Well, why then did Mueller twice confirm that he felt Trump could be indited and prosecuted for a crime once he left the office of President?
even michael moore admits democrats today totally blew it
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
Well, why then did Mueller twice confirm that he felt Trump could be indited and prosecuted for a crime once he left the office of President?
Charged for what arsecheese? Pissing leftist morons off?
Representative Doug Collins to Mueller: "at anytime during the investigation was your investigation curtailed, or stopped, or hindered?"
Muller: "no".
Mueller: "As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
Mueller Report; Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
Barr: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
You tell me arsecheese! I am asking you what would the charges be if Mueller admitted he did not determine Trump committed a crime, that Trump did not conspire with the Russians AND, did not curtail, or stop, or hinder the investigation?
you dumbass liberals got so fooled. 2 years thinking trump colluded with the russians.
Don't ask me, trying to turn the question around doesn't address what I asked you, and you obviously can't answer, if Mueller thought Trump was totally innocent, as you claim, why would he twice confirm that when Trump leaves office he could be indited and prosecuted for a crime?
You pathetic dumbass; you're asking me to read Mueller's mind. I can't do that. That's the type of stupidity lying leftist hacks like you engage in.
I don't deal in suppositional bullshit arsecheese. I deal in facts.
Here are the FACTS; Mueller stated they found no criminal conduct, no conspiracy and that the investigation was neither curtailed, stopped, or hindered.
Mueller doesn't exonerate; he doesn't use thoughts; he deals with evidentiary facts and he clearly stated the above. Are you disputing the facts and going to continue with your moronic CNN talking points and bullshit, or acknowledge you don't know what the fuck you are bloviating about?
Hardly "suppositional," facts, “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?” Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) asked Mueller during the former special counsel's testimony." “Yes,” Mueller replied."
And when asked why he didn't now, "because of the DOJ guidance, one of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there.”
How is not a fact and how does in not negate your claim that Mueller found no criminal conduct?
It isn't MY claim you moron; it is exactly what Mueller said; is he lying?
“As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
Asking me WHY he would say something is asking me to read his mind. I don't know why he would say something like that. The FACTS are that Trump committed no crimes, no conspiracy and no obstruction.
Yet here you leftist morons come and demand that he did find such evidence because that is what CNN told you to say. STFU arsecheese. You wouldn't know w FACT if it slapped you on your thick, empty skull.