It's Mueller Time!

[jc456]

Because the underlying investigation turned up ZERO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, prosecutors would have serious difficulty proving "corrupt intent" on any of the alleged "obstructive acts".

It is not enough to only prove that Trump committed "obstructive acts" in prosecuting him for criminal obstruction of justice.

I think that proving "obstructive acts" was all the hopeful shit-bags on the left believed they needed to prove.

WRONG

It's not enough. You've got to prove that said obstructive acts were done with, not just any intent, but CORRUPT intent.

If the person being prosecuted for obstruction is also in the unique position of being the top executive of the branch of government doing the investigating, that person has a responsibility to shut down frivolous investigations into non-crimes. One can hardly be acting with corrupt intent if he is carrying out the duties of his position.

This investigation was cocksucking frivolous from the beginning. We told you it was. We were right. You were idiots and didn't listen.

While it is possible to obstruct justice without the investigators ever finding criminal activity, in this situation, where the target of the investigation is also the person responsible for making decisions to end such investigations when appropriate, the lack of underlying criminal conduct would require the very target of the investigation to do that very thing. Because said target is charged with the legal duty of his office to end a bullshit investigation (wastefully investigating a non-crime), his actions to discharge his duty of office in terminating such an investigation CANNOT be considered "corrupt intent" by ANY MEASURE!!!

So, you can scream, *****, cry, moan, yell at the sky, and shit you pants all day long.

Corrupt Intent is NEGATED by the lack of underlying criminal conduct, and the unique position of the investigation target.

Show me where I am wrong.

.

Asking your attorney to falsify documents is not corrupt intent in your mind?

he can ask his lawyer to do anything he likes. that's why we have attorney client privilege. the fact they waved that is against our system of justice. I throw that all out.

Attorney client privilege does not extend to the commission of felonious acts, dope.

dude, there is no response to that nonsense. show me the statute that says that.

 

[bendog]

Right, he did not make a determination as to whether Trump committed a crime or did not commit a crime, because of the OLC rule.

he replaced: he didn't ''charge'' the president with a crime because of the OLC memo

with he didn't ''determine'' or ''make a determination'' whether the president committed a crime or NOT, due to the OLC memo.

nope, you should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.

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

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

I watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?

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

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

period... end of story.

Here's my take away...

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

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

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

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

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

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

so?

That Trumpeteer congressman wondering where Mueller got his authority to say "innocence" isn't proven is answered. There is a presumption on "not guilty" in criminal law, but there's no presumption of innocence in public opinion.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here's my take away...

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

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

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

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

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

Not a bad take. You obviously thought this through.



Here is my takeaway:

Mueller did not clear Trump of obstruction because the element of "corrupt intent" presents a difficult legal question, given the position of the president and his duties of office.

But, I agree that it is now a matter for Congress to address, and Congress does not have any legal standards upon which to base a decision to impeach. Impeachment is purely a political process. Trump may very well be completely cleared of any and all criminal conduct as it relates to criminal prosecution and still be impeached SOLELY because Democrats want to remove him. It's legal. They can.

BUT

It was bullshit when the GOP did it to Bill Clinton. It's bullshit now.

Either way, I think the Dems in Congress should do it, because I thing that ******* party is loaded with a bunch of authoritarian communist pukes who want to revamp the structure of the United States to divest Americans of individual rights, and impeaching Trump will be political suicide.

Now, if we could just get the GOP to also commit political suicide, we can finally break up the duopoly.

.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That comment did not make any sense. Mueller himself didn’t even read the report.

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

That comment did not make any sense. Mueller himself didn’t even read the report.

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

You're such a dumbass. From Mueller:

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Yes, because they were never going to make such a determination.

Mueller just verified what we've been saying all along.
Your narrative that Mueller concluded that there was no crime was debunked, dope.

Now you are lying, Mueller specifically stated NO CRIME WAS FOUND, he said just yesterday,

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

LINK

Mueller NEVER posted a Crime charge anywhere in his report!

Now you are lying, Mueller specifically stated NO CRIME WAS FOUND, he said just yesterday,

No, dope. That is not what he said yesterday.
This is what he said yesterday in the first five freaking minutes of testimony.

And then backtracked. LOL

 

[jc456]

nope, you should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.

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

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

I watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?

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

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

period... end of story.

Here's my take away...

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

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

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

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

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

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

so?

That Trumpeteer congressman wondering where Mueller got his authority to say "innocence" isn't proven is answered. There is a presumption on "not guilty" in criminal law, but there's no presumption of innocence in public opinion.

this wasn't a presumption of guilty however, this was to find a crime. you can't be found not guilty of no crime. there must be a crime. I'll wait for you to tell me the crime. He is therefore, innocent. the law is innocent until proven guilty, correct?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That comment did not make any sense. Mueller himself didn’t even read the report.

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

That comment did not make any sense. Mueller himself didn’t even read the report.

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

You're such a dumbass. From Mueller:

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Yes, because they were never going to make such a determination.

Mueller just verified what we've been saying all along.
Your narrative that Mueller concluded that there was no crime was debunked, dope.

WRONG. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Period. End of Story. Mueller did not have enough evidence to prove guilt. None on Conspiracy and iffy at best on obstruction as there was not an underlying crime and the President was visibly frustrated. Your blue tint is amusing to me. That hearing hurt the Democrats visibly. I am an Independent and I was embarrased for them. Similarly I was embarrassed for the GOP after the Starr investigation.

You are a stupid person. That is a fact. And the fact that your vote counts as much as mine is frightening.

WRONG. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Period. End of Story. Mueller did not have enough evidence to prove guilt.

Not facts in evidence.

You know, you can lead a horse....well, you get the idea.

Listen carefully.

He backtracked!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You're a smart guy, why don't you read the report? That's not what it says.

Too late.
They've become rhetorical kamikazes. They've passed the the failsafe point and no longer have enough fuel to get back.

That comment did not make any sense. Mueller himself didn’t even read the report.

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

You're a smart guy, why don't you read the report? That's not what it says.

Too late.
They've become rhetorical kamikazes. They've passed the the failsafe point and no longer have enough fuel to get back.

That comment did not make any sense. Mueller himself didn’t even read the report.

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

You're such a dumbass. From Mueller:

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

So? He also said he didn't reach such a determination because of the OLC opinion, not because the evidence exonerated trump's culpability.

Don't be like that. As a prosecutor, after nearly what two years? They didn't have enough to indict. Period. End of Story.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

You're such a dumbass. From Mueller:

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Yes, because they were never going to make such a determination.

Mueller just verified what we've been saying all along.
Your narrative that Mueller concluded that there was no crime was debunked, dope.

Now you are lying, Mueller specifically stated NO CRIME WAS FOUND, he said just yesterday,

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

LINK

Mueller NEVER posted a Crime charge anywhere in his report!

Now you are lying, Mueller specifically stated NO CRIME WAS FOUND, he said just yesterday,

No, dope. That is not what he said yesterday.
This is what he said yesterday in the first five freaking minutes of testimony.

And then backtracked. LOL

Not from the statements in my link.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You're such a dumbass. From Mueller:

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Yes, because they were never going to make such a determination.

Mueller just verified what we've been saying all along.
Your narrative that Mueller concluded that there was no crime was debunked, dope.

Now you are lying, Mueller specifically stated NO CRIME WAS FOUND, he said just yesterday,

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

LINK

Mueller NEVER posted a Crime charge anywhere in his report!

Now you are lying, Mueller specifically stated NO CRIME WAS FOUND, he said just yesterday,

No, dope. That is not what he said yesterday.
This is what he said yesterday in the first five freaking minutes of testimony.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I Specifically said this, which you have deflected completely to his stumbling "testimony" ,

"Mueller NEVER posted a Crime charge anywhere in his report"

None of you leftist idiots have ever addressed this. Where is it mentally ill boy? where did he say there was a crime in his 448 page report?

Waiting, waiting,

been waiting for MONTHS for the answer, where is it little partisan jackass?

Where does Mueller say there was a crime committed in the report?

Waiting,
waiting,
waiting.......

waiting for the answer......................

Waiting for stupid liberal boy to answer the simple question.

By the way you can't be exonerated, when you were not charged with a crime in the first place. With no legal charge made, there is nothing to be exonerated from.

Rep. Mike Turner: “Where’s the office of exoneration?”…



You are stupid as shit, little mentally ill boy.

You seem triggered.

TRUMP to his critics, in a fundraising letter from his 2020 campaign: “How many times do I have to be exonerated before they stop?”

AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely claims Mueller exonerated him

Prosecutor cannot exonerate but the AG can and did.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

You're such a dumbass. From Mueller:

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Yes, because they were never going to make such a determination.

Mueller just verified what we've been saying all along.
Your narrative that Mueller concluded that there was no crime was debunked, dope.

WRONG. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Period. End of Story. Mueller did not have enough evidence to prove guilt. None on Conspiracy and iffy at best on obstruction as there was not an underlying crime and the President was visibly frustrated. Your blue tint is amusing to me. That hearing hurt the Democrats visibly. I am an Independent and I was embarrased for them. Similarly I was embarrassed for the GOP after the Starr investigation.

You are a stupid person. That is a fact. And the fact that your vote counts as much as mine is frightening.

WRONG. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Period. End of Story. Mueller did not have enough evidence to prove guilt.

Not facts in evidence.

You know, you can lead a horse....well, you get the idea.

Listen carefully.

He backtracked!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

See above post.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You're such a dumbass. From Mueller:

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Yes, because they were never going to make such a determination.

Mueller just verified what we've been saying all along.
Your narrative that Mueller concluded that there was no crime was debunked, dope.

Now you are lying, Mueller specifically stated NO CRIME WAS FOUND, he said just yesterday,

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

LINK

Mueller NEVER posted a Crime charge anywhere in his report!

Now you are lying, Mueller specifically stated NO CRIME WAS FOUND, he said just yesterday,

No, dope. That is not what he said yesterday.
This is what he said yesterday in the first five freaking minutes of testimony.

And then backtracked. LOL

Not from the statements in my link.

No he did. That is exactly what he did. You just hear what your Leftist ears want you to hear. There was NEVER conspiracy proof. NEVER. Obstruction is iffy at best as there was no underlying crime. And even on that there was not enough evidence.

 

[Siete]

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

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

just exonerate yourself and fix all of that -

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You're such a dumbass. From Mueller:

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Yes, because they were never going to make such a determination.

Mueller just verified what we've been saying all along.
Your narrative that Mueller concluded that there was no crime was debunked, dope.

WRONG. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Period. End of Story. Mueller did not have enough evidence to prove guilt. None on Conspiracy and iffy at best on obstruction as there was not an underlying crime and the President was visibly frustrated. Your blue tint is amusing to me. That hearing hurt the Democrats visibly. I am an Independent and I was embarrased for them. Similarly I was embarrassed for the GOP after the Starr investigation.

You are a stupid person. That is a fact. And the fact that your vote counts as much as mine is frightening.

WRONG. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. Period. End of Story. Mueller did not have enough evidence to prove guilt.

Not facts in evidence.

You know, you can lead a horse....well, you get the idea.

Listen carefully.

He backtracked!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

See above post.

See below post

Rep. Ratcliffe to Mueller: You Didn't Follow Special Counsel Rules, You Wrote About Decisions That Weren't Reached

 

[Care4all]

Except that isn't what Mueller said when he corrected his earlier testimony. In fact, he said the opposite of what you claim:

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Mueller issues clarification, takes back bombshell statement about indicting Trump

Right, he did not make a determination as to whether Trump committed a crime or did not commit a crime, because of the OLC rule.

he replaced: he didn't ''charge'' the president with a crime because of the OLC memo

with he didn't ''determine'' or ''make a determination'' whether the president committed a crime or NOT, due to the OLC memo.

nope, you should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.

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

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

I watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?

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

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

period... end of story.

Here's my take away...

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

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

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

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

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

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

They committed the crime, but in order to indict for the crime, the perp has to be aware that it is a crime.... donny Junior got off because he did not know taking something of value from the Russian government as a gift to help his father's election, broke Campaign finance laws.... the same with hope hicks and the other Trumpsters that helped cover up the payoffs to the Porn Star and Playboy playmate without reporting it as a Campaign finance expenses, allegedly, they did not know it broke campaign finance laws.... thus no charges.

Manafort knew he was doing wrong by giving Kilimnik the secret internal Trump campaign polling, but they could not prove what was done with the info by the Russians, so he could not be charged.

No one was found innocent of wrong doing or so called colluding, they colluded left and right and up and down with the Russians interfering....

they could not establish the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, due to ignorance on the part of the Trump campaign to our laws, in most cases and imo.

 

[jc456]

Except that isn't what Mueller said when he corrected his earlier testimony. In fact, he said the opposite of what you claim:

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Mueller issues clarification, takes back bombshell statement about indicting Trump

Right, he did not make a determination as to whether Trump committed a crime or did not commit a crime, because of the OLC rule.

he replaced: he didn't ''charge'' the president with a crime because of the OLC memo

with he didn't ''determine'' or ''make a determination'' whether the president committed a crime or NOT, due to the OLC memo.

nope, you should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.

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

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

I watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?

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

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

period... end of story.

Here's my take away...

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

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

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

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

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

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

he couldn't prove it though correct? means it is all opinion.

 

[bendog]

Right, he did not make a determination as to whether Trump committed a crime or did not commit a crime, because of the OLC rule.

he replaced: he didn't ''charge'' the president with a crime because of the OLC memo

with he didn't ''determine'' or ''make a determination'' whether the president committed a crime or NOT, due to the OLC memo.

nope, you should listen to the afternoon rebuttal.

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

Mueller clarifies comments on whether he could indict Trump

I watched the hearing, did you or SAYIT?

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

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

period... end of story.

Here's my take away...

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

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

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

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

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

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

he couldn't prove it though correct? means it is all opinion.

Yes, and my opinion is that same as that of a maj of americans who believe Trump is guilty as hell of at least obstruction.

 

[rjs330]

Now you are lying, Mueller specifically stated NO CRIME WAS FOUND, he said just yesterday,

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

LINK

Mueller NEVER posted a Crime charge anywhere in his report!

Now you are lying, Mueller specifically stated NO CRIME WAS FOUND, he said just yesterday,

No, dope. That is not what he said yesterday.
This is what he said yesterday in the first five freaking minutes of testimony.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I Specifically said this, which you have deflected completely to his stumbling "testimony" ,

"Mueller NEVER posted a Crime charge anywhere in his report"

None of you leftist idiots have ever addressed this. Where is it mentally ill boy? where did he say there was a crime in his 448 page report?

Waiting, waiting,

been waiting for MONTHS for the answer, where is it little partisan jackass?

Where does Mueller say there was a crime committed in the report?

Waiting,
waiting,
waiting.......

waiting for the answer......................

Waiting for stupid liberal boy to answer the simple question.

By the way you can't be exonerated, when you were not charged with a crime in the first place. With no legal charge made, there is nothing to be exonerated from.

Rep. Mike Turner: “Where’s the office of exoneration?”…



You are stupid as shit, little mentally ill boy.

You seem triggered.

TRUMP to his critics, in a fundraising letter from his 2020 campaign: “How many times do I have to be exonerated before they stop?”

AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely claims Mueller exonerated him

did Mueller's team find him guilty? if not, then he was exonerated. look up the word. It' isn't a legal word.

LOLOL

No, brain-dead con, it doesn't mean he exonerated trump. It means he chose not to reach a conclusion of whether or not a crime was committed. Not only is that not an exoneration, Mueller specifically stated his report does not exonerate trump.

Apparently it also doesn't accuse him of committing any crimes.

 

[Oldstyle]

Veselnitskaya didn't have what she promised. The questions that should be asked are how did she get into the country for that meeting?

FYI-she was here as the lawyer for some Russian Corporation being tried for money laundering or fraud.... the Southern District might have been the prosecutors that charged the Russian firm if memory serves....

When Don jr got the email for the Russian meeting set up with Veselnitskaya from his promoter friend, junior tried to move up the meeting earlier, and that promoter guy (can't remember his name) answered back to him via this email chain, that she could not meet earlier, she had to be in a Court hearing for her clients....

Veselnitskaya has given conflicting statements however. At one time she said she had no direct connection with the Russian government and at another time said she was an informant for the Russian government. The most curious thing is that she met with Glenn Simpson, co founder of Fusion GPS at that court hearing just before her meeting with Don Jr. et al, and then again just after that meeting. That happened in June 2016, the same month that Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS is the firm Hillary and the DNC hired to get dirt on Trump. (That Mueller said he didn't know what Fusion GPS is really REALLY puts his and his team's credibility into question.)

Russian Lawyer Admits to Being 'Informant,' Met with Fusion GPS Co-Founder Before, After Trump Jr.

So what did Veselnitskaya testify to when Mueller brought her in for questioning about her role in the Trump Tower meeting? OH, THAT'S RIGHT...HE NEVER DID THAT! HIS REPORT SPENT 14 PAGES ON THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING...BUT HE NEVER INTERVIEWED THE RUSSIAN THAT WAS AT THE CENTER OF THAT MEETING!!! Anyone want to take a crack at explaining THAT!!!

well he had the rep that met with her the day before that meeting and the day after. All he needed to do was ask that rep, why didn't that dude contact the FBI ahead of the meeting so the FBI knew about it? they are buried in their own feces.

It's not just some "rep"...it's Glenn Simpson...the man who's running Hillary Clinton's smear job on Donald Trump! The guy who's coordinating getting Richard Steele's "dossiers" out to the media before the election takes place!

 

[Faun]

Here's my take away...

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

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

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

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

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

Not a bad take. You obviously thought this through.



Here is my takeaway:

Mueller did not clear Trump of obstruction because the element of "corrupt intent" presents a difficult legal question, given the position of the president and his duties of office.

But, I agree that it is now a matter for Congress to address, and Congress does not have any legal standards upon which to base a decision to impeach. Impeachment is purely a political process. Trump may very well be completely cleared of any and all criminal conduct as it relates to criminal prosecution and still be impeached SOLELY because Democrats want to remove him. It's legal. They can.

BUT

It was bullshit when the GOP did it to Bill Clinton. It's bullshit now.

Either way, I think the Dems in Congress should do it, because I thing that ******* party is loaded with a bunch of authoritarian communist pukes who want to revamp the structure of the United States to divest Americans of individual rights, and impeaching Trump will be political suicide.

Now, if we could just get the GOP to also commit political suicide, we can finally break up the duopoly.

.

"It was bullshit when the GOP did it to Bill Clinton. It's bullshit now."

I couldn't agree more.

"Either way, I think the Dems in Congress should do it, because..."

That I disagree with. Impeachment is a big ******* deal and is not good for the country. If a House is going to impeach, it should only be for a good ******* reason.

 

[Faun]

Too late.
They've become rhetorical kamikazes. They've passed the the failsafe point and no longer have enough fuel to get back.

That comment did not make any sense. Mueller himself didn’t even read the report.

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

Too late.
They've become rhetorical kamikazes. They've passed the the failsafe point and no longer have enough fuel to get back.

That comment did not make any sense. Mueller himself didn’t even read the report.

Of course that is just another of your dopey narratives. Mueller destroyed your talking points. You are reduced to attacking his performance and elemants of dopey conspiracies that don't exist outside of the fox news sphere rather than the substance.

I don't really blame you hapless dopes though. That would be like taunting a handicapped reporter. Just something I would never do. You were lulled into that little corner with no room to maneuver by the soothing balm of persistent propaganda from Trump and fox with little defense from your Dunning Kruger addled wits.
One day, maybe soon, you'll have a moment of clarity. At which time you will realize that Trump has played you. Bigly.

You're such a dumbass. From Mueller:

“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

So? He also said he didn't reach such a determination because of the OLC opinion, not because the evidence exonerated trump's culpability.

Don't be like that. As a prosecutor, after nearly what two years? They didn't have enough to indict. Period. End of Story.

^^^ Another lie. Mueller never said there isn't enough evidence to indict on obstruction.