Mueller Just Proved His Entire Operation Was A Political Hit Job That Trampled The Rule Of Law

[BWK]

If it was wrong, then debate it. Don't post up retarded videos. It just makes you look retarded.

One cannot argue with a LW Moonbat who has isolated "themself" from actual news and informatio, and is thoroughly unacquainted with the concepts of the Rule of Law, innocent until proven guilty, and the proper ethics of a prosecutor.

The report is self explanatory for rule of law violations. That said, via the rules, which is what Mueller is going by, Trump cannot be prosecuted in office, even though that rule has not been challenged through the courts. After he leaves, that's a different story. There is more than enough evidence. He can however be impeached, and or humiliated with criminal investigations while labeling him a criminal. The country has to know through the mountain of evidence, that he in fact is a criminal.

That said, via the rules, which is what Mueller is going by, Trump cannot be prosecuted in office, even though that rule has not been challenged through the courts. After he leaves, that's a different story. There is more than enough evidence.

Some are suggesting Trump needs a second term for the statute of limitations to insulate him from private criminal prosecution; however, even a second term would not prevent his family members from criminal prosecution in state courts which, of course, would be a whole new reality tv show.

New York charges Trump, his family and its foundation with 'persistent' violations

The people voting for this evil monster for the second time, would be the evil monsters who created this monster.
They would be true enemies of the state, the Constitution, and the rule of law. And in every waking moment, the country needs to denounce them and fight them with every legal means necessary to save this country from Dictatorship. Our very physical security is at stake if we choose the wrong candidate.

The people voting for this evil monster for the second time, would be the evil monsters who created this monster.
They would be true enemies of the state, the Constitution, and the rule of law. And in every waking moment, the country needs to denounce them and fight them with every legal means necessary to save this country from Dictatorship. Our very physical security is at stake if we choose the wrong candidate.

Never underestimate Trump or his feckless Democratic opposition, as this lifelong Republican and Trump critic points out in a TRNN interview:

Col. Larry Wilkerson on Mueller and Courage to Impeach Trump

"COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON...if I have any disdain for a particular political party in the Congress of the United States other than the Republicans, it is for the Democrats.

"I have never seen such a feckless, cowardly, incompetent, inept group of people— from Charles Schumer to Nancy Pelosi— across the board in the Congress. They have no guts whatsoever, no courage whatsoever. That’s one reason my party, which I don’t fault for courage and I don’t fault for ruthlessness, even disgusting ruthlessness, beats them all the time.

"Mitch McConnell has no qualms about sticking daggers in people’s back and twisting them while he smiles, but the Democrats seem to have no courage, no ruthlessness, no 'I’m going to get you' about them.

"And you can say, well that’s a positive.

"In American politics, that’s not a positive."

Imho, there are too many (rich) Democrats who would rather lose elections than pay higher taxes.

There is some truth in that for sure.

 

[BWK]

Exoneration! Mueller and a thousand prosecutors say no. Barr is covering for Trump. Barr needs to be impeached. And it's already been debated. Mueller in his report, passed off the decision making via the Constitution to Congress.

Democrat talking points. ^^^^^^^ Hey dumbass.....Prosecutors ........PROSECUTE! They are not objective jurors. Why would you rely on them? What a stupid statement you made. Congress is NOT part of the DOJ that would be unconstitutional. Democrats just don't like Barr's decision so, in true form, they are slandering him. You dupes fall for it hook-line-and-sinker.

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

 

[hadit]

Exoneration! Mueller and a thousand prosecutors say no. Barr is covering for Trump. Barr needs to be impeached. And it's already been debated. Mueller in his report, passed off the decision making via the Constitution to Congress.

Democrat talking points. ^^^^^^^ Hey dumbass.....Prosecutors ........PROSECUTE! They are not objective jurors. Why would you rely on them? What a stupid statement you made. Congress is NOT part of the DOJ that would be unconstitutional. Democrats just don't like Barr's decision so, in true form, they are slandering him. You dupes fall for it hook-line-and-sinker.

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

Then you'd better let Pelosi know she should read the report, because she's not so convinced. But you know better than she does, So there's that.

 

[Leo123]

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

Show us where exactly in the Mueller Report there is proof of obstruction. Not even Mueller could find it.

 

[WEATHER53]

Mueller spilled the beans on himself in that he knew his work could not lead to anything yet he pwerpetuated the Witch hunt for over two years. Please talk some more and hang you own self out to dry some more.

 

[BWK]

Exoneration! Mueller and a thousand prosecutors say no. Barr is covering for Trump. Barr needs to be impeached. And it's already been debated. Mueller in his report, passed off the decision making via the Constitution to Congress.

Democrat talking points. ^^^^^^^ Hey dumbass.....Prosecutors ........PROSECUTE! They are not objective jurors. Why would you rely on them? What a stupid statement you made. Congress is NOT part of the DOJ that would be unconstitutional. Democrats just don't like Barr's decision so, in true form, they are slandering him. You dupes fall for it hook-line-and-sinker.

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

Then you'd better let Pelosi know she should read the report, because she's not so convinced. But you know better than she does, So there's that.

She's not unconvinced either. She's just playing the game safe. She already said publicly that Trump was involved in a cover up, so yes, she read the report.

 

[BWK]

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

Show us where exactly in the Mueller Report there is proof of obstruction. Not even Mueller could find it.

I already have. I don't need to keep posting it, you just need to do your own research. The mueller report spells it all out.

 

[Leo123]

....

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

Show us where exactly in the Mueller Report there is proof of obstruction. Not even Mueller could find it.

I already have. I don't need to keep posting it, you just need to do your own research. The mueller report spells it all out.

Perhaps you should contact Mueller he’s apparently not as convinced as you are. Show him your ‘posts of proof’

 

[hadit]

Exoneration! Mueller and a thousand prosecutors say no. Barr is covering for Trump. Barr needs to be impeached. And it's already been debated. Mueller in his report, passed off the decision making via the Constitution to Congress.

Democrat talking points. ^^^^^^^ Hey dumbass.....Prosecutors ........PROSECUTE! They are not objective jurors. Why would you rely on them? What a stupid statement you made. Congress is NOT part of the DOJ that would be unconstitutional. Democrats just don't like Barr's decision so, in true form, they are slandering him. You dupes fall for it hook-line-and-sinker.

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

Then you'd better let Pelosi know she should read the report, because she's not so convinced. But you know better than she does, So there's that.

She's not unconvinced either. She's just playing the game safe. She already said publicly that Trump was involved in a cover up, so yes, she read the report.

But she doesn't want to impeach. You'd better let her know that smarter minds are demanding blood.

 

[Wapasha]

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

You cannot cite one of your examples of supposed Trump collusion, which meets the DOJ criteria for obstruction of justice.

Mueller did not cite any action by Trump which met the probable cause standards for the crime of obstruction of justice. He most certainly could have done this, but instead he listed a bunch of incidents which did not meet the standard, knowing that fools would pretend they saw obstruction.

Mueller was asked on three separate occasions by AG Barr, if the reason Mueller did not cite indictments of corruption against Trump, was because of the OLC memo telling him he couldn't. Three times, Mueller told Barr, NO. Trump did not commit obstruction of justice.

1) Was Mueller still the special counsel? Yes - no obstruction

2) Did Trump allow everyone to go before Mueller's team to be interviewed? Yes - no obstruction

3) Did Trump provide every document and email Mueller requested? Yes - no obstruction

4) Did the investigation proceed all the way up to when Mueller decided to close it? Yes - no obstruction

There was no obstruction of justice.

If you still think so, then what in the hell was obstructed; what was denied to Mueller????

 

[BWK]

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

You cannot cite one of your examples of supposed Trump collusion, which meets the DOJ criteria for obstruction of justice.

Mueller did not cite any action by Trump which met the probable cause standards for the crime of obstruction of justice. He most certainly could have done this, but instead he listed a bunch of incidents which did not meet the standard, knowing that fools would pretend they saw obstruction.

Mueller was asked on three separate occasions by AG Barr, if the reason Mueller did not cite indictments of corruption against Trump, was because of the OLC memo telling him he couldn't. Three times, Mueller told Barr, NO. Trump did not commit obstruction of justice.

1) Was Mueller still the special counsel? Yes - no obstruction

2) Did Trump allow everyone to go before Mueller's team to be interviewed? Yes - no obstruction

3) Did Trump provide every document and email Mueller requested? Yes - no obstruction

4) Did the investigation proceed all the way up to when Mueller decided to close it? Yes - no obstruction

There was no obstruction of justice.

If you still think so, then what in the hell was obstructed; what was denied to Mueller????

That's a total lie. Mueller has never said Trump did not commit obstruction. Why are you lying?

My God man, read the damn report. Mueller is spelling out obstruction in volume II in so many ways it's ridiculous. Stop coming on here to make a fool of yourself.

Nadler, at the hearing quoted Mueller reporting obstruction many times. Just watch it if you're too lazy to read the report.

 

[Wapasha]

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

Show us where exactly in the Mueller Report there is proof of obstruction. Not even Mueller could find it.

I already have. I don't need to keep posting it, you just need to do your own research. The mueller report spells it all out.

No, it spells out a lot of examples that do not meet DOJ standards for obstruction.

Just like you cannot indict a man for robbing a bank, if all he was doing was talking about withdrawing his money from his bank account.

Even if Trump were to have relieved Mueller as special counsel, because Trump thought Mueller should have recused himself, and appointed another person in Mueller's place, you cannot impeach or indict Trump for it, because that is a power granted to him as president.

 

[Wapasha]

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

You cannot cite one of your examples of supposed Trump collusion, which meets the DOJ criteria for obstruction of justice.

Mueller did not cite any action by Trump which met the probable cause standards for the crime of obstruction of justice. He most certainly could have done this, but instead he listed a bunch of incidents which did not meet the standard, knowing that fools would pretend they saw obstruction.

Mueller was asked on three separate occasions by AG Barr, if the reason Mueller did not cite indictments of corruption against Trump, was because of the OLC memo telling him he couldn't. Three times, Mueller told Barr, NO. Trump did not commit obstruction of justice.

1) Was Mueller still the special counsel? Yes - no obstruction

2) Did Trump allow everyone to go before Mueller's team to be interviewed? Yes - no obstruction

3) Did Trump provide every document and email Mueller requested? Yes - no obstruction

4) Did the investigation proceed all the way up to when Mueller decided to close it? Yes - no obstruction

There was no obstruction of justice.

If you still think so, then what in the hell was obstructed; what was denied to Mueller????

That's a total lie. Mueller has never said Trump did not commit obstruction. Why are you lying?

My God man, read the damn report. Mueller is spelling out obstruction in volume II in so many ways it's ridiculous. Stop coming on here to make a fool of yourself.

Nadler, at the hearing quoted Mueller reporting obstruction many times. Just watch it if you're too lazy to read the report.

Mueller never said any of Trump's action met the DOJ standards of probable cause for obstruction of justice, and you are speaking falsely if you say otherwise.

Three times Mueller was asked if he was not indicting the president because of the OLC memo, and three times he said NO. There was no obstruction. Jump up and down all you like, make really loud noises even. Nothing in that report met the standards for obstruction of justice.

 

[BWK]

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

You cannot cite one of your examples of supposed Trump collusion, which meets the DOJ criteria for obstruction of justice.

Mueller did not cite any action by Trump which met the probable cause standards for the crime of obstruction of justice. He most certainly could have done this, but instead he listed a bunch of incidents which did not meet the standard, knowing that fools would pretend they saw obstruction.

Mueller was asked on three separate occasions by AG Barr, if the reason Mueller did not cite indictments of corruption against Trump, was because of the OLC memo telling him he couldn't. Three times, Mueller told Barr, NO. Trump did not commit obstruction of justice.

1) Was Mueller still the special counsel? Yes - no obstruction

2) Did Trump allow everyone to go before Mueller's team to be interviewed? Yes - no obstruction

3) Did Trump provide every document and email Mueller requested? Yes - no obstruction

4) Did the investigation proceed all the way up to when Mueller decided to close it? Yes - no obstruction

There was no obstruction of justice.

If you still think so, then what in the hell was obstructed; what was denied to Mueller????

That's a total lie. Mueller has never said Trump did not commit obstruction. Why are you lying?

My God man, read the damn report. Mueller is spelling out obstruction in volume II in so many ways it's ridiculous. Stop coming on here to make a fool of yourself.

Nadler, at the hearing quoted Mueller reporting obstruction many times. Just watch it if you're too lazy to read the report.

Mueller never said any of Trump's action met the DOJ standards of probable cause for obstruction of justice, and you are speaking falsely if you say otherwise.

Three times Mueller was asked if he was not indicting the president because of the OLC memo, and three times he said NO. There was no obstruction. Jump up and down all you like, make really loud noises even. Nothing in that report met the standards for obstruction of justice.

He wasn't indicting because he was bound to the rules that said he couldn't. Mueller had no indicting power. He also said that in his presentation. Which is why he was referring to the final decision to be made by Congress.

I don't think you understand, or you just don't want to understand, that Mueller was never offered the right to offer an opinion on probable cause for obstruction. Come on bud, this isn't that hard. You are purposely trying to confuse and pretend you don't understand. He plainly stated his message to Congress, and that it was up to Congress to do their jobs based on the evidence Mueller gave. Mueller provided evidence, and that is it. End of story. It's Congress's job to do something with it.

 

[BWK]

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

Show us where exactly in the Mueller Report there is proof of obstruction. Not even Mueller could find it.

I already have. I don't need to keep posting it, you just need to do your own research. The mueller report spells it all out.

No, it spells out a lot of examples that do not meet DOJ standards for obstruction.

Just like you cannot indict a man for robbing a bank, if all he was doing was talking about withdrawing his money from his bank account.

Even if Trump were to have relieved Mueller as special counsel, because Trump thought Mueller should have recused himself, and appointed another person in Mueller's place, you cannot impeach or indict Trump for it, because that is a power granted to him as president.

Are you kidding me? Mueller's report, if you weren't so lazy, points out multiple slam dunk cases for obstruction, that more than satisfies the standards of obstruction. Have you read the standards for obstruction? They match perfectly the standards. Over a thousand prosecutors agree with me. How many do you have who agree with you? Lol! Now do you see how ridiculous your argument is? Seriously. In what universe do you think your argument is going to override a thousand prosecutors? It's laughable.

 

[BWK]

Read the report people, and stop coming on here to look stupid.

 

[Wapasha]

He wasn't indicting because he was bound to the rules that said he couldn't. Mueller had no indicting power. He also said that in his presentation. Which is why he was referring to the final decision to Congress.

Even if he had no indicting power, he could have still cited probable cause which met DOJ standards for obstruction of justice.

I don't think you understand, or you just don't want to understand, that Mueller was never offered the right to offer an opinion on probable cause for obstruction. Come on bud, this isn't that hard. You are purposely trying to confuse and pretend you don't understand. He plainly stated his message to Congress, and that it was up to Congress to do their jobs based on the evidence Mueller gave. Mueller provided evidence, and that is it. End of story. It's Congress's job to do something with it.

So if he didn't have the power to indict, and didn't have the right to cite probable cause, why did he air all that dirty laundry to try and make Trump look bad, when he knew Trump was not going to be given any opportunity to defend himself or to clear his name??? Mueller essentially hung a rope around Trump's neck, and invited the angry mob of dems to have at him.

I'm sorry, but your arguments are getting more and more silly, I'm done.

 

[Leo123]

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

You cannot cite one of your examples of supposed Trump collusion, which meets the DOJ criteria for obstruction of justice.

Mueller did not cite any action by Trump which met the probable cause standards for the crime of obstruction of justice. He most certainly could have done this, but instead he listed a bunch of incidents which did not meet the standard, knowing that fools would pretend they saw obstruction.

Mueller was asked on three separate occasions by AG Barr, if the reason Mueller did not cite indictments of corruption against Trump, was because of the OLC memo telling him he couldn't. Three times, Mueller told Barr, NO. Trump did not commit obstruction of justice.

1) Was Mueller still the special counsel? Yes - no obstruction

2) Did Trump allow everyone to go before Mueller's team to be interviewed? Yes - no obstruction

3) Did Trump provide every document and email Mueller requested? Yes - no obstruction

4) Did the investigation proceed all the way up to when Mueller decided to close it? Yes - no obstruction

There was no obstruction of justice.

If you still think so, then what in the hell was obstructed; what was denied to Mueller????

That's a total lie. Mueller has never said Trump did not commit obstruction. Why are you lying?

My God man, read the damn report. Mueller is spelling out obstruction in volume II in so many ways it's ridiculous. Stop coming on here to make a fool of yourself.

Nadler, at the hearing quoted Mueller reporting obstruction many times. Just watch it if you're too lazy to read the report.

Mueller never said any of Trump's action met the DOJ standards of probable cause for obstruction of justice, and you are speaking falsely if you say otherwise.

Three times Mueller was asked if he was not indicting the president because of the OLC memo, and three times he said NO. There was no obstruction. Jump up and down all you like, make really loud noises even. Nothing in that report met the standards for obstruction of justice.

He wasn't indicting because he was bound to the rules that said he couldn't. Mueller had no indicting power. He also said that in his presentation. Which is why he was referring to the final decision to be made by Congress.

I don't think you understand, or you just don't want to understand, that Mueller was never offered the right to offer an opinion on probable cause for obstruction. Come on bud, this isn't that hard. You are purposely trying to confuse and pretend you don't understand. He plainly stated his message to Congress, and that it was up to Congress to do their jobs based on the evidence Mueller gave. Mueller provided evidence, and that is it. End of story. It's Congress's job to do something with it.

Mueller had no evidence of obstruction so he could not say that Trump obstructed anything he just said he didn’t have the evidence to say he did not obstruct which is bullshit

 

[BWK]

The evidence dupes Barr. Read the report. It's a slam dunk case for obstruction.

You cannot cite one of your examples of supposed Trump collusion, which meets the DOJ criteria for obstruction of justice.

Mueller did not cite any action by Trump which met the probable cause standards for the crime of obstruction of justice. He most certainly could have done this, but instead he listed a bunch of incidents which did not meet the standard, knowing that fools would pretend they saw obstruction.

Mueller was asked on three separate occasions by AG Barr, if the reason Mueller did not cite indictments of corruption against Trump, was because of the OLC memo telling him he couldn't. Three times, Mueller told Barr, NO. Trump did not commit obstruction of justice.

1) Was Mueller still the special counsel? Yes - no obstruction

2) Did Trump allow everyone to go before Mueller's team to be interviewed? Yes - no obstruction

3) Did Trump provide every document and email Mueller requested? Yes - no obstruction

4) Did the investigation proceed all the way up to when Mueller decided to close it? Yes - no obstruction

There was no obstruction of justice.

If you still think so, then what in the hell was obstructed; what was denied to Mueller????

That's a total lie. Mueller has never said Trump did not commit obstruction. Why are you lying?

My God man, read the damn report. Mueller is spelling out obstruction in volume II in so many ways it's ridiculous. Stop coming on here to make a fool of yourself.

Nadler, at the hearing quoted Mueller reporting obstruction many times. Just watch it if you're too lazy to read the report.

Mueller never said any of Trump's action met the DOJ standards of probable cause for obstruction of justice, and you are speaking falsely if you say otherwise.

Three times Mueller was asked if he was not indicting the president because of the OLC memo, and three times he said NO. There was no obstruction. Jump up and down all you like, make really loud noises even. Nothing in that report met the standards for obstruction of justice.

He wasn't indicting because he was bound to the rules that said he couldn't. Mueller had no indicting power. He also said that in his presentation. Which is why he was referring to the final decision to be made by Congress.

I don't think you understand, or you just don't want to understand, that Mueller was never offered the right to offer an opinion on probable cause for obstruction. Come on bud, this isn't that hard. You are purposely trying to confuse and pretend you don't understand. He plainly stated his message to Congress, and that it was up to Congress to do their jobs based on the evidence Mueller gave. Mueller provided evidence, and that is it. End of story. It's Congress's job to do something with it.

Mueller had no evidence of obstruction so he could not say that Trump obstructed anything he just said he didn’t have the evidence to say he did not obstruct which is bullshit

Another lie. He never said any such thing. Read the report dumb asses. You're making total idiots out of yourselves. Mueller is reporting more obstruction than I could keep up with in that report. You liars are spinning your wheels with the evidence, because you have none of your own to counter Mueller's. Stop being Toads for Trump. It's pathetic.

 

[BWK]

He wasn't indicting because he was bound to the rules that said he couldn't. Mueller had no indicting power. He also said that in his presentation. Which is why he was referring to the final decision to Congress.

Even if he had no indicting power, he could have still cited probable cause which met DOJ standards for obstruction of justice.

I don't think you understand, or you just don't want to understand, that Mueller was never offered the right to offer an opinion on probable cause for obstruction. Come on bud, this isn't that hard. You are purposely trying to confuse and pretend you don't understand. He plainly stated his message to Congress, and that it was up to Congress to do their jobs based on the evidence Mueller gave. Mueller provided evidence, and that is it. End of story. It's Congress's job to do something with it.

So if he didn't have the power to indict, and didn't have the right to cite probable cause, why did he air all that dirty laundry to try and make Trump look bad, when he knew Trump was not going to be given any opportunity to defend himself or to clear his name??? Mueller essentially hung a rope around Trump's neck, and invited the angry mob of dems to have at him.

I'm sorry, but your arguments are getting more and more silly, I'm done.

I'm not sure what dirty laundry you are referring to? Mueller cited evidence that the Russians helped Trump to get elected, and that the campaign welcomed the help. As for obstruction, he never exonerated or convicted, because he was not allowed, and referred the decision to Congress. But ha, when you read the report, no one with a functioning brain needs Mueller to know Trump obstructed. Trump's obstruction was so strong the report was literally slobbering the evidence on top of us. It's why a thousand plus prosecutors say he obstructed. And I heard talk tonight, that an additional 400 signed on to that testimony of guilt, bringing it to 1400. You folks are going to have to stop the insanity of defending a criminal. It is what it is. You just keep playing the fools.