What will/did Mueller say?

[_Kevin Graham]

bach and subs represent the worst of America right now. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is that their political guy is a crook, fraud, felon, etc. They'll stick their fingers in their ears and post idiotic memes and talk about what's good for Americans. The fact is everything they said of Hillary and Obama has become true x 10 with Trump and suddenly they're dismissive of it all.

And I'll go ahead and reiterate what I said months ago that got several of you pissed off at me. A lot of this is Mueller's fault. There is no reason why he can't just say flat out, yes Trump is a felon just like the evidence in my report has spelled out for everyone.

It is because he keeps dancing around the fact that Trump is a felon that people like subs and bach see a sliver of light to claim he must be innocent if he wasn't indicted and the guy doing the investigation refuses to say explicitly that he committed crimes.

In many ways this was a cluster “F” of epic proportions. For three years everyone was under the impression that an investigation was happening so we could determine if the President broke any laws, only to eventually find out that the guy running the investigation never intended to make that determination since the beginning. WTF??

We knew it was possible that he'd decide not to indict based on the DOJ policy, but who actually thought he would take it to another level and refuse to come to a conclusion about crimes committed? I mean, what the “F” are you good for if you can't do even that much? You present a 400 page report basically listing crimes, calling them crimes, describing them as crimes, but then saying you won't determine whether the guy behind it was committing crimes because you're worried about "fairness."

Imagine if Ken Starr refused to recommend impeachment or to insist he couldn't state whether Clinton broke laws. Mueller could have ignored this idiotic "policy" that says a President cannot be indicted and instead he could have followed the Constitution and indicted the President or at least recommended impeachment. But he chose the politically convenient way to secure his legacy in the Republican party.

Now the Democrats have all they need to impeach Trump. But because Mueller has been playing this stupid game, it allows FOX news to run segments about how the entire thing was a colossal failure for the Left and an exoneration of Trump. Doesn't matter what the report says, half his base is illiterate anyway.

[_subgenius]

bach and subs represent the worst of America right now.

Yes, because the best of America has got to be the hair-fire you represent whereas you go into a frothy mouth tirade of Trump Derangement Syndrome at every mean tweet the orange man launches at ya.

It doesn't matter how much evidence there is that their political guy is a crook, fraud, felon, etc. They'll stick their fingers in their ears and post idiotic memes and talk about what's good for Americans. The fact is everything they said of Hillary and Obama has become true x 10 with Trump and suddenly they're dismissive of it all.

There it is! isn't this all really just Bush's fault?...you short sighted bag of sand.

And I'll go ahead and reiterate what I said months ago that got several of you pissed off at me. A lot of this is Mueller's fault. There is no reason why he can't just say flat out, yes Trump is a felon just like the evidence in my report has spelled out for everyone.

If it were true, he would say it.....but yeah, Mueller's service, education, job experience, and public service make him waaaaaay less qualified to determine criminality than you and the latest commercially sponsored tv production of Maddow.

It is because he keeps dancing around the fact that Trump is a felon that people like subs and bach see a sliver of light to claim he must be innocent if he wasn't indicted and the guy doing the investigation refuses to say explicitly that he committed crimes.

In many ways this was a cluster “F” of epic proportions.

That only Trump and the Republicans saw coming...but the Democrats are entrenched, sooooo….

For three years everyone was under the impression that an investigation was happening so we could determine if the President broke any laws, only to eventually find out that the guy running the investigation never intended to make that determination since the beginning. WTF??

You literally never paid attention for 3 years.

We knew it was possible that he'd decide not to indict based on the DOJ policy,

Nah, we knew it was probable because there was never any evidence other than hair-fire-how-could-HRC-lose-the-election accusations.

but who actually thought he would take it to another level and refuse to come to a conclusion about crimes committed?

Most people with cursory knowledge of either law or the process.....geez, even you can remember Ken Starr.

I mean, what the “F” are you good for if you can't do even that much?

You are actually good for being a legal profession because you understand the legal system and understand your job.

You present a 400 page report basically listing crimes, calling them crimes, describing them as crimes, but then saying you won't determine whether the guy behind it was committing crimes because you're worried about "fairness."

Except that is not what the report says, does, or concludes.

Imagine if Ken Starr refused to recommend impeachment or to insist he couldn't state whether Clinton broke laws.

See, you do remember Starr (maybe)...but perhaps you remember that Starr had actual evidence.....but perhaps you don't recall what Starr was investigating and what got Clinton in trouble....wait for it......yep, it was the lying...much like the 11 people who got charged by Mueller...see the same-ness? see how you really are out of your depth here?

Mueller could have ignored this idiotic "policy" that says a President cannot be indicted and instead he could have followed the Constitution and indicted the President or at least recommended impeachment.

Could not find the Article/Section in the Constitution that says a special prosecutor is supposed to do this....but how quickly you have turned on Mueller, nice integrity bruh.

But he chose the politically convenient way to secure his legacy in the Republican party.

Sorry, but the legacy of the Democratic party is what has been secured by this episode.

Now the Democrats have all they need to impeach Trump.

Another part of government and the Constitution that you are unaware of.

But because Mueller has been playing this stupid game, it allows FOX news to run segments about how the entire thing was a colossal failure for the Left and an exoneration of Trump. Doesn't matter what the report says, half his base is illiterate anyway.

Yet, the evidence concludes you as being the fool.

[_Kevin Graham]

Oh lookie here, the village idiot is excited and is pretending to provide point by point refutations.

There it is! isn't this all really just Bush's fault?...you short sighted bag of sand.

No one said anything about Bush you [deleted] goof ball. Trump is already an unindicted co-conspirator according to the SDNY's investigation.

If it were true, he would say it.....

This right here proves you're stupid. He's already stated, numerous times, that he WOULDN'T say it because he won't even make the determination. Why? Because he begins with the premise that a President cannot be indicted. Thanks for proving the point of my post that too many people in America are too politically blinded and too stupid to actually read what has been said in the report. Even when he testifies to this openly you still got your [deleted] stuck in FOX New's arse and insist if he were guilt Mueller would just say so. No, he won't. Doesn't matter if he murdered someone and Mueller found a video of Trump committing the crime.

Mueller's service, education, job experience, and public service make him waaaaaay less qualified to determine criminality than you and the latest commercially sponsored tv production of Maddow.

It isn't about whether he is "qualified" to determine criminality it is about his refusal to do so, you idiot. He's stated this several times.

That only Trump and the Republicans saw coming...but the Democrats are entrenched, sooooo….

It wasn't a cluster “F” in the way you'd hope. It is still devastating to the President, and if it weren't then why have conniption fits about it for three years? Why constantly attack a fellow Republican for doing the investigation the way the Right Wing media has been doing? After listening to GOP reps berate him yesterday you'd think he was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

You literally never paid attention for 3 years.

Says the goofball who thinks Mueller was free to determine guilt. (self edited for the sake of snowflake trigger)

Nah, we knew it was probable because there was never any evidence other than hair-fire-how-could-HRC-lose-the-election accusations.

Thanks again for proving you never read the report.

Most people with cursory knowledge of either law or the process.....geez, even you can remember Ken Starr.

You mean the guy who said, “It is up to the House of Representatives to determine what conduct is impeachable.”

In your loony tunes world, over 1000 former prosecutors don't have cursory knowledge of law.
Funny how even the Right Wing's primary legal analyst doesn't have a cursory knowledge of the law either:

Fox News judge: "There is ample evidence to have indicted President Donald Trump for obstruction

Napolitano: Under Barr's Theory Nixon Wouldn't Be Charged With Obstructing Justice Unless He Was Actually One Of The Watergate Burglars

According to Napolitano, AG Bill Barr, the guy who was carefully selected to be Trump's personal criminal defense attorney, is the reason why Trump wasn't charged with obstruction.

So when Bob Mueller said the president of the United States did about a dozen things to slow down, impede, negate, or interfere with the investigation of his campaign, or of his former national security advisor, Gen. Michael Flynn, that is a serious allegation of criminal activity. So when the president asked his former advisor and my former colleague at Fox News, KT McFarland, to write an untruthful letter to the file, knowing the government would subpoena it, that's obstruction of justice. When the president asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired, that is obstruction of justice. When the president asked his then-White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about it, that's obstruction of justice. When the president asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and change his testimony that's obstruction of justice. When he dangled the pardon in front of Michael Cohen in order to prevent Cohen from testifying against him that is obstruction of justice. Why not charge him?

Because the attorney general would have locked such a charge because the attorney general is of the view that obstruction of justice can only occur if you're interfering with a criminal investigation of yourself. But that's not what the obstruction statute says, that's not what law enforcement believes, and that is not what prosecutors do. Prosecutors prosecute people who interfere with government functions. That is what the president did by obstruction.

But hey, remind us all again how there is no evidence of obstruction and this is all just a Leftist fantasy.

[_Gray Ghost]

We already have strong evidence for more than 10 counts of obstruction of justice. That's just a fact. Mueller has left it in congress's hands to begin impeachment. His hands were tied.

Mueller made this clear. Did you actually watch the testimony or did you read headlines downplaying everything from your usual far right wackadoodle sources?

Who is “we”? Sounds like only you, KG and EA!!! LMAO

If you and your boys here believe so strongly that today’s testimony, from a now exposed, (sadly), pre dementia special counsel, proves your “self fulfilling prophecy” why aren’t “articles of impeachment” being filed this week by the Democrats??? They won’t! Pelosi knows today was a disaster for both the Democrats and the Nadler/Schiff clown show. Even the liberal press is running around like Maddow on 2016 election night. It’s so embarrassing for them that they have no idea what to do right now. If it wasn’t so hilarious it would be pitiful for the Democrats - and it’s both!

While the Democrats flail in “investigations”, Trump is out winning on policies and an economy that Americans really care about! And what’s even more hilarious is he’s got them all running from the face of their party he created: The Squad!!! Trump, like him or not, has got the whole Democrat party looking like fools. Sadly, he’s doing this while shooting himself in the foot on a weekly basis. That how bad this Democrat party really is from every aspect.

The only person who can beat Trump in 2020 is —— Trump!

Confirmed. You didn't watch it, and you're simply repeating propaganda from wackadoodle sources. You're not a serious commenter.

[_Kevin Graham]

Alan Dershowitz is of the opinion now that Bob Mueller didn't even write the report, that his staff wrote it up. His performance yesterday suggested that he wasn't familiar with much of the report. You could probably chalk some of this up to his old age, but I'm beginning to wonder if there is some truth to this.

Anyone familiar with the report wouldn't have allowed Collins to get away with such deceptive maneuvering on this. This must have been what EA was alluding to:

COLLINS: Although your reports states, “collusion is not some specific offense,” -- and you said that this morning -- “or a term of art in federal criminal laws, conspiracy is.” In the colloquial context, are collusion and conspiracy essentially synonymous terms?
MUELLER: You’re going to have to repeat that for me.
COLLINS: Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in the federal criminal law. Conspiracy is.
MUELLER: Yes.
COLLINS: In the colloquial context, known public context, collusion -- collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct?
MUELLER: No.
COLLINS: If no, on page 180 of Volume 1 of your report, you wrote, “As defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 USC 371.”
MUELLER: Yes.
COLLINS: You said at your May 29th press conference and here today you choose your words carefully. Are you sitting here today testifying something different than what your report states?
MUELLER: Well, what I’m asking is if you can give me the citation, I can look at the citation and evaluate whether it is actually...
COLLINS: OK. Let -- let me just -- let me clarify.
You stated that you would stay within the report. I just stated your report back to you, and you said that collusion -- collusion and conspiracy were not synonymous terms. That was your answer, was no.
MUELLER: That’s correct.
COLLINS: In that, page 180 of Volume 1 of your report, it says, “As defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in general conspiracy statute 18 USC 371.”
MUELLER: Right.
COLLINS: Now, you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now?
MUELLER: Not when I read it.
COLLINS: So you would change your answer to yes, then?
MUELLER: No, no -- the -- if you look at the language...
COLLINS: I’m reading your report, sir. These are yes-or-no answers.
MUELLER: (inaudible) Page 180?
COLLINS: Page 180, Volume 1.
MUELLER: OK.
COLLINS: This is from your report.
MUELLER: Correct, and I -- I -- I -- I leave it with the report.
COLLINS: So the report says yes, they are synonymous.
MUELLER: Yes.
COLLINS: Hopefully, for finally, out of your own report, we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy.
One last question as we’re going through: Did you ever look into other countries investigated in the Russians’ interference into our election? Were other countries investigated...
MUELLER: (inaudible)
COLLINS: ... or found knowledge that they had interference in our election?

[_Gray Ghost]

SCHIFF: “Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?”
MUELLER: “Yes.”
SCHIFF: “And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”.
MUELLER: “Yes.”

[_moksha]

[_Kevin Graham]

Mueller: Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Our exhaustive report details the evidence in which Donald Trump, stabbed an innocent bystander through the heart with an envelope opener causing that person to die. The evidence shows that this was a premeditated act done with malice and intent to kill.

America: So Trump is guilty of murder?

Mueller: I didn't say that.

America: Why not?

Mueller: Because I cannot make such a determination for a sitting President.

America: Why not?

Mueller: Because DOJ policy won't let me indict him.

America: So?

Mueller: Well, to accuse him of a crime would be unfair to him.

America: Why?

Mueller: Because he won't be allowed to defend himself in a court of law.

America: Why not?

Mueller: Because he would need to be indicted first.


This is all circular if you think about it. If he indicted him he'd be able to defend himself and we'd have a path towards justice. The DOJ policy is retarded and what we're seeing here sets a dangerous precedent so that all future Presidents can quite literally break any laws they want while in office because they know they can get away with it so long as the conventional wisdom among House reps is that it is taboo to impeach.

[_subgenius]

the butt-hurt is strong once again.

[_subgenius]

Mueller: ....

apart from your inept analogy...its clear that you never read the Mueller report to begin with and that you didn't pay attention to any of the multiple warnings about disappointment months ago...heck i even warned ya.

im begining to feel sorry for Pelosi, she may well be the only adult registered as a Democratic voter.