Meuller To Give 'Statement' (RIGHT NOW) From DOJ In Lieu Of Testifying Under Oath

[BlindBoo]

"It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge."
He's DB Cooper.

Yet that is EXACTLY what Mueller just did in his presser before declaring he would never testify / answer questions about his investigation under oath and 'taking his ball and going home'.

Thanks for pointing that out.

You were bitching about him not accusing Trumpyberra of a crime, and now you're bitching that he did accuse the So-Called President of a crime?

Please cite the page in the report where he does that.

 

[BlindBoo]

He had no problem indicting those "Russian" companies that would get no court resolution.

Only our president is immune from prosecution under DOJ policy. The Russians can have their day in court.

Bottom line, Mueller has ZERO evidence.

Then the WH should have no problem with the testimony of the several witnesses that the House wants to interview.

If there was a crime, he had to report it.

"The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited." -R Mueller

There were witnesses to what he told Barr. So Mueller may find himself in a lot more hot water.

Good, I hope they recorded the meeting. Let's see what these two bastards had to say to one another.

 

[leftwinger]

Special Counsel Robert Mueller to make statement at Justice Dept. (Wednesday morning) amid pressure to testify

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller is expected to deliver his first public statement on his investigation into Russian interference during the 2016 presidential election on Wednesday at 11 a.m. from the Justice Department.

The Justice Department announced Mueller would make a statement on Wednesday morning--his first in the more than two years since he was appointed as special counsel."


Special Counsel Robert Mueller to make statement at Justice Dept. amid pressure to testify


It should be happening RIGHT NOW.....

Yup, listening now. Nothing but a slimy ******* lawyer. Tripping over his words. He is a piece of shit and I hope he dies.

Why is he allowed to speak even a single word without being under oath?

Glad I missed it. Why give this wishy-wash mealy-mouthed Dem bootlicker any air time?


Question 1: why did you hire only former Killary workers or donors?
Question 2: when did you know no collusion? Why did you keep going past July 2017?

 

[easyt65]

You were bitching about him not accusing Trumpyberra of a crime, and now you're bitching that he did accuse the So-Called President of a crime?

Please cite the page in the report where he does that.

Let me shed some truth on your failed attempt to speak for me...

Mueller has never, to include in yesterday's 'drive-by', declared the President of the United States committed a crime, as Starr made clear in his final report about Clinton. He did NOT indict or convict ANYONE of illegal collusion or Obstruction.

What Mueller did, as Dershowitz pointed out, was throw out innuendos and insinuations of possible guilt, then declare he would not do his job of reporting an actual crime had been committed or not, that instead he would 'leave that to others'.

This was / is clearly an attempt to stir the pot', to incite the Trump-hating Democrats into initiating Impeachment proceedings against the President for something Mueller and his team could not provide any evidence for, for something Mueller himself declared he would not say actually happened.

(Paraphrasing) 'If I was confident the President did not commit a crime I would say so' is NOT the same as declaring, 'The President of the United States broke the law' ... no matter how much you WANT it to be so.

Giving examples / incidents that could be perceived (by others / Trump-haters) as having committed a crime )obstruction) is NOT the same as stating, "The President of the United States committed 'Obstruction', and here is the evidence". Mueller listed these incidents FOR THE PEOPLE HE DECLARED TO WHOME HE WOULD DEFER IN MAKING THAT DECISION.
-- AGAIN, it was no one's responsibility / task except for him and his team...and he refused to (could not) make that call. This was his attempt to incite Trump-hating Democrats to initiate Impeachment proceedings WITHOUT his official declaration, "The President Broke The Law"...which he DID NOT say.

 

[easyt65]

"The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited." -R Mueller

You keep ignoring that on 3 separate occasions, according to US AG Barr's testimony under oath, Mueller declared the OCL's decision HAD NO IMPACT ON HIS RULING / DECISION. That means someone is lying.
-- If I were a betting man, I would bet that the liar is the one who refuses to stand behind / defend / answer questions about his investigation under oath before Congress. All Mueller has to do is agree to testify under oath. (Of course if the Senate Intel Committee were smart they would not give Mueller the option of testifying or not by subpoenaing him.)

You also keep ignoring the fact that the OCL's decision does not prevent the Special Counsel from REPORTING the President broke the law / that his team uncovered evidence that the President broke the law. The only thing preventing him from doing that is a lack of evidence. Mueller had no problem presenting innuendoes and insinuations that the President broke the law - he just never came out and said the President DID break the law and support that statement with evidence.

 

[BlindBoo]

Mueller has never, to include in yesterday's 'drive-by', declared the President of the United States committed a crime, as Starr made clear in his final report about Clinton. He did NOT indict or convict ANYONE of illegal collusion or Obstruction.

Again Starr was appointed by Congress, not the DOJ. Mueller, (aka db cooper) was not allowed to declare the President committed any crime. Which is why he never did. He was however able to present some evidence and seemed to suggest that Congress should consider, as it has the responsibility to determine if impeachment is warranted or necessary.

 

[easyt65]

This perfectly sums up Mueller's 'drive-by' presser:

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

 

[easyt65]

Mueller, (aka db cooper) was not allowed to declare the President committed any crime.

Bull Shit - you are completely misrepresenting what the OCL states. It does NOT say a Special Prosecutor can not REPORT that he and his team found evidence of a crime. It states a sitting President can not be INDICTED for a crime.

Nice try to spin, snowflake....almost as good as Mueller declaring, 'If I was confident the President had not committed a crime I would have said so'...which is NOT the same things as saying, 'The President committed a crime'!




If Mueller and his team went into the investigation with the understanding that they could never REPORT that the President had committed a crime and could never INDICT the President, WHY THE HELL DID THEY WASTE 2 YEARS DIGGING INTO HIS FINANCES, BUSINESS DEALINGS, AND INVESTIGATING HIM SO THOROUGHLY IF IT THEY KNEW IT WAS ALL FOR NOTHING?

Sorry, the entire argument Mueller makes and you defend does not pass the common sense / logic test....

 

[BlindBoo]

"The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited." -R Mueller

You keep ignoring that on 3 separate occasions, according to US AG Barr's testimony under oath, Mueller declared the OCL's decision HAD NO IMPACT ON HIS RULING / DECISION. That means someone is lying.
-- If I were a betting man, I would bet that the liar is the one who refuses to stand behind / defend / answer questions about his investigation under oath before Congress. All Mueller has to do is agree to testify under oath. (Of course if the Senate Intel Committee were smart they would not give Mueller the option of testifying or not by subpoenaing him.)

You also keep ignoring the fact that the OCL's decision does not prevent the Special Counsel from REPORTING the President broke the law / that his team uncovered evidence that the President broke the law. The only thing preventing him from doing that is a lack of evidence. Mueller had no problem presenting innuendoes and insinuations that the President broke the law - he just never came out and said the President DID break the law and support that statement with evidence.

His rationale is precise and in written form and cannot be denied later. I'd find it hard to believe that Mueller (aka db cooper) knows less about DOJ policy than you. Please identify the innuendos and insinuations in his terse remarks.

 

[BlindBoo]

Mueller, (aka db cooper) was not allowed to declare the President committed any crime.

Bull Shit - you are completely misrepresenting what the OCL states. It does NOT say a Special Prosecutor can not REPORT that he and his team found evidence of a crime. It states a sitting President can not be INDICTED for a crime.

Nice try to spin, snowflake....almost as good as Mueller declaring, 'If I was confident the President had not committed a crime I would have said so'...which is NOT the same things as saying, 'The President committed a crime'!




If Mueller and his team went into the investigation with the understanding that they could never REPORT that the President had committed a crime and could never INDICT the President, WHY THE HELL DID THEY WASTE 2 YEARS DIGGING INTO HIS FINANCES, BUSINESS DEALINGS, AND INVESTIGATING HIM SO THOROUGHLY IF IT THEY KNEW IT WAS ALL FOR NOTHING?

Sorry, the entire argument Mueller makes and you defend does not pass the common sense / logic test....

The report did find evidence and they presented it in the report they submitted. They cannot say, "based on the evidence we presented we think the President committed such-n-such a crime". It's up to the House to determine. So Congress needs all the evidence Mueller gathered for review before they can make a reasonable determination.

 

[Kilroy2]

Someone is lying.

Mueller say he didn't say it and Barr say he didn't

I guess that why Barr had to misquote the intentions of the report forcing Mueller to step forward and clarify it.

It is not the first time he has done this and misinterpreting an opinion before giving it to congress

Barr wrote the opinion concerning Rendition justifying that the FBI could go on foreign soil on its own volition to apprehend fugitives and did not have to notify the foreign government

when Congress asked for his opinion he gave them a summary
when he left the full opinion was released where it showed he left out things that he wanted to leave out that were quite significant

Now he does the same thing with Mueller report

Barr has a history of omitting things that don't jive with his view ( a really good repub)

He argued for increase incarcerations in 92. He submitted a report which supported his views. The data he used was eventually shown to be so be so one sided and supported his view and ignored data that didn't support his view. He limited the time line and focused on all crime (minor stuff) instead of narrowing it to violent crimes which would have resulted in different results than he initially reported.

Barr said -
"The benefits of increased incarceration would be enjoyed disproportionately by black Americans"
"I don't know anyone that goes to prison on their first crime. By the time you go to prison, you are a pretty bad guy."

well obvious people do go the prison on their first crime.

In 1992, Barr launched a surveillance program to gather innocent Americans' phone records without a review of the legality of it

The Iran Contra Affair. Weinberger was about to testify what Bush knew of the affair which incriminated would incriminate Bush.

Barr convinced Bush to pardon him and others before the trial. Lawrence Walsh the special prosecutor complained but to no avail

Barr is known as the cover up general

The DOJ regulation is clear and known, with all the experience people on Mueller staff, it is impossible that he was not aware of the this regulation concerning a sitting president

Barr again has shows why he was hired because he will use all means to protect the president which includes lying and providing bias opinions that support his positions that he is taking.

There is nothing fair and unbias in his actions that are well document by his history.

He and Trump are brothers separated at birth.

He uses the DOJ as the presidents personal lawyer.

Mueller is believable but history has shown that Barr will omit facts just to control the message

Some people do call that lying

 

[easyt65]

Mueller, (aka db cooper) was not allowed to declare the President committed any crime.

Bull Shit - you are completely misrepresenting what the OCL states. It does NOT say a Special Prosecutor can not REPORT that he and his team found evidence of a crime. It states a sitting President can not be INDICTED for a crime.

Nice try to spin, snowflake....almost as good as Mueller declaring, 'If I was confident the President had not committed a crime I would have said so'...which is NOT the same things as saying, 'The President committed a crime'!




If Mueller and his team went into the investigation with the understanding that they could never REPORT that the President had committed a crime and could never INDICT the President, WHY THE HELL DID THEY WASTE 2 YEARS DIGGING INTO HIS FINANCES, BUSINESS DEALINGS, AND INVESTIGATING HIM SO THOROUGHLY IF IT THEY KNEW IT WAS ALL FOR NOTHING?

Sorry, the entire argument Mueller makes and you defend does not pass the common sense / logic test....

The report did find evidence and they presented it in the report they submitted. They cannot say, "based on the evidence we presented we think the President committed such-n-such a crime". It's up to the House to determine. So Congress needs all the evidence Mueller gathered for review before they can make a reasonable determination.

Bullshit!

IN THE 'CLARIFICATION' OF MUELLER'S PRESS CONFERENCE COMMENTS RELEASED BY MUELLER'S OFFICE HOURS AGO, MUELLER'S OFFICE STATES THAT THE OCL'S DECISION NEVER IMPACTED HIS DECISION - WHICH SUPPORTS THE US AG's TESTIMONY UNDER OATH THAT MUELLER TOLD HIM IN 3 SEPERATE OCCASIONS THE OCL NEVER PLAYED A PART IN HIS DECISION - AND THAT MUELLER DECLARED HE COULD NOT / WOULD NOT COME TO A DECISION AT ALL REGARDING OBSTRUCTION.

HIS OWN OFFICE JUST DECLARED MUELLER DID NOT MAKE A DECISION EITHER WAY ON OBSTRUCTION.

THAT MEANS MUELLER FAILED TO / REFUSED TO MAKE A DECISION TO FIND / ISSUE A RULING THAT TRUMP IS GUILTY OF BREALING THE LAW.

IN THIS NATION AMERICANS HAVE THE AUTOMATIC PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, WHICH MUELLER - ACCORDING TO HIS OWN OFFICE - DID NOT DO!

*** MUELLER ACTUALLY READ HIS PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENT ... THAT MEANS MUELLER SAT DOWN AND TOOK TIME TO WRITE OUT HIS COMMENTS THAT HE READ DURING THE PRESS CONFERENCE ... ONLY TO HAVE HIS OFFICE SEVERAL HOURS LATER ISSUE A 'CLARIFICATION' OF WHAT HE REALLY MEANT TO SAY RATHER THAN WHAT HE ACTUALLY WROTE / SAID.




BTW, MUELLER'S OFFICE'S RUSH TO OFFER A 'CLARIFICATION' OF MUELLER'S COMMENTS IS A DEMONSTRATION OF WHY MUELLER IS SCARED TO DEATH OF TESTIFYING UNDER OATH....


DOJ, Mueller’s Office Release Joint Statement Clarifying Mueller’s Comments

There is also a new thread on Mueller's Office's 'retraction' / 'clarification' of what he 'really' meant in his Press Conference...

 

[Faun]

You should also learn that saying, 'If we had thought the President had not committed crimes we would have said so' is NOT the same thing as the Special Counsel clearly stating, 'The President of the United States committed crimes'...which is exactly what Starr did in HIS final report regarding the Clinton investigation.

Ken Star was working for Congress and was not operating under the same DOJ guidelines. Mueller made it plain as day why he couldn't use those words.

"The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge."

He's DB Cooper.

Wrong again. Mueller LIED on that and many other points. He had no problem indicting those "Russian" companies that would get no court resolution. Bottom line, Mueller has ZERO evidence. If there was a crime, he had to report it. His job was to make a determination. He failed to do so. I. The real world, that's cause for him to be sued for not providing the service he was paid over $30 million to provide. Then the yellow coward runs away and claims he will never answer questions? Not his decision. Mueller finished embarrassing both himself and the Dems yesterday. There were witnesses to what he told Barr. So Mueller may find himself in a lot more hot water.

"He had no problem indicting those "Russian" companies that would get no court resolution."

Why lie? This has already been addressed.

They opportunity for a court resolution was available for those Russians. Whereas there is no court resolution for trump.

 

[Faun]

Mueller, (aka db cooper) was not allowed to declare the President committed any crime.

Bull Shit - you are completely misrepresenting what the OCL states. It does NOT say a Special Prosecutor can not REPORT that he and his team found evidence of a crime. It states a sitting President can not be INDICTED for a crime.

Nice try to spin, snowflake....almost as good as Mueller declaring, 'If I was confident the President had not committed a crime I would have said so'...which is NOT the same things as saying, 'The President committed a crime'!




If Mueller and his team went into the investigation with the understanding that they could never REPORT that the President had committed a crime and could never INDICT the President, WHY THE HELL DID THEY WASTE 2 YEARS DIGGING INTO HIS FINANCES, BUSINESS DEALINGS, AND INVESTIGATING HIM SO THOROUGHLY IF IT THEY KNEW IT WAS ALL FOR NOTHING?

Sorry, the entire argument Mueller makes and you defend does not pass the common sense / logic test....

The report did find evidence and they presented it in the report they submitted. They cannot say, "based on the evidence we presented we think the President committed such-n-such a crime". It's up to the House to determine. So Congress needs all the evidence Mueller gathered for review before they can make a reasonable determination.

Bullshit!

IN THE 'CLARIFICATION' OF MUELLER'S PRESS CONFERENCE COMMENTS RELEASED BY MUELLER'S OFFICE HOURS AGO, MUELLER'S OFFICE STATES THAT THE OCL'S DECISION NEVER IMPACTED HIS DECISION - WHICH SUPPORTS THE US AG's TESTIMONY UNDER OATH THAT MUELLER TOLD HIM IN 3 SEPERATE OCCASIONS THE OCL NEVER PLAYED A PART IN HIS DECISION - AND THAT MUELLER DECLARED HE COULD NOT / WOULD NOT COME TO A DECISION AT ALL REGARDING OBSTRUCTION.

HIS OWN OFFICE JUST DECLARED MUELLER DID NOT MAKE A DECISION EITHER WAY ON OBSTRUCTION.

THAT MEANS MUELLER FAILED TO / REFUSED TO MAKE A DECISION TO FIND / ISSUE A RULING THAT TRUMP IS GUILTY OF BREALING THE LAW.

IN THIS NATION AMERICANS HAVE THE AUTOMATIC PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, WHICH MUELLER - ACCORDING TO HIS OWN OFFICE - DID NOT DO!

*** MUELLER ACTUALLY READ HIS PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENT ... THAT MEANS MUELLER SAT DOWN AND TOOK TIME TO WRITE OUT HIS COMMENTS THAT HE READ DURING THE PRESS CONFERENCE ... ONLY TO HAVE HIS OFFICE SEVERAL HOURS LATER ISSUE A 'CLARIFICATION' OF WHAT HE REALLY MEANT TO SAY RATHER THAN WHAT HE ACTUALLY WROTE / SAID.




BTW, MUELLER'S OFFICE'S RUSH TO OFFER A 'CLARIFICATION' OF MUELLER'S COMMENTS IS A DEMONSTRATION OF WHY MUELLER IS SCARED TO DEATH OF TESTIFYING UNDER OATH....


DOJ, Mueller’s Office Release Joint Statement Clarifying Mueller’s Comments

There is also a new thread on Mueller's Office's 'retraction' / 'clarification' of what he 'really' meant in his Press Conference...

^^^ Unhinged rant.

 

[lantern2814]

You should also learn that saying, 'If we had thought the President had not committed crimes we would have said so' is NOT the same thing as the Special Counsel clearly stating, 'The President of the United States committed crimes'...which is exactly what Starr did in HIS final report regarding the Clinton investigation.

Ken Star was working for Congress and was not operating under the same DOJ guidelines. Mueller made it plain as day why he couldn't use those words.

"The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge."

He's DB Cooper.

Wrong again. Mueller LIED on that and many other points. He had no problem indicting those "Russian" companies that would get no court resolution. Bottom line, Mueller has ZERO evidence. If there was a crime, he had to report it. His job was to make a determination. He failed to do so. I. The real world, that's cause for him to be sued for not providing the service he was paid over $30 million to provide. Then the yellow coward runs away and claims he will never answer questions? Not his decision. Mueller finished embarrassing both himself and the Dems yesterday. There were witnesses to what he told Barr. So Mueller may find himself in a lot more hot water.

"He had no problem indicting those "Russian" companies that would get no court resolution."

Why lie? This has already been addressed.

They opportunity for a court resolution was available for those Russians. Whereas there is no court resolution for trump.

^^^ Deranged idiot trying desperately to spin this. Where is the lie? You seem to be claiming those "Russian" companies weren't indicted with Mueller knowing full well they would never see the inside of a court. Seeing as Mueller has no case, he would get laughed out of court if he even brought this case, President or not.

 

[leftwinger]

This sums up Mueller's theatrics today:

'BOB STIRS THE POT'


With his initial report failing to create the 'Impeachment Talk' push he initially wanted, with the exposed traitorous 'investigators' under investigation and waiting for the US IG report on FISA Abuses expected to put the co-conspirators in serious legal trouble, and with multiple DOJ investigations of exposed Democrat crimes beginning to become the main focus in the post-Mueller investigation.....

Mueller stepped up today to hold a press conference, rather than agree to testify under oath, to make a 2nd effort / attempt to get the exposed seemingly failed coup attempt back on track while diverting attention away from the investigations into his co-conspirators.


Mueller 'stirred the pot', whipping already rabid Trump-hating Democrats / snowflakes into a rejuvenated frenzy and re-igniting their call for Impeachment...without providing any more evidence of crimes committed by Trump or anyone connected to him than he did when he released is written report...which is NONE.

In his 2nd attempt to incite Democrats into initiating Impeachment proceedings against President Trump, Mueller stated that if he and his team had believed President Trump had not committed a crime he and his team would have said so. He and his team did not. Instead, he and his team declared there was no evidence of illegal collusion with the Russians and declared he could not / would not make a judgment regarding obstruction, that he would leave that decision to others.

If he truly believed Trump did NOT commit a crime and would have said so if he had, then it also stands to reason that if he truly believed Trump DID commit a crime he would have also said so. He did NOT do that, either. Again, instead he declared he would refuse to do his job, would instead choose NOT to make an official decision, and instead chose to allow others to speculate and do that part of his job.
-- In other words, Mueller FAILED TO PROVE GUILT, refused to MAKE THAT CALL

When a prosecutor walks away from a case without making an indictment or getting a conviction, that's called failing to prove guilt. The person on trial / being investigated walks away free, 'innocent'...they do not carry an asterisk by their name for the rest of their life with the words:

*** 'He was not indicted, he was not convicted, but the Prosecutor refused to declare he did NOT commit a crime...which we all know means 'he did it'

That's NOT how it works.

Sure, Mueller provided additional narrative in both his report and during his 'theatrical performance' today, but none of it was enough for Mueller and his team to complete their investigation by declaring, 'President Trump BROKE The Law'. Instead, it was added to the report and stated today to incentivize others to do what he and his team could not do, failed to do - declare and Prove the President committed a crime.

ONCE AGAIN Mueller stepped to 'center stage' and all he could manage to do was 'STIR THE POT' in an attempt to get others to do what he failed to do.....take down the President.


Dems ramp up calls for Trump impeachment after Mueller speaks out on Russia probe

This is a bad as Comely leaking classified docs to the press "in hopes to trigger a special counsel". True dat and acting 2nd AG ate it up & complied.

 

[easyt65]

You should also learn that saying, 'If we had thought the President had not committed crimes we would have said so' is NOT the same thing as the Special Counsel clearly stating, 'The President of the United States committed crimes'...which is exactly what Starr did in HIS final report regarding the Clinton investigation.

Ken Star was working for Congress and was not operating under the same DOJ guidelines. Mueller made it plain as day why he couldn't use those words.

"The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge."

He's DB Cooper.

Wrong again. Mueller LIED on that and many other points. He had no problem indicting those "Russian" companies that would get no court resolution. Bottom line, Mueller has ZERO evidence. If there was a crime, he had to report it. His job was to make a determination. He failed to do so. I. The real world, that's cause for him to be sued for not providing the service he was paid over $30 million to provide. Then the yellow coward runs away and claims he will never answer questions? Not his decision. Mueller finished embarrassing both himself and the Dems yesterday. There were witnesses to what he told Barr. So Mueller may find himself in a lot more hot water.

"He had no problem indicting those "Russian" companies that would get no court resolution."

Why lie? This has already been addressed.

They opportunity for a court resolution was available for those Russians. Whereas there is no court resolution for trump.

^^^ Deranged idiot trying desperately to spin this. Where is the lie? You seem to be claiming those "Russian" companies weren't indicted with Mueller knowing full well they would never see the inside of a court. Seeing as Mueller has no case, he would get laughed out of court if he even brought this case, President or not.

'Russian Companies'? Mueller indicted Russian individuals, not 'compamies'. How can you indict an entire 'company', snowflake?

 

[leftwinger]

I think after that it's clear that Mueller was never going to indict a sitting president rather the constitutional remedy is impeachment. It was loud and clear if you have at least 2 brain cells.

You mean loud & clear to bitter leftards who, coincidentally, never have more than 2 brain cells. As you may recall, the clamor for Trump Jr's head and that of Kushner were "loud and clear" as well as calls for anyone connected to the POTUS to be fired & shot at dawn. Y'all were certain they were complicit.

So exactly how many Americans have been convicted or even indicted for conspiring with the foreign meddlers? How many of your media sources have admitted they have been feeding you the LIES you have so eagerly swallowed the last 2 years?

It’s ironic that you question other people’s intelligence, when it’s obvious you are so clueless to have your entire head embedded the the posterior of a pathological liar, a multiple adulter, a six-time bankruptcy deadbeat, who had daddy get him out of serving his country and of course the greatest narcissist ever.
Has there ever been such a horseshit slimeball in the presidency? Not quite a good role model for your kids or grandkids

So JFK, LBJ, Billy Clinton, and Obama were “role models?” JFK was an adulterer who even had sex with a 19 year old intern in he and Jackie’s White House bed. LBJ did things far worse than Nixon ever did. Made a profit off Vietnam War, cheated on his wife, and was indicted as a co-conspirator in 11 deaths in Texas after his 1975 passing. Real role model. Bill Clinton would lie if the truth would fit better. Obama won presidency because of slobbering love affair with liberal media. He also accepted a Noble Prize just because he was half black. Real role model as well.

JFK boned under age Piglosi, allegedly. A true American hero.

 

[Care4all]

WRONG!
flynn, gates, and Manafort and papadopoulis and cohen and the guy I don't remember his name ALL lied about their Russian contacts and were charged for it.

Manafort and Cohen were charged with tax evasion


Edit spelled it wrong
.

And lying about their Russian connections, Cohen to Congress about Moscow Trump Tower, and Manafort to the special counsel on his communication with Russians, of which he lost his plea deal over....the special counsel ended it.

you say a lot of shit but you never back it up.

Are your fingers broken and you can't google it yourself?

god forbid, if it doesn't come from Sharyl Attkisson, it ain't news eh?

Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen gives House Intelligence Committee documents revealing alleged edits to false statement about Moscow project

Michael Cohen pleads guilty to lying to Congress

Paul Manafort breached plea deal by repeatedly lying in Russia inquiry, Mueller says

Judge rules Paul Manafort violated Mueller investigation plea deal by "intentionally" lying

where did trump do it again?

nice try but nothing about what i asked. but as usual, the left just has to take jabs at people they don't already approve of.

how "like" you.

''you say a lot of shit but you never back it up.''

here's your post, that I commented on by posting links... not that you asked a question, you asked no question, for me to answer

 

[iceberg]

Manafort and Cohen were charged with tax evasion


Edit spelled it wrong
.

And lying about their Russian connections, Cohen to Congress about Moscow Trump Tower, and Manafort to the special counsel on his communication with Russians, of which he lost his plea deal over....the special counsel ended it.

you say a lot of shit but you never back it up.

Are your fingers broken and you can't google it yourself?

god forbid, if it doesn't come from Sharyl Attkisson, it ain't news eh?

Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen gives House Intelligence Committee documents revealing alleged edits to false statement about Moscow project

Michael Cohen pleads guilty to lying to Congress

Paul Manafort breached plea deal by repeatedly lying in Russia inquiry, Mueller says

Judge rules Paul Manafort violated Mueller investigation plea deal by "intentionally" lying

where did trump do it again?

nice try but nothing about what i asked. but as usual, the left just has to take jabs at people they don't already approve of.

how "like" you.

''you say a lot of shit but you never back it up.''

here's your post, that I commented on by posting links... not that you asked a question, you asked no question, for me to answer

How is what Hillary did not getting help from a foreign gov?