It's Mueller Time!

[jc456]

Now that the witch hunt formally failed the lib loons are conjuring up other spells they can attempt to cast after Trump leaves office. It’s the only speculation they can still emotionally cling to.

Except for those out of desperation and straining at gnats insisting on keeping the witch hunt alive.

Putin for president !!! Yay !!!

I suppose you intended that to make sense. Hint: to the majority of people still capable of independent thought, it doesn't.

Mueller's report clearly demonstrates that Russians are meddling and this is not a witch hunt.

I trust Mueller... you trust Trump. This will clearly not end well.

the witch hunt was the hoax on trump.

 

[jc456]

There is nothing, not even McGahn, that is the least bit alarming. At the very worst, every incident was an absolutely understandable and natural comment that ANYBODY would have made when being accused and investigated non stop of criminal acts that the person knew he/she was innocent of committing. Mueller and his staff did not reach any determination of guilt as there was nothing to use to determine guilt. The last statement Mueller made on that issue: "As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
Anybody with even a teensy part of a working brain knows that bunch of pit vipers destroying lives and leaving no stone unturned to find something to use to accuse the President knows that if he had committed ANY crime, they would have said so.

WTF again... It's not 'we did not reach a determination'.... it's 'we decided not to reach a determination'....

You need to have a conversation with Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, Roger Stone... who else am I missing already in prison...

When your only 'get out of jail card' is an OLC opinion.... you're on the wrong side of history

They did not 'decide not to reach a determination.' They DID NOT REACH A DETERMINATION.

Mueller direct quote one week ago today: “As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

It is a legal requirement that there be a crime in order to legally accuse, charge, indict any person. There is no crime identified in the Mueller Report or in any of the several other investigations with which to accuse, charge, or indict President Trump. I'm sorry that distresses you so much, but that is the pure truth of the matter.

And he explained the reason for not reaching a determination was because a sitting president can't be indicted.

I wish could type more slowly so maybe you could keep up. Mueller's first statement of the afternoon last Wednesday:

“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,” Mueller said.

“As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”​

Mueller Starts House Intel Hearing By Correcting Major Bombshell

And if you can't read, you can listen to him saying it:

What is the functional difference?

The fact is that they knew right from the get go that no matter what they found they were not going to make a determination of criminal activity by the president. The few words that you and faun keep going back and fourth on are rather silly.

then why did they do the investigation and waste our money if they knew all of that?

 

[Foxfyre]

For the record, it is being reported that the I.G. Horowitz has delivered a referral for indictment re former FBI Director Comey for violation of the Espionage Act and for giving false statements. So far, according to the reports, Barr has chosen not to indict Comey for now, most likely because Durham's investigation is still in progress and the IG has not finalized his report. It will be interesting to see how many of those pit vipers they ensnare, and how much that is going to make President Trump's case look better and better.

 

[Faun]

WTF again... It's not 'we did not reach a determination'.... it's 'we decided not to reach a determination'....

You need to have a conversation with Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, Roger Stone... who else am I missing already in prison...

When your only 'get out of jail card' is an OLC opinion.... you're on the wrong side of history

They did not 'decide not to reach a determination.' They DID NOT REACH A DETERMINATION.

Mueller direct quote one week ago today: “As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

It is a legal requirement that there be a crime in order to legally accuse, charge, indict any person. There is no crime identified in the Mueller Report or in any of the several other investigations with which to accuse, charge, or indict President Trump. I'm sorry that distresses you so much, but that is the pure truth of the matter.

And he explained the reason for not reaching a determination was because a sitting president can't be indicted.

I wish could type more slowly so maybe you could keep up. Mueller's first statement of the afternoon last Wednesday:

“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,” Mueller said.

“As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”​

Mueller Starts House Intel Hearing By Correcting Major Bombshell

And if you can't read, you can listen to him saying it:

What is the functional difference?

The fact is that they knew right from the get go that no matter what they found they were not going to make a determination of criminal activity by the president. The few words that you and faun keep going back and fourth on are rather silly.

Because she insists they effectively indicted the President via innuendo in the Mueller Report, which I agree they did, but the fact is they did not identify any crime that the President or his campaign or his staff or his family committed re Russia and obstruction of investigation of a crime that was never committed. She says otherwise and insists that if it were not for the OLC that Mueller would have indicted him. Something he has now refuted on the record both in the joint statement with the A.G. and in his testimony last week.

And I disagree with you that Mueller had no intention of indicting the President. I think he and his pitbulls would have done so instantly if they had found any crime with which to charge him. As it was they did as much political damage to him as they could including delaying the report until after the 2018 election when they already knew there was no crime to report.

He, not she; and no, Mueller would not have indicted trump no matter what he found. He couldn't since a sitting president can't be indicted.

Regardless, his report implies trump obstructed justice as he exonerated trump of conspiracy but did not exonerate him of obstruction.

 

[Faun]

There is nothing, not even McGahn, that is the least bit alarming. At the very worst, every incident was an absolutely understandable and natural comment that ANYBODY would have made when being accused and investigated non stop of criminal acts that the person knew he/she was innocent of committing. Mueller and his staff did not reach any determination of guilt as there was nothing to use to determine guilt. The last statement Mueller made on that issue: "As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
Anybody with even a teensy part of a working brain knows that bunch of pit vipers destroying lives and leaving no stone unturned to find something to use to accuse the President knows that if he had committed ANY crime, they would have said so.

WTF again... It's not 'we did not reach a determination'.... it's 'we decided not to reach a determination'....

You need to have a conversation with Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, Roger Stone... who else am I missing already in prison...

When your only 'get out of jail card' is an OLC opinion.... you're on the wrong side of history

They did not 'decide not to reach a determination.' They DID NOT REACH A DETERMINATION.

Mueller direct quote one week ago today: “As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

It is a legal requirement that there be a crime in order to legally accuse, charge, indict any person. There is no crime identified in the Mueller Report or in any of the several other investigations with which to accuse, charge, or indict President Trump. I'm sorry that distresses you so much, but that is the pure truth of the matter.

And he explained the reason for not reaching a determination was because a sitting president can't be indicted.

Which is ridiculous. Start had no problem recommending Bubba's actions for indictment.

Nah, what's ridiculous is that you would even assert such an argument.

Try explaining how the OLC's opinion impacted Starr's investigation. Shit, I'll even spot you the link ...

A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution​

Well, hadit? Have you figured out the gaping head wound yet in your post?

 

[wamose]

This thread would be more accurate if it were called 'broken dreams'. It started out with unhinged libs wetting themselves over the prospect of impeachment or even arrest of our President. They were giddy. Underwear were ruined in all the excitement. Then they rolled the savior out and he was a total bust, in every way. Anticipation turned to horror. Now there will be no joy in Mudville because the mighty Casey has struck out. Viva Trump, KAG

 

[hadit]

WTF again... It's not 'we did not reach a determination'.... it's 'we decided not to reach a determination'....

You need to have a conversation with Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, Roger Stone... who else am I missing already in prison...

When your only 'get out of jail card' is an OLC opinion.... you're on the wrong side of history

They did not 'decide not to reach a determination.' They DID NOT REACH A DETERMINATION.

Mueller direct quote one week ago today: “As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

It is a legal requirement that there be a crime in order to legally accuse, charge, indict any person. There is no crime identified in the Mueller Report or in any of the several other investigations with which to accuse, charge, or indict President Trump. I'm sorry that distresses you so much, but that is the pure truth of the matter.

And he explained the reason for not reaching a determination was because a sitting president can't be indicted.

Which is ridiculous. Start had no problem recommending Bubba's actions for indictment.

Nah, what's ridiculous is that you would even assert such an argument.

Try explaining how the OLC's opinion impacted Starr's investigation. Shit, I'll even spot you the link ...

A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution​

Well, hadit? Have you figured out the gaping head wound yet in your post?

Sure did. Starr was working under a different set of laws. It's a moot point anyway, because Mueller specifically stated that it wasn't just the rule that prevented him from concluding the president broke the law. Trump's not going anywhere yet.

 

[jc456]

This thread would be more accurate if it were called 'broken dreams'. It started out with unhinged libs wetting themselves over the prospect of impeachment or even arrest of our President. They were giddy. Underwear were ruined in all the excitement. Then they rolled the savior out and he was a total bust, in every way. Anticipation turned to horror. Now there will be no joy in Mudville because the mighty Casey has struck out. Viva Trump, KAG

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^NICE^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[FA_Q2]

WTF again... It's not 'we did not reach a determination'.... it's 'we decided not to reach a determination'....

You need to have a conversation with Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, Roger Stone... who else am I missing already in prison...

When your only 'get out of jail card' is an OLC opinion.... you're on the wrong side of history

They did not 'decide not to reach a determination.' They DID NOT REACH A DETERMINATION.

Mueller direct quote one week ago today: “As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

It is a legal requirement that there be a crime in order to legally accuse, charge, indict any person. There is no crime identified in the Mueller Report or in any of the several other investigations with which to accuse, charge, or indict President Trump. I'm sorry that distresses you so much, but that is the pure truth of the matter.

And he explained the reason for not reaching a determination was because a sitting president can't be indicted.

I wish could type more slowly so maybe you could keep up. Mueller's first statement of the afternoon last Wednesday:

“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,” Mueller said.

“As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”​

Mueller Starts House Intel Hearing By Correcting Major Bombshell

And if you can't read, you can listen to him saying it:

What is the functional difference?

The fact is that they knew right from the get go that no matter what they found they were not going to make a determination of criminal activity by the president. The few words that you and faun keep going back and fourth on are rather silly.

Because she insists they effectively indicted the President via innuendo in the Mueller Report, which I agree they did, but the fact is they did not identify any crime that the President or his campaign or his staff or his family committed re Russia and obstruction of investigation of a crime that was never committed. She says otherwise and insists that if it were not for the OLC that Mueller would have indicted him. Something he has now refuted on the record both in the joint statement with the A.G. and in his testimony last week.

Cant argue here. There is nothing to support the charge that Muller would have indicted the president without the OLC opinion. He directly states it was never even considered meaning that such a position is utterly unsupported.

And I disagree with you that Mueller had no intention of indicting the President. I think he and his pitbulls would have done so instantly if they had found any crime with which to charge him. As it was they did as much political damage to him as they could including delaying the report until after the 2018 election when they already knew there was no crime to report.

While to OLC does prevent the president from being indicted it does not in any shape or form prevent Muller from stating that the investigation did find a crime or even making an impeachment recommendation. Considering that he never makes any such statements or anything even related to such I agree that he was not able to establish that a crime was committed but had he been confident that there was I am fairly sure he would have stated as such in his report. There is noting that shows Muller was lying about the decision not to indict made at the very outset of the investigation.

I find that almost everyone demanding that there is clear obstruction in the report also have claimed that there was, or even still claiming that there is, clear evidence that Trump was working with the Russians to throw the election. As that has been pretty well established as not factual by the report, the same claims about obstruction do not have much weight.

 

[FA_Q2]

WTF again... It's not 'we did not reach a determination'.... it's 'we decided not to reach a determination'....

You need to have a conversation with Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, Roger Stone... who else am I missing already in prison...

When your only 'get out of jail card' is an OLC opinion.... you're on the wrong side of history

They did not 'decide not to reach a determination.' They DID NOT REACH A DETERMINATION.

Mueller direct quote one week ago today: “As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

It is a legal requirement that there be a crime in order to legally accuse, charge, indict any person. There is no crime identified in the Mueller Report or in any of the several other investigations with which to accuse, charge, or indict President Trump. I'm sorry that distresses you so much, but that is the pure truth of the matter.

And he explained the reason for not reaching a determination was because a sitting president can't be indicted.

I wish could type more slowly so maybe you could keep up. Mueller's first statement of the afternoon last Wednesday:

“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,” Mueller said.

“As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”​

Mueller Starts House Intel Hearing By Correcting Major Bombshell

And if you can't read, you can listen to him saying it:

What is the functional difference?

The fact is that they knew right from the get go that no matter what they found they were not going to make a determination of criminal activity by the president. The few words that you and faun keep going back and fourth on are rather silly.

then why did they do the investigation and waste our money if they knew all of that?

That really is the question.

I think Muller put himself in a real mental pretzel when he states that he could not indict the president, performs a massive investigation and then even fails to mention weather or not they were able establish a crime was committed at all. It is clear to me that Muller was trying to play a political game rather than execute the office he was appointed to good faith.

 

[Foxfyre]

And he explained the reason for not reaching a determination was because a sitting president can't be indicted.

I wish could type more slowly so maybe you could keep up. Mueller's first statement of the afternoon last Wednesday:

“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,” Mueller said.

“As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”​

Mueller Starts House Intel Hearing By Correcting Major Bombshell

And if you can't read, you can listen to him saying it:

What is the functional difference?

The fact is that they knew right from the get go that no matter what they found they were not going to make a determination of criminal activity by the president. The few words that you and faun keep going back and fourth on are rather silly.

Because she insists they effectively indicted the President via innuendo in the Mueller Report, which I agree they did, but the fact is they did not identify any crime that the President or his campaign or his staff or his family committed re Russia and obstruction of investigation of a crime that was never committed. She says otherwise and insists that if it were not for the OLC that Mueller would have indicted him. Something he has now refuted on the record both in the joint statement with the A.G. and in his testimony last week.

Cant argue here. There is nothing to support the charge that Muller would have indicted the president without the OLC opinion. He directly states it was never even considered meaning that such a position is utterly unsupported.

And I disagree with you that Mueller had no intention of indicting the President. I think he and his pitbulls would have done so instantly if they had found any crime with which to charge him. As it was they did as much political damage to him as they could including delaying the report until after the 2018 election when they already knew there was no crime to report.

While to OLC does prevent the president from being indicted it does not in any shape or form prevent Muller from stating that the investigation did find a crime or even making an impeachment recommendation. Considering that he never makes any such statements or anything even related to such I agree that he was not able to establish that a crime was committed but had he been confident that there was I am fairly sure he would have stated as such in his report. There is noting that shows Muller was lying about the decision not to indict made at the very outset of the investigation.

I find that almost everyone demanding that there is clear obstruction in the report also have claimed that there was, or even still claiming that there is, clear evidence that Trump was working with the Russians to throw the election. As that has been pretty well established as not factual by the report, the same claims about obstruction do not have much weight.

that's called TDS we know all about it. the facts don't prove you out however, or those you talk to. hmmmmm narrative can't go away right?

a fking three year long investigation where the author states russia, trump nor his campaign were in cahoots. but you, you know they were because of why?

come on fkwad step up and give us your sources.

? I don't think FA_Q2 was arguing that at all. I must have misread something? Or you inadvertently quoted the wrong quote maybe?

 

[jc456]

I wish could type more slowly so maybe you could keep up. Mueller's first statement of the afternoon last Wednesday:

“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,” Mueller said.

“As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”​

Mueller Starts House Intel Hearing By Correcting Major Bombshell

And if you can't read, you can listen to him saying it:

What is the functional difference?

The fact is that they knew right from the get go that no matter what they found they were not going to make a determination of criminal activity by the president. The few words that you and faun keep going back and fourth on are rather silly.

Because she insists they effectively indicted the President via innuendo in the Mueller Report, which I agree they did, but the fact is they did not identify any crime that the President or his campaign or his staff or his family committed re Russia and obstruction of investigation of a crime that was never committed. She says otherwise and insists that if it were not for the OLC that Mueller would have indicted him. Something he has now refuted on the record both in the joint statement with the A.G. and in his testimony last week.

Cant argue here. There is nothing to support the charge that Muller would have indicted the president without the OLC opinion. He directly states it was never even considered meaning that such a position is utterly unsupported.

And I disagree with you that Mueller had no intention of indicting the President. I think he and his pitbulls would have done so instantly if they had found any crime with which to charge him. As it was they did as much political damage to him as they could including delaying the report until after the 2018 election when they already knew there was no crime to report.

While to OLC does prevent the president from being indicted it does not in any shape or form prevent Muller from stating that the investigation did find a crime or even making an impeachment recommendation. Considering that he never makes any such statements or anything even related to such I agree that he was not able to establish that a crime was committed but had he been confident that there was I am fairly sure he would have stated as such in his report. There is noting that shows Muller was lying about the decision not to indict made at the very outset of the investigation.

I find that almost everyone demanding that there is clear obstruction in the report also have claimed that there was, or even still claiming that there is, clear evidence that Trump was working with the Russians to throw the election. As that has been pretty well established as not factual by the report, the same claims about obstruction do not have much weight.

that's called TDS we know all about it. the facts don't prove you out however, or those you talk to. hmmmmm narrative can't go away right?

a fking three year long investigation where the author states russia, trump nor his campaign were in cahoots. but you, you know they were because of why?

come on fkwad step up and give us your sources.

? I don't think FA_Q2 was arguing that at all. I must have misread something? Or you inadvertently quoted the wrong quote maybe?

my bad, I did mis read it. I deleted it.

 

[Foxfyre]

What is the functional difference?

The fact is that they knew right from the get go that no matter what they found they were not going to make a determination of criminal activity by the president. The few words that you and faun keep going back and fourth on are rather silly.

Because she insists they effectively indicted the President via innuendo in the Mueller Report, which I agree they did, but the fact is they did not identify any crime that the President or his campaign or his staff or his family committed re Russia and obstruction of investigation of a crime that was never committed. She says otherwise and insists that if it were not for the OLC that Mueller would have indicted him. Something he has now refuted on the record both in the joint statement with the A.G. and in his testimony last week.

Cant argue here. There is nothing to support the charge that Muller would have indicted the president without the OLC opinion. He directly states it was never even considered meaning that such a position is utterly unsupported.

And I disagree with you that Mueller had no intention of indicting the President. I think he and his pitbulls would have done so instantly if they had found any crime with which to charge him. As it was they did as much political damage to him as they could including delaying the report until after the 2018 election when they already knew there was no crime to report.

While to OLC does prevent the president from being indicted it does not in any shape or form prevent Muller from stating that the investigation did find a crime or even making an impeachment recommendation. Considering that he never makes any such statements or anything even related to such I agree that he was not able to establish that a crime was committed but had he been confident that there was I am fairly sure he would have stated as such in his report. There is noting that shows Muller was lying about the decision not to indict made at the very outset of the investigation.

I find that almost everyone demanding that there is clear obstruction in the report also have claimed that there was, or even still claiming that there is, clear evidence that Trump was working with the Russians to throw the election. As that has been pretty well established as not factual by the report, the same claims about obstruction do not have much weight.

that's called TDS we know all about it. the facts don't prove you out however, or those you talk to. hmmmmm narrative can't go away right?

a fking three year long investigation where the author states russia, trump nor his campaign were in cahoots. but you, you know they were because of why?

come on fkwad step up and give us your sources.

? I don't think FA_Q2 was arguing that at all. I must have misread something? Or you inadvertently quoted the wrong quote maybe?

my bad, I did mis read it. I deleted it.

I thought that might be the case. Otherwise that would have been really out of character for you.

 

[Faun]

They did not 'decide not to reach a determination.' They DID NOT REACH A DETERMINATION.

Mueller direct quote one week ago today: “As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

It is a legal requirement that there be a crime in order to legally accuse, charge, indict any person. There is no crime identified in the Mueller Report or in any of the several other investigations with which to accuse, charge, or indict President Trump. I'm sorry that distresses you so much, but that is the pure truth of the matter.

And he explained the reason for not reaching a determination was because a sitting president can't be indicted.

I wish could type more slowly so maybe you could keep up. Mueller's first statement of the afternoon last Wednesday:

“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,” Mueller said.

“As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”​

Mueller Starts House Intel Hearing By Correcting Major Bombshell

And if you can't read, you can listen to him saying it:

What is the functional difference?

The fact is that they knew right from the get go that no matter what they found they were not going to make a determination of criminal activity by the president. The few words that you and faun keep going back and fourth on are rather silly.

Because she insists they effectively indicted the President via innuendo in the Mueller Report, which I agree they did, but the fact is they did not identify any crime that the President or his campaign or his staff or his family committed re Russia and obstruction of investigation of a crime that was never committed. She says otherwise and insists that if it were not for the OLC that Mueller would have indicted him. Something he has now refuted on the record both in the joint statement with the A.G. and in his testimony last week.

Cant argue here. There is nothing to support the charge that Muller would have indicted the president without the OLC opinion. He directly states it was never even considered meaning that such a position is utterly unsupported.

And I disagree with you that Mueller had no intention of indicting the President. I think he and his pitbulls would have done so instantly if they had found any crime with which to charge him. As it was they did as much political damage to him as they could including delaying the report until after the 2018 election when they already knew there was no crime to report.

While to OLC does prevent the president from being indicted it does not in any shape or form prevent Muller from stating that the investigation did find a crime or even making an impeachment recommendation. Considering that he never makes any such statements or anything even related to such I agree that he was not able to establish that a crime was committed but had he been confident that there was I am fairly sure he would have stated as such in his report. There is noting that shows Muller was lying about the decision not to indict made at the very outset of the investigation.

I find that almost everyone demanding that there is clear obstruction in the report also have claimed that there was, or even still claiming that there is, clear evidence that Trump was working with the Russians to throw the election. As that has been pretty well established as not factual by the report, the same claims about obstruction do not have much weight.

Even Ken Starr said in his report he did not offer up any recommendations to Congress regarding impeachment. But that they could read the facts as he laid out in his report and reach their own determination.

 

[FA_Q2]

And he explained the reason for not reaching a determination was because a sitting president can't be indicted.

I wish could type more slowly so maybe you could keep up. Mueller's first statement of the afternoon last Wednesday:

“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,” Mueller said.

“As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”​

Mueller Starts House Intel Hearing By Correcting Major Bombshell

And if you can't read, you can listen to him saying it:

What is the functional difference?

The fact is that they knew right from the get go that no matter what they found they were not going to make a determination of criminal activity by the president. The few words that you and faun keep going back and fourth on are rather silly.

Because she insists they effectively indicted the President via innuendo in the Mueller Report, which I agree they did, but the fact is they did not identify any crime that the President or his campaign or his staff or his family committed re Russia and obstruction of investigation of a crime that was never committed. She says otherwise and insists that if it were not for the OLC that Mueller would have indicted him. Something he has now refuted on the record both in the joint statement with the A.G. and in his testimony last week.

Cant argue here. There is nothing to support the charge that Muller would have indicted the president without the OLC opinion. He directly states it was never even considered meaning that such a position is utterly unsupported.

And I disagree with you that Mueller had no intention of indicting the President. I think he and his pitbulls would have done so instantly if they had found any crime with which to charge him. As it was they did as much political damage to him as they could including delaying the report until after the 2018 election when they already knew there was no crime to report.

While to OLC does prevent the president from being indicted it does not in any shape or form prevent Muller from stating that the investigation did find a crime or even making an impeachment recommendation. Considering that he never makes any such statements or anything even related to such I agree that he was not able to establish that a crime was committed but had he been confident that there was I am fairly sure he would have stated as such in his report. There is noting that shows Muller was lying about the decision not to indict made at the very outset of the investigation.

I find that almost everyone demanding that there is clear obstruction in the report also have claimed that there was, or even still claiming that there is, clear evidence that Trump was working with the Russians to throw the election. As that has been pretty well established as not factual by the report, the same claims about obstruction do not have much weight.

Even Ken Starr said in his report he did not offer up any recommendations to Congress regarding impeachment. But that they could read the facts as he laid out in his report and reach their own determination.

He clearly stated that the presided committed crimes and may have not used the word recommend but he clearly did state there was grounds for impeachment.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/starr_report/report.pdf
As required by Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the UnitedStates Code, the Office of the Independent Counsel(“OIC” or “Office”) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

Read the full Mueller report - CNNPolitics
By contrast, Muller makes this conclusion:
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President ' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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.


They are not even in the same ballpark.

What Muller did was flip justice on its head throwing out the very basis of out justice system. He declines to say anywhere that the president committed any crime or that there was any credible evidence that establishes such. Instead, he states that they could not establish innocence. The key here is This:

"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

They did not bother to establish intent which is a cornerstone with any obstruction case. In order to state that the president clearly obstructed justice you have to make some rather large leaps in conclusions that simply are not supported by the evidence as presented. I have no doubt that Muller would have made some very similar statements to Star had he been able to clearly establish that Trump was obstructing justice.

 

[WEATHER53]

I wish could type more slowly so maybe you could keep up. Mueller's first statement of the afternoon last Wednesday:

“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,” Mueller said.

“As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”​

Mueller Starts House Intel Hearing By Correcting Major Bombshell

And if you can't read, you can listen to him saying it:

What is the functional difference?

The fact is that they knew right from the get go that no matter what they found they were not going to make a determination of criminal activity by the president. The few words that you and faun keep going back and fourth on are rather silly.

Because she insists they effectively indicted the President via innuendo in the Mueller Report, which I agree they did, but the fact is they did not identify any crime that the President or his campaign or his staff or his family committed re Russia and obstruction of investigation of a crime that was never committed. She says otherwise and insists that if it were not for the OLC that Mueller would have indicted him. Something he has now refuted on the record both in the joint statement with the A.G. and in his testimony last week.

Cant argue here. There is nothing to support the charge that Muller would have indicted the president without the OLC opinion. He directly states it was never even considered meaning that such a position is utterly unsupported.

And I disagree with you that Mueller had no intention of indicting the President. I think he and his pitbulls would have done so instantly if they had found any crime with which to charge him. As it was they did as much political damage to him as they could including delaying the report until after the 2018 election when they already knew there was no crime to report.

While to OLC does prevent the president from being indicted it does not in any shape or form prevent Muller from stating that the investigation did find a crime or even making an impeachment recommendation. Considering that he never makes any such statements or anything even related to such I agree that he was not able to establish that a crime was committed but had he been confident that there was I am fairly sure he would have stated as such in his report. There is noting that shows Muller was lying about the decision not to indict made at the very outset of the investigation.

I find that almost everyone demanding that there is clear obstruction in the report also have claimed that there was, or even still claiming that there is, clear evidence that Trump was working with the Russians to throw the election. As that has been pretty well established as not factual by the report, the same claims about obstruction do not have much weight.

Even Ken Starr said in his report he did not offer up any recommendations to Congress regarding impeachment. But that they could read the facts as he laid out in his report and reach their own determination.

He clearly stated that the presided committed crimes and may have not used the word recommend but he clearly did state there was grounds for impeachment.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/starr_report/report.pdf
As required by Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the UnitedStates Code, the Office of the Independent Counsel(“OIC” or “Office”) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

Read the full Mueller report - CNNPolitics
By contrast, Muller makes this conclusion:
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President ' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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.


They are not even in the same ballpark.

What Muller did was flip justice on its head throwing out the very basis of out justice system. He declines to say anywhere that the president committed any crime or that there was any credible evidence that establishes such. Instead, he states that they could not establish innocence. The key here is This:

"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

They did not bother to establish intent which is a cornerstone with any obstruction case. In order to state that the president clearly obstructed justice you have to make some rather large leaps in conclusions that simply are not supported by the evidence as presented. I have no doubt that Muller would have made some very similar statements to Star had he been able to clearly establish that Trump was obstructing justice.

Wishful thinking that he “clearly stated” Trumps liabilities.

 

[FA_Q2]

What is the functional difference?

The fact is that they knew right from the get go that no matter what they found they were not going to make a determination of criminal activity by the president. The few words that you and faun keep going back and fourth on are rather silly.

Because she insists they effectively indicted the President via innuendo in the Mueller Report, which I agree they did, but the fact is they did not identify any crime that the President or his campaign or his staff or his family committed re Russia and obstruction of investigation of a crime that was never committed. She says otherwise and insists that if it were not for the OLC that Mueller would have indicted him. Something he has now refuted on the record both in the joint statement with the A.G. and in his testimony last week.

Cant argue here. There is nothing to support the charge that Muller would have indicted the president without the OLC opinion. He directly states it was never even considered meaning that such a position is utterly unsupported.

And I disagree with you that Mueller had no intention of indicting the President. I think he and his pitbulls would have done so instantly if they had found any crime with which to charge him. As it was they did as much political damage to him as they could including delaying the report until after the 2018 election when they already knew there was no crime to report.

While to OLC does prevent the president from being indicted it does not in any shape or form prevent Muller from stating that the investigation did find a crime or even making an impeachment recommendation. Considering that he never makes any such statements or anything even related to such I agree that he was not able to establish that a crime was committed but had he been confident that there was I am fairly sure he would have stated as such in his report. There is noting that shows Muller was lying about the decision not to indict made at the very outset of the investigation.

I find that almost everyone demanding that there is clear obstruction in the report also have claimed that there was, or even still claiming that there is, clear evidence that Trump was working with the Russians to throw the election. As that has been pretty well established as not factual by the report, the same claims about obstruction do not have much weight.

Even Ken Starr said in his report he did not offer up any recommendations to Congress regarding impeachment. But that they could read the facts as he laid out in his report and reach their own determination.

He clearly stated that the presided committed crimes and may have not used the word recommend but he clearly did state there was grounds for impeachment.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/starr_report/report.pdf
As required by Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the UnitedStates Code, the Office of the Independent Counsel(“OIC” or “Office”) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

Read the full Mueller report - CNNPolitics
By contrast, Muller makes this conclusion:
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President ' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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.


They are not even in the same ballpark.

What Muller did was flip justice on its head throwing out the very basis of out justice system. He declines to say anywhere that the president committed any crime or that there was any credible evidence that establishes such. Instead, he states that they could not establish innocence. The key here is This:

"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

They did not bother to establish intent which is a cornerstone with any obstruction case. In order to state that the president clearly obstructed justice you have to make some rather large leaps in conclusions that simply are not supported by the evidence as presented. I have no doubt that Muller would have made some very similar statements to Star had he been able to clearly establish that Trump was obstructing justice.

Wishful thinking that he “clearly stated” Trumps liabilities.

It is not wishful thinking - it is fact. Of course you need to actually read what I wrote because it was not Trump that line refers to but Clinton.

You might want to actually read the post before responding to it.

 

[jc456]

What is the functional difference?

The fact is that they knew right from the get go that no matter what they found they were not going to make a determination of criminal activity by the president. The few words that you and faun keep going back and fourth on are rather silly.

Because she insists they effectively indicted the President via innuendo in the Mueller Report, which I agree they did, but the fact is they did not identify any crime that the President or his campaign or his staff or his family committed re Russia and obstruction of investigation of a crime that was never committed. She says otherwise and insists that if it were not for the OLC that Mueller would have indicted him. Something he has now refuted on the record both in the joint statement with the A.G. and in his testimony last week.

Cant argue here. There is nothing to support the charge that Muller would have indicted the president without the OLC opinion. He directly states it was never even considered meaning that such a position is utterly unsupported.

And I disagree with you that Mueller had no intention of indicting the President. I think he and his pitbulls would have done so instantly if they had found any crime with which to charge him. As it was they did as much political damage to him as they could including delaying the report until after the 2018 election when they already knew there was no crime to report.

While to OLC does prevent the president from being indicted it does not in any shape or form prevent Muller from stating that the investigation did find a crime or even making an impeachment recommendation. Considering that he never makes any such statements or anything even related to such I agree that he was not able to establish that a crime was committed but had he been confident that there was I am fairly sure he would have stated as such in his report. There is noting that shows Muller was lying about the decision not to indict made at the very outset of the investigation.

I find that almost everyone demanding that there is clear obstruction in the report also have claimed that there was, or even still claiming that there is, clear evidence that Trump was working with the Russians to throw the election. As that has been pretty well established as not factual by the report, the same claims about obstruction do not have much weight.

Even Ken Starr said in his report he did not offer up any recommendations to Congress regarding impeachment. But that they could read the facts as he laid out in his report and reach their own determination.

He clearly stated that the presided committed crimes and may have not used the word recommend but he clearly did state there was grounds for impeachment.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/starr_report/report.pdf
As required by Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the UnitedStates Code, the Office of the Independent Counsel(“OIC” or “Office”) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

Read the full Mueller report - CNNPolitics
By contrast, Muller makes this conclusion:
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President ' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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.


They are not even in the same ballpark.

What Muller did was flip justice on its head throwing out the very basis of out justice system. He declines to say anywhere that the president committed any crime or that there was any credible evidence that establishes such. Instead, he states that they could not establish innocence. The key here is This:

"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

They did not bother to establish intent which is a cornerstone with any obstruction case. In order to state that the president clearly obstructed justice you have to make some rather large leaps in conclusions that simply are not supported by the evidence as presented. I have no doubt that Muller would have made some very similar statements to Star had he been able to clearly establish that Trump was obstructing justice.

Wishful thinking that he “clearly stated” Trumps liabilities.

He didn’t say that, reread it. This guy confuses me

 

[jc456]

Because she insists they effectively indicted the President via innuendo in the Mueller Report, which I agree they did, but the fact is they did not identify any crime that the President or his campaign or his staff or his family committed re Russia and obstruction of investigation of a crime that was never committed. She says otherwise and insists that if it were not for the OLC that Mueller would have indicted him. Something he has now refuted on the record both in the joint statement with the A.G. and in his testimony last week.

Cant argue here. There is nothing to support the charge that Muller would have indicted the president without the OLC opinion. He directly states it was never even considered meaning that such a position is utterly unsupported.

And I disagree with you that Mueller had no intention of indicting the President. I think he and his pitbulls would have done so instantly if they had found any crime with which to charge him. As it was they did as much political damage to him as they could including delaying the report until after the 2018 election when they already knew there was no crime to report.

While to OLC does prevent the president from being indicted it does not in any shape or form prevent Muller from stating that the investigation did find a crime or even making an impeachment recommendation. Considering that he never makes any such statements or anything even related to such I agree that he was not able to establish that a crime was committed but had he been confident that there was I am fairly sure he would have stated as such in his report. There is noting that shows Muller was lying about the decision not to indict made at the very outset of the investigation.

I find that almost everyone demanding that there is clear obstruction in the report also have claimed that there was, or even still claiming that there is, clear evidence that Trump was working with the Russians to throw the election. As that has been pretty well established as not factual by the report, the same claims about obstruction do not have much weight.

Even Ken Starr said in his report he did not offer up any recommendations to Congress regarding impeachment. But that they could read the facts as he laid out in his report and reach their own determination.

He clearly stated that the presided committed crimes and may have not used the word recommend but he clearly did state there was grounds for impeachment.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/starr_report/report.pdf
As required by Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the UnitedStates Code, the Office of the Independent Counsel(“OIC” or “Office”) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

Read the full Mueller report - CNNPolitics
By contrast, Muller makes this conclusion:
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President ' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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.


They are not even in the same ballpark.

What Muller did was flip justice on its head throwing out the very basis of out justice system. He declines to say anywhere that the president committed any crime or that there was any credible evidence that establishes such. Instead, he states that they could not establish innocence. The key here is This:

"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

They did not bother to establish intent which is a cornerstone with any obstruction case. In order to state that the president clearly obstructed justice you have to make some rather large leaps in conclusions that simply are not supported by the evidence as presented. I have no doubt that Muller would have made some very similar statements to Star had he been able to clearly establish that Trump was obstructing justice.

Wishful thinking that he “clearly stated” Trumps liabilities.

It is not wishful thinking - it is fact. Of course you need to actually read what I wrote because it was not Trump that line refers to but Clinton.

You might want to actually read the post before responding to it.

You have a habit of confusion

 

[FA_Q2]

Cant argue here. There is nothing to support the charge that Muller would have indicted the president without the OLC opinion. He directly states it was never even considered meaning that such a position is utterly unsupported.
While to OLC does prevent the president from being indicted it does not in any shape or form prevent Muller from stating that the investigation did find a crime or even making an impeachment recommendation. Considering that he never makes any such statements or anything even related to such I agree that he was not able to establish that a crime was committed but had he been confident that there was I am fairly sure he would have stated as such in his report. There is noting that shows Muller was lying about the decision not to indict made at the very outset of the investigation.

I find that almost everyone demanding that there is clear obstruction in the report also have claimed that there was, or even still claiming that there is, clear evidence that Trump was working with the Russians to throw the election. As that has been pretty well established as not factual by the report, the same claims about obstruction do not have much weight.

Even Ken Starr said in his report he did not offer up any recommendations to Congress regarding impeachment. But that they could read the facts as he laid out in his report and reach their own determination.

He clearly stated that the presided committed crimes and may have not used the word recommend but he clearly did state there was grounds for impeachment.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/starr_report/report.pdf
As required by Section 595(c) of Title 28 of the UnitedStates Code, the Office of the Independent Counsel(“OIC” or “Office”) hereby submits substantial and credible information that President William Jefferson Clinton committed acts that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

Read the full Mueller report - CNNPolitics
By contrast, Muller makes this conclusion:
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President ' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. 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.


They are not even in the same ballpark.

What Muller did was flip justice on its head throwing out the very basis of out justice system. He declines to say anywhere that the president committed any crime or that there was any credible evidence that establishes such. Instead, he states that they could not establish innocence. The key here is This:

"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

They did not bother to establish intent which is a cornerstone with any obstruction case. In order to state that the president clearly obstructed justice you have to make some rather large leaps in conclusions that simply are not supported by the evidence as presented. I have no doubt that Muller would have made some very similar statements to Star had he been able to clearly establish that Trump was obstructing justice.

Wishful thinking that he “clearly stated” Trumps liabilities.

It is not wishful thinking - it is fact. Of course you need to actually read what I wrote because it was not Trump that line refers to but Clinton.

You might want to actually read the post before responding to it.

You have a habit of confusion

Not sure how I can be more clear. Faun clearly stated that Star did not recommend impeachment. I can't really help if weather wants to ignore the post I was responding to and only read the first line of mine.

Besides, if that confused him I doubt me being much more clear would yield a response that had any real thought in it...