What will/did Mueller say?

[_EAllusion]

Indictments don’t equate to guilt, but there is substantial public evidence of guilt in this case.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Indictments don’t equate to guilt, but there is substantial public evidence of guilt in this case.

Again. In this case. If anyone wants to believe the Republican Robert Mueller indicting Mr. Trump, if he could, would result in a non-conviction they’re free to do so. I don’t. I don’t believe the Republican Robert Mueller would indict a high ranking official without assuring himself he could secure a conviction. See for ref: All of Trump’s associates in jail for lying to to the Republican Robert Mueller.

- Doc

[_subgenius]

Who's saying otherwise? It's a formal charge. In this case, the Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice is saying he has enough evidence to formally charge the President of the United States of America, but he can't because Mr. Trump is the President.

Doesn't that concern you?

- Doc

Um, Mueller said he could charge Trump after Trump left office, but he did not say that he had the evidence to charge Trump after office. I think you have forsaken the context of Ken Buck's question. Mueller went on to clarify that while a sitting President would not be charged (according to OLC) a former President could be charged....He did not say Trump would be charged. Mueller can not state that he has the evidence to charge Trump when Trump leaves but that Trump may/may not be charged.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’m fairly certain what I wrote was crystal clear.

- Doc

[_Bach]

Sadly, Mueller appears as pre-Alzheimer’s or pre-dementia. Sad day for a man of his legacy to sit in front a camera for that long. It’s unfortunate that the public will be left with today’s appearance as his lasting memory.

[_Kevin Graham]

Who's saying otherwise? It's a formal charge. In this case, the Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice is saying he has enough evidence to formally charge the President of the United States of America, but he can't because Mr. Trump is the President.

Doesn't that concern you?

- Doc

Um, Mueller said he could charge Trump after Trump left office, but he did not say that he had the evidence to charge Trump after office. I think you have forsaken the context of Ken Buck's question. Mueller went on to clarify that while a sitting President would not be charged (according to OLC) a former President could be charged....He did not say Trump would be charged. Mueller can not state that he has the evidence to charge Trump when Trump leaves but that Trump may/may not be charged.

Um, Mueller was asked if the ONLY reason he didn't indict Trump was because he was a sitting President and Mueller responded: "Yes."

[_Kevin Graham]

Sadly, Mueller appears as pre-Alzheimer’s or pre-dementia. Sad day for a man of his legacy to sit in front a camera for that long. It’s unfortunate that the public will be left with today’s appearance as his lasting memory.

The only people coming out of this looking like jackasses are the idiots like Jordan who keep pressing the Moron-in-Chief's narrative about spygate.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sadly, Mueller appears as pre-Alzheimer’s or pre-dementia. Sad day for a man of his legacy to sit in front a camera for that long. It’s unfortunate that the public will be left with today’s appearance as his lasting memory.

Which user is this on this multi-use sock puppet account? I’d like to respond, but I refuse to engage ldsfats.

- Doc

[_Dr Exiled]

Lieu just got the best admission yet. He asked Mueller that the only reason why he didn't indict Trump for obstruction of justice, is that the OLC (?) prevents him from indicting a sitting President.

That's it.

The President obstructed justice.

- Doc

Mueller backed away from this in the afternoon session.

[_subgenius]

Um, Mueller was asked if the ONLY reason he didn't indict Trump was because he was a sitting President and Mueller responded: "Yes."

Geez, your consistent avoidance of context and fact is admirable:
Your reference to Lieu's question proves that you are, at least, on the right topic today:
"before the House Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to "correct the record" on his exchange with Lieu.

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

but that's cool, run with what ya got because you being wrong just doesn't ever bother you anymore.