Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction

Micawber said:
"If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so...”
Read it over and over until you understand what you wrote has no bearing on it. Say what you wrote, then read
what Mueller said. Then say what you wrote and again...read what Mueller stated. Do it as long as is necessary until you
in your tiny Republican brain, apprehend that the two thoughts can logically coexist. I wonder if an when the lightbulb goes off?

You stupid fucker
Click to expand...

is don jr. president micawber? :thinking:
 
christiefan915 said:
I want to know why Mueller made such an ambiguous statement: "If we had confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so." What are we supposed to think?
Click to expand...

you are supposed to think that he literally came up with nothing, and has no evidence, but wants to give democrats enough red meat because mueller utterly failed in finding anything incriminating as it relates to the president.
 
Mueller piled up indictments and has many of Trump's closest advisers in jail. Trumpy's first attempt at establishing his own mafia failed. The first half of the report was about the fact that Russia interfered in our elections with the express purpose of helping Trump win the election. Mueller explained how they did it. Russia won the election for Daffy.
Mueller made it clear, the justice department cannot prosecute a sitting president. He honored that longtime understanding. He made it clear that the House was the instrument to punish crooked presidents. Now the House is a bit more fired up.
Everything he said today was in the report.
 
Darth Omar said:
Seems we’re not alone. Here’s Dershowitz—he’s defended Mullet in the past but he jumped ship after today:


Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...eeding-his-role?amp&__twitter_impression=true
Click to expand...
there it is
 
g r i n d said:
you are supposed to think that he literally came up with nothing, and has no evidence, but wants to give democrats enough red meat because mueller utterly failed in finding anything incriminating as it relates to the president.
Click to expand...

Nothing leads me to think that republican Mueller was looking for revenge against trump for any reason.
 
domer76 said:
Nope, dumbfuck. He investigated the Russian connection to the attempt to “damage one candidate”. His words.

And, in contradiction to the liars Barr and Trump, he did not determine there was no evidence of conspiracy. He determined there was insufficient evidence.

Try to summon up all your English skills and try to figure out the difference.
Click to expand...

So, then SP's can never recommend (which is their job) any alleged amount of criminal wrong-doing by any President to any AG. SP's are a waste of time and money then.
Why investigate a prez, if a SP isn't allowed to say to the AG, "Hey, I think we've unearthed got a lot of bad stuff on this guy!"
Bottom line for Trump...no obstruction COULD be determined because evidently, no obstruction was SUPPOSED to be determined.
Volume 2 should have been 1 page...It's only my job to investigate stuff that should be handled in the House...meaning by impeachment of course.
"the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrong doing."
What a waste.


"The order appointing the Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation."
 
Last edited:
Darth Omar said:
That I’ve never heard a prosecutor make such a statement lol?

Comey made a similar statement about Hillary—and was fired for it. But I guess that doesn’t matter now. I can’t keep up with the rule changes.

I don’t get the weasel-wording from Mullet. If he felt an indictment was warranted but was ‘blocked’ from it by an interpretation of the law [I don’t buy that excuse] he could still just *plainly state* that he recommended Trump be indicted for obstruction—without actually indicting him.

At any rate, how do you think an obstruction trial is going to go in the Senate? Assuming democrats ever get done talking about it. The investigation revealed no underlying crime. I’d love to know the conviction rate on obstruction charges where there was no underlying crime.

And Democrats are going to try and pull it off in public before TV cameras in the Senate. Do they ever think these things through?
Click to expand...

Comey's statement was a little different. He said (paraphrasing) that Hillary did something stupid and careless but not criminal. There was no hinting around in his words, he was very clear that it was about her private server and emails.

I don't know what would happen if there was an obstruction trial. Think of it this way, you guys can gloat forever and a day if goes in trump's favor lol.
 
christiefan915 said:
Here's a question for you darthy. Let's pretend Mueller said this: "If we had confidence that Secretary Clinton had clearly not committed a crime we would have said so...”

What would your honest reaction have been?
Click to expand...

Comey DID say plenty... chiefly that she lied and was grossly negligent; he let her walk because he didn't find intent. In other words she was just an ignorant simpleton who doesn't know what she's doing.
 
christiefan915 said:
Comey's statement was a little different. He said (paraphrasing) that Hillary did something stupid and careless but not criminal. There was no hinting around in his words, he was very clear that it was about her private server and emails.

I don't know what would happen if there was an obstruction trial. Think of it this way, you guys can gloat forever and a day if goes in trump's favor lol.
Click to expand...

Comey’s version of non-indictment/non-exoneration was that Hillary had no ‘intent’—even though the relevant statute doesn’t require intent.

And they both got away with it. That astounds me to this day. The left and anti-Trumpers have taken a wrecking ball to our system of justice over the last several years. And today Mullet was a part of it.
 
Stretch said:
Comey DID say plenty... chiefly that she lied and was grossly negligent; he let her walk because he didn't find intent. In other words she was just an ignorant simpleton who doesn't know what she's doing.
Click to expand...

Hillary didn’t know ‘C’ stood for Classified lol.

Anyone who believes that I have a bridge I’ll sell them.
 
Darth Omar said:
That I’ve never heard a prosecutor make such a statement lol?

Comey made a similar statement about Hillary—and was fired for it. But I guess that doesn’t matter now. I can’t keep up with the rule changes.

I don’t get the weasel-wording from Mullet. If he felt an indictment was warranted but was ‘blocked’ from it by an interpretation of the law [I don’t buy that excuse] he could still just *plainly state* that he recommended Trump be indicted for obstruction—without actually indicting him.

At any rate, how do you think an obstruction trial is going to go in the Senate? Assuming democrats ever get done talking about it. The investigation revealed no underlying crime. I’d love to know the conviction rate on obstruction charges where there was no underlying crime.

And Democrats are going to try and pull it off in public before TV cameras in the Senate. Do they ever think these things through?
Click to expand...

Exactly. He could have said 'there is sufficient evidence to recommend this going to the next step (like a grand jury)'.
He did not. Today was Mullet's parting shot at Trump and give the impeachment posse some final ammo for their firing squad.
 
Stretch said:
Comey DID say plenty... chiefly that she lied and was grossly negligent; he let her walk because he didn't find intent. In other words she was just an ignorant simpleton who doesn't know what she's doing.
Click to expand...

You and I both know Comey's final report did not accuse her of gross negligence, and he also said she didn't lie under oath.

Btw Bill Clinton was never indicted for obstruction but there was still an impeachment proceeding.
 
jimmymccready said:
THE most significant thing he said: "...if (IF) we had had confidence that the president clearly DID NOT commit a crime, we would have said so. (caps added to reflect his emphasis) ...under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office....Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...pBsABBE-lGsKX5b7SnT2lim5RWi2ncyRqhgE-2kTypf4c
Click to expand...

wasn't the most significant thing he said "I am finished and returning to private life"?.......
 
Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
The bottom line is that Mueller did not say "we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime."
Click to expand...

I know right?......and the law says that you are assumed guilty until we have confidence you didn't commit a crime........that's how it works, right?......
 
Stretch said:
So, then SP's can never recommend (which is their job) any alleged amount of criminal wrong-doing by any President to any AG. SP's are a waste of time and money then.
Why investigate a prez, if a SP isn't allowed to say to the AG, "Hey, I think we've unearthed got a lot of bad stuff on this guy!"
Bottom line for Trump...no obstruction COULD be determined because evidently, no obstruction was SUPPOSED to be determined.
Volume 2 should have been 1 page...It's only my job to investigate stuff that should be handled in the House...meaning by impeachment of course.
"the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrong doing."
What a waste.


"The order appointing the Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation."
Click to expand...

Try again, dumbfuck.

You’re twisting reality.

Because Mueller COULD NOT bring charges, he didn’t go down that fork in the road because he was unable to get to the fork.

Obstruction WAS determined, idiot. 10 instances.

Delusional, illiterate Trumptard.
 
Stretch, of course, is wrong. What Mueller said on obstruction.
Under our analysis, Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the president such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation of powers questions.
Any contradictions on that clear explanation are from the rightys.
Mueller made a blueprint for the Dems to follow. Trump obstructed and is still doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top