It's over. Move on.
Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
It's over. Move on.
countryboy
Verified User
I don't need to, the Mueller report speaks for itself. Mueller either had nothing, or he shirked his responsibilities to America.
“I don’t need to.”
That’s because you can’t.Mueller outlined it in his report and again today. What about that do you not understand?
why weren't any co-conspirators indicted?
it would be impossible for one more to collude and conspire and obstruct.
why was don jr. not indicted? he's not president, is he?
unless you think trump solely would have been the only person responsible for everything, the fact that NO ONE was charged with obstructing or collusion should tell you all you need to know.
countryboy
Verified User
“I don’t need to.”
Mueller outlined it in his report and again today. What about that do you not understand?
No he didn't. If he had anything, he wouldn't have been so wishy washy, he would've spelled it out clearly and concisely. There's no DOJ policy preventing him from doing that, is there?
why weren't any co-conspirators indicted?
it would be impossible for one more to collude and conspire and obstruct.
why was don jr. not indicted? he's not president, is he?
unless you think trump solely would have been the only person responsible for everything, the fact that NO ONE was charged with obstructing or collusion should tell you all you need to know.
"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
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Here’s a Justice System 101 question for you so we can gauge your stupidity.
A prosecutor is unable to determine whether a crime was committed. Does he indict or not?
Hint: it’s a yes or no question.
Strange, heard the same thing from a lefty talking head today....
You can't think for yourself...
Althea
Althea told me...
LMAO. Yea...go with that. What he ACTUALLY said, was that POTUS cannot be charged with a crime, so his office was in no position to do so. He then went on to say that Congress does indeed have that ability, and should do so."If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime,
we would have said so," Mueller announced. He once again pointed to inconclusive evidence.
They did not have that confidence. They did not have that evidence to indict.
Therefore, if Mullet DID conclude he committed a crime, he would indict. Oh wait......he did NOT indict.
Althea
Althea told me...
That has no bearing on this case. Crimes were committed, and Mueller has evidence. He was in no position to bring the case.
“I don’t need to.”
Mueller outlined it in his report and again today. What about that do you not understand?
It is perfectly clear. Mueller did not have sufficient evidence to conclude Trump or any US official entered into a criminal conspiracy
with Russia to subvert the election to help himself. So by not saying the same about obstruction and noting that he could not indict a sitting Potus
he said :
I had sufficient evidence to indict the sitting president for criminal obstruction of justice and therefore I believe that it can be proven without
a reasonable doubt 12 good and true would find that Trump obstructed justice in violation of 18 US 1510 et seq
"If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime,
we would have said so," Mueller announced. He once again pointed to inconclusive evidence.
They did not have that confidence. They did not have that evidence to indict.
Therefore, if Mullet DID conclude he committed a crime, he would indict. Oh wait......he did NOT indict.
Is there a reason why you flat ass but f*** lie about what Mueller said
why weren't any co-conspirators indicted?
it would be impossible for one more to collude and conspire and obstruct.
why was don jr. not indicted? he's not president, is he?
unless you think trump solely would have been the only person responsible for everything, the fact that NO ONE was charged with obstructing or collusion should tell you all you need to know.
The investigation wasn't started to focus solely on trump. The main part was Russian interference in the 2016 election, and whether or not trump associates were involved. When it was over 34 people were indicted and 8 were convicted of felonies. In that sense it was successful in getting these criminals off the street.
I never thought trump was solely responsible because frankly, I didn't think he had the brains or attention span to carry it off.
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?
He did, illiterate moron.
“If we had confidence the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”
“Charging the President with a crime was not an option we could consider.” Due to DOJ policy and Constitutionally. Nobody from DOJ could. That’s the job of Congress.
“There was insufficient evidence to charge the Trump campaign with conspiracy”
Yeah, there is a DOJ policy prohibiting him from charging.
Pull your head out of your ass.
The truth is hard to avoid. Yet, you dumbfucks do your best to do so.
countryboy
Verified User
I accept your concession, loser.
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?
Quit demonstrating your massive illiteracy, halfwit.
You just just got your ass kicked with facts and you're too fucking stupid to recognize that.
Educate yourself, ignorant Trumptard.
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion...enability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution
"In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution."
Dumbfuck loser.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
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?