Nancy has been waiting because she wants more than just impeachment-JAIL!!

RB 60 said:
Yet no indictment.
Click to expand...

You mean, other than the 34 indictments already issued and the 150+ criminal charges and convictions?

Why no indictment of Trump? As Mueller said live on TV on May 29th:

The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you.

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations.
Click to expand...

So quite literally, Mueller says why they didn't charge Trump.

So are you going to ignore what Mueller said because you're desperate to spare your ego the embarrassment of being conned by Donald fucking Trump?
 
Earl said:
insufficent evidence to pursue obstruction.
Click to expand...

Not what Mueller said at all:

The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you.

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.

So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations.
Click to expand...


Innocent.
Click to expand...

Mueller: "And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. "
 
Barr and Mueller both agreed:

No collusion, insufficent evidence to pursue obstruction.

Case closed.
 
LV426 said:
Not what Mueller said at all:






Mueller: "And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. "
Click to expand...

...and if he had confidence Trump did commit a crime, he would have said so.

No charges filed or brought.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Innocent.
 
Mueller clearly did not say that he did commit a crime. No he did not say that but he did agree with Barr that:

“No collusion, insufficent evidence to pursue obstruction.”

Case closed per McConnell.

And per Barr and Mueller.
 
Last edited:
Earl said:
There will be no impeachment conviction in the Senate.

McConnell- “Case closed.”

Nervous Nancy knows this and, in my opinion, is smart enough not to pull the “I” trigger.

Rock...hard place.
Click to expand...

Pelosi knows that. That is why she is not doing it. she can count. Trump is losing senators though. The House and SDNY are investigating Trump and he is the motherlode of criminal behavior. I have to believe rightys know he is a crook, they just want him to get away with it.
 
In America, “insufficent evidence to pursue” means you are innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty.
 
Earl said:
Mueller clearly did not say that he did commit a crime.
Click to expand...

Nor does he say he didn't commit one either.

What he does say is that he couldn't indict Trump because of OLC rules.

That's different than clearing Trump of guilt, and you know that.

So you just make sophistic arguments because ultimately, your position is weak.
 
LV426 said:
Right, which is why the case is laid before Congress now.




Other than the 150+ against the 34 businesses and individuals that already happened.




Trump refuses to be interviewed under oath.




Nope. Not what Mueller says.
Click to expand...

It's what he didn't say.

No indictment.

Innocent.
 
RB 60 said:
It's what he didn't say.

No indictment.

Innocent.
Click to expand...

“So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”
 
Otra vez:

In America, “insufficent evidence to pursue” means you are innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top