Let me count the ways the Mueller Investigation is over.

Truth Detector

Truth Detector

Well-known member
Contributor
In spite of the lunatic ramblings of morons like Nadler, Pelosi and Shifty Adam Schiff, it is over.

Yes, the media and the Party of the Jackass will kick and scream and declare nothing is over ever. It is over. Let's count the ways.
 
REASON #1

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:
As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.

But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple.offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Obstruction of Justice.

In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of* justice offense.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/d... to House and Senate Judiciary Committees.pdf
 
Last edited:
I honor his heroism in combat in Vietnam but he is a broken, stumbling, stuttering, uninformed old man now.

The Democrats broke him.
 
REASON #2

What we know about the Mueller report: NO ONE got fired. NO ONE destroyed evidence. NO ONE refused to cooperate. NO ONE shut down the investigation NO ONE chose not to release the entire report. NO ONE exercised executive privilege.
 
REASON #3

Representative Doug Collins to Mueller: "at anytime during the investigation was your investigation curtailed, or stopped, or hindered?"


Muller: "no".
 
REASON #4

Turner: “The report states, accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it does not exonerate him,” Turner said. “There’s no office of exoneration at the Attorney general’s office, no certificate at the bottom of his desk. Mr. Mueller, would you agree with me that the Attorney General does not have the power to exonerate?”

Mueller: “I’m not prepared to deal with a legal discussion in that arena.”

Turner: “In our criminal justice system, there is no power to exonerate,”

“The statement about exoneration is meaningless … it’s a meaningless word that has no legal meaning.”

 
REASON #5 This one was the fork stuck into the heart of Nadler's black heart:

Mueller: “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said, and I quote, ‘you didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.'”

“That is not the correct way to say it,”

“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.”

 
REASON #6: Watch as Debbie Lesko questions the number of media references within Volume II of the report. Yes, Mueller's team leaked like a sieve, then used media references they were the source of as footnotes in the attempt to frame Trump for "perceived" obstruction:

 
REASON #7:

RATCLIFFE: Good morning, Director. If you'll let me quickly summarize your opening statement this morning, you said in Volume 1 on the issue of conspiracy, the special counsel determined that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. And then in Volume 2, for reasons that you explained, the special counsel did not make a determination on whether there was an obstruction of justice crime committed by the president. Is that fair?

MUELLER: Yes, sir.

RATCLIFFE: All right. Now, in explaining the special counsel did not make what you called a traditional prosecution or declination decision, the report, on the bottom of page 2, Volume 2, reads as follows: "The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Now, I read that correctly?

MUELLER: Yes.

RATCLIFFE: All right. Now, your report -- and today, you said that at all times, the special counsel team operated under, was guided by and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?

MUELLER: Can you repeat the last part of that question?

RATCLIFFE: Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Can -- let me make it easier. Is...

MUELLER: May -- can I -- I'm sorry, go ahead.

RATCLIFFE: ... can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated...

MUELLER: I -- I...

RATCLIFFE: ... because their innocence was not conclusively determined?

MUELLER: I cannot, but this is a unique situation.

RATCLIFFE: OK. Well, I -- you can't -- time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at, you can't find it because -- I'll tell you why: It doesn't exist. The special counsel's job -- nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence, or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It not in any of the documents. It's not in your appointment order. It's not in the special counsel regulations. It's not in the OLC opinions. It's not in the Justice Manual. And it's not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together because, respectfully -- respectfully, Director, it was not the special counsel's job to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence or to exonerate him. Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it. Now, Director, the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can't find and you said doesn't exist anywhere in the department policies. And you used it to write a report. And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says, as you read this morning, it "authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel." That's the very first word of your report, right?

MUELLER: That's correct.

RATCLIFFE: Here's the problem, Director: The special counsel didn't do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume 2, with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination. So respectfully, Director, you didn't follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, "Write a confidential report about decisions reached." Nowhere in here does it say, "Write a report about decisions that weren't reached." You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that weren't reached, about potential crimes that weren't charged or decided. And respectfully -- respectfully, by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra-prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren't charged. So Americans need to know this, as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle, as they do dramatic readings from this report: that Volume 2 of this report was not authorized under the law to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department. And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary.

I agree with the chairman this morning, when he said, "Donald Trump is not above the law." He's not. But he damn sure shouldn't be below the law, which is where Volume 2 of this report puts him.

 
Poor, pathetic low IQ leftists. Their response to the Mueller fiasco:

giphy.gif
 
Truth Detector said:
In spite of the lunatic ramblings of morons like Nadler, Pelosi and Shifty Adam Schiff, it is over.

Yes, the media and the Party of the Jackass will kick and scream and declare nothing is over ever. It is over. Let's count the ways.
Click to expand...

You should be counting the ways that you look like an idiot here in the forum!

tenor.gif
 
Truth Detector said:
In spite of the lunatic ramblings of morons like Nadler, Pelosi and Shifty Adam Schiff, it is over.

Yes, the media and the Party of the Jackass will kick and scream and declare nothing is over ever. It is over. Let's count the ways.
Click to expand...

Mueller has been thrown under the bus.
NOW its "impeachment investigation".
A meaningless term to justify pissing away money being a thorn in Trump's side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top