidence was found that ANY AMERICAN had committed any crime related to collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.

My interpretation: There was strong evidence that the Clinton Campaign tried to use the Russians for their advantage but he chose not to look at that. And the only way to divert attention from her was to find no evidence that any American is guilty of that. Mueller didn't know who or what Fusion GPS is. Give me a break. 1.4 million documents, 500+ subpoenas, somewhere between $25 and $50 million dollars spent, and he didn't hear about Fusion GPS in any of that? The one entity deliberately and with foresight soliciting information from the Russians? Incredible. I'm hoping the IG or Durham will have no such inclination to refuse to look into that.

Nor did he find any evidence that the President obstructed justice. He cited a lot of instances that COULD BE INTERPRETED AS OBSTRUCTION IF THE INTENT WAS TO OBSTRUCT but he cites no shred of evidence that the intent was to obstruct.

"In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." ~ pg 157

"At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." ~ pg 182

The two volumes reached different conclusions.

The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.

The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

Have you ever been in a courtroom in your life? Have you ever been in a position to sit on a jury or even read up on what the legal criteria is for guilt to be established? If there is insufficient evidence to charge or convict a person with a crime, the person is judged not guilty under the law. Of course a team of 17 Hillary supporting, Trump hating Democrats are not going to say they cleared the President of a crime. And they did their damndest to feed as much crap to the gullible haters out there who gobbled it up and want it to look like something incriminating. But for the record, they didn't clear anybody else they looked at or interrogated either.

But if they couldn't find a crime to accuse him with after looking at 1.4 million documents, after 500+ subpoenas, after spending between $25 and $50 million, it is pretty damn certain that they, you, or nobody else has a single leg to stand on to accuse him of a crime.

I write this as information for the rational and fair minded of course. I don't expect those afflicted with TDS to even read it, much less make any effort to understand it.

LOLOL

So to you, Mueller saying he would have so stated trump had not committed obstruction had that been where the evidence led him -- is the same as saying -- there was no evidence trump was involved with Russian election interference??

Fawn, you’re making an ass out of yourself. Your side lost. Live with it.

The funny thing is, we can apply the same standard to Hillary's classified information problems. They admitted she broke the law, but refused to prosecute because she was too stupid to realize she did.

But you're not going to apply that to Trump, so stop wasting our time.

 

[hadit]

"In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." ~ pg 157

"At the same time , if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." ~ pg 182

The two volumes reached different conclusions.

The first volume cleared trump of collusion/conspiracy, and Mueller did so state.

The second volume did not clear trump of obstruction, and as Mueller said, they would have cleared him if they felt confident he had not obstructed justice.... and they didn't "exonerate him."

Have you ever been in a courtroom in your life? Have you ever been in a position to sit on a jury or even read up on what the legal criteria is for guilt to be established? If there is insufficient evidence to charge or convict a person with a crime, the person is judged not guilty under the law. Of course a team of 17 Hillary supporting, Trump hating Democrats are not going to say they cleared the President of a crime. And they did their damndest to feed as much crap to the gullible haters out there who gobbled it up and want it to look like something incriminating. But for the record, they didn't clear anybody else they looked at or interrogated either.

But if they couldn't find a crime to accuse him with after looking at 1.4 million documents, after 500+ subpoenas, after spending between $25 and $50 million, it is pretty damn certain that they, you, or nobody else has a single leg to stand on to accuse him of a crime.

I write this as information for the rational and fair minded of course. I don't expect those afflicted with TDS to even read it, much less make any effort to understand it.

LOLOL

So to you, Mueller saying he would have so stated trump had not committed obstruction had that been where the evidence led him -- is the same as saying -- there was no evidence trump was involved with Russian election interference??

Fawn, you’re making an ass out of yourself. Your side lost. Live with it.

The funny thing is, we can apply the same standard to Hillary's classified information problems. They admitted she broke the law, but refused to prosecute because she was too stupid to realize she did.

But you're not going to apply that to Trump, so stop wasting our time.

Sure, the elite are above the law. Neither Trump nor Hillary will ever see the inside of a cell, no matter if they've broken the law or not. You as well as I know that this whole Trump thing is a distraction because the democrats are not going to impeach because Mueller burned all their political capital.

 

[The Purge]

More takeaways from Robert Mueller’s testimony:

Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, at long last, testified before Congress about his investigation into Russian interference and President Trump’s conduct related to it.

Mueller appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in the morning and the House Intelligence Committee in the afternoon.

Here’s what we learned from both sessions: