Like you do all the time......but big difference.....I post facts that can be verified.It's a message board you can say whatever you want, it's cool.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Like you do all the time......but big difference.....I post facts that can be verified.It's a message board you can say whatever you want, it's cool.
Mueller really pissed you all off today didn't he? Oh well.
Well? I guess I missed the verification.I post facts that can be verified.
Mueller really pissed you all off today didn't he? Oh well.
Really? solid post. LOL
Huh? lolNot at all. Wrapping Pelosi in context in her upcoming statement is perfectly valid, though.
Well? I guess I missed the verification.
If you'd read the Mueller report or any reporting since, you'd know that Mueller thought it unfair to accuse Trump of a crime with Trump having no way to respond to it or defend himself other than Tweeter.
Whether you like it or not, this is from Mueller's statement: And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.So, he thought it was unfair? Really, a SC who's original team included Peter S. and others who are known to bend the rules to keep Trump out of office. Come on, this is political theater and Muller is nominated for best supporting actor. The only question is what genre the final movie will be. My bet is a political double cross movie, I would guess you think it's going with a straight ole sheriff arrests the evil ranch owner stealing water from his neighbors land.
Actually, he made that request at mid-day on national TV. I saw it and laughed. You are dead wrong if you saw anything covert in that action. All of those talking pieces on TV repeated later on. If you are upset with that bit, I am sure you are boiling every time you hear a joke on the late-night showsI will never read the report, its a political hit job, but he never made a determination on obstruction, and he was supposed to do just that! The fact that one of his instances of obstruction was Trump tweeting to the Russians to release Clinton's emails is all I need to know about it.
If Trump obstructed justice, then Biden and Bernie need a special council starting last year as there is far more proof of illegal activity than anything Trump has done in relation to using politics to gain an advantage.
He offered that he isnt testifying. I wonder why?Muller just spent 10 minutes and offered nothing new. He said his work stands on its own. I agree with that, although I want to see how the whole thing started. Legal scholars disagree on how he is interpreting the authority of the SC, many believe that he could have stated that Trump committed a crime, but he could not charge him. That happens every day in America!
Sometimes the SC gets it wrong. Do you remember the Scooter Libby conviction?
He was throwing bones to morons. And boom it seemed reasonable to you. Go figure.Whether you like it or not, this is from Mueller's statement: And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
That seems reasonable to me.
All due respect, but legal people make their careers by disagreeing. Mueller was running this investigation, and he determined at the outset that he could not indict a sitting president. He laid that out clearly in his statement, same as he did the report, and he was the legal person responsible for making that call.Yes... I heard him say that....but many legal people disagree.
That was actually a fair representation of what Mueller said in both the report and the statement.
Whether you like it or not, this is from Mueller's statement: And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
That seems reasonable to me.
Because he stated that all of the pertinent information he has to offer is in the report. He didn't say that he wouldn't testify. He said that any testimony he offered would reiterate what's in the report.He offered that he isnt testifying. I wonder why?
Fair enoughAll due respect, but legal people make their careers by disagreeing. Mueller was running this investigation, and he determined at the outset that he could not indict a sitting president. He laid that out clearly in his statement, same as he did the report, and he was the legal person responsible for making that call.
That was actually a fair representation of what Mueller said in both the report and the statement.
Once that came to light, did Mueller fight to keep him around? Nope. He canned him. If you choose to judge Mueller for hiring someone of bad character whose career was relevant to the job to be done, shouldn't you feel the same way about Trump with respect to Manafort?So, he thought it was unfair? Really, a SC who's original team included Peter S. and others who are known to bend the rules to keep Trump out of office. Come on, this is political theater and Muller is nominated for best supporting actor. The only question is what genre the final movie will be. My bet is a political double cross movie, I would guess you think it's going with a straight ole sheriff arrests the evil ranch owner stealing water from his neighbors land.
Reasonable to you?.......Laughable.........According to you and 80% of the media Trump should have been tossed in jail years ago.Whether you like it or not, this is from Mueller's statement: And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
That seems reasonable to me.
If he had his mind made up from the gitgo, why would an honorable man continue the case and spend that much of taxpayer money? Bunch of money for him and his comrades to divvy up. Very nice retirement bonus. Has a heart like Obama. It is only taxpayer money, spend, spend, spend.All due respect, but legal people make their careers by disagreeing. Mueller was running this investigation, and he determined at the outset that he could not indict a sitting president. He laid that out clearly in his statement, same as he did the report, and he was the legal person responsible for making that call.
As he interprets the rules, he could not charge. The possible charge is named, and possible avenues of investigation are laid out for Congress. He saw his role as an investigator of the overall scenario limited in scope to anyone but the sitting president.I was laughing at the statement, and the report, itself. He insinuates a person committed a crime that you say you cannot charge, and do not specifically name the incident nor charge. That's the worst type of prosecution ever in America.
What is this "political appointees" that you speak of? You do know that this was a Repub lead investigation, right? Mueller didn't investigate collusion. Mueller didn't accuse Trump of a crime unlike you said he did.Agreed, reasonable to you, me not so much. By not being political, he created a political situation. He employed political appointees for his original team and went out of scope to put pressure on people who would have turned on their mother if it would benefited them. Even then, the best they they came up with was Trump told his attorney to fire him! Peter S. knew that collusion was made up but he stayed on the SC for over 6 months. That cannot be looked at enough!
The law is black and white, you are either proven guilty or your are innocent, what Muller is doing is accusing someone without charging him, that is worse than actually doing what Ken Starr did with the whole Clinton fiasco.
If he had his mind made up from the gitgo, why would an honorable man continue the case and spend that much of taxpayer money? Bunch of money for him and his comrades to divvy up. Very nice retirement bonus. Has a heart like Obama. It is only taxpayer money, spend, spend, spend.
It was an investigation not a prosecution. Prosecutors prosecute in court and this was not a court proceeding.That's the worst type of prosecution ever in America.
Mueller thought it was reasonable. So you think that Mueller should have accused Trump of a crime that he had no way to contest it? other than in the court of public opinion? that doesn't seem reasonable or fair.Reasonable to you?.......Laughable.........According to you and 80% of the media Trump should have been tossed in jail years ago.
You're quoting Barr?!! that's a laugh. Most corrupt AG ever. Applied for the job by stating that the prez is above the law and has been running interference for him ever since. He's mischaracterized everything the SC has done so far.
Mueller consented to the OLC opinion. What changed now?
Yes....If Mueller found evidence of a crime committed by Trump he should have said so and then leave the decision to charge to someone else.Mueller thought it was reasonable. So you think that Mueller should have accused Trump of a crime that he had no way to contest it? other than in the court of public opinion? that doesn't seem reasonable or fair.
Mueller consented to the OLC opinion. What changed now?
And that's what he did. He presented the evidence of obstruction in Volume II for Congress to bring impeachment charges if they saw fit to do so.Yes....If Mueller found evidence of a crime committed by Trump he should have said so and then leave the decision to charge to someone else.
Those are Barr quotes.If Mueller did indeed make the last statement, then that alone should be clear that Mueller, while not proving the negative, knew that there was not enough there for obstruction. Otherwise he would have made the recommendation to abandon the OLC opinion.
Those are Barr quotes.
What does insufficient evidence to charge mean?As he interprets the rules, he could not charge. The possible charge is named, and possible avenues of investigation are laid out for Congress. He saw his role as an investigator of the overall scenario limited in scope to anyone but the sitting president.
I'll add that I do think the fact that no one at all was charged with obstruction makes me wonder if there is enough there to truly get obstruction against the one person Mueller thought he could not name in an indictment, sealed or otherwise. Basically, the ball is now in Congress' court, but they have work to do.
Once that came to light, did Mueller fight to keep him around? Nope. He canned him. If you choose to judge Mueller for hiring someone of bad character whose career was relevant to the job to be done, shouldn't you feel the same way about Trump with respect to Manafort?
No....I heard Mueller say insufficient evidence to come to a conclusion.And that's what he did. He presented the evidence of obstruction in Volume II for Congress to bring impeachment charges if they saw fit to do so.
You heard wrong, time for a new hearing aid battery. Why do you do this to yourself?No....I heard Mueller say insufficient evidence to come to a conclusion.
"we concluded that we would not reach a determination"You heard wrong, time for a new hearing aid battery. Why do you do this to yourself?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/mueller-full-remarks/index.html
Exactly, Mueller knew up front and stated that they would not be bringing charges against Trump."we concluded that we would not reach a determination"