ADVERTISEMENT

Roger Stone sentenced to 40 months in prison

LOL :joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy:

Mueller says on camera that Trump wasn’t exonerated from obstruction of justice
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/24/20708374/mueller-testimony-obstruction-justice-trump-nadler

LESKO: Were you allowed to complete your investigation unencumbered?

MUELLER: Yes.

--------------------------------------------

STEUBE: Well then you've testified that you weren't fired, you were able to complete your investigation in full. Is that correct?

MUELLER: I'm not going to add to what I've stated before.
 
LESKO: Were you allowed to complete your investigation unencumbered?

MUELLER: Yes.

--------------------------------------------

STEUBE: Well then you've testified that you weren't fired, you were able to complete your investigation in full. Is that correct?

MUELLER: I'm not going to add to what I've stated before.


And it worked. Here’s the exchange:


NADLER: Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed your report found there was no obstruction and completely and totally exonerated him. That is not what your report said, is it?

MUELLER: Correct, not what the report said.

NADLER: You wrote, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are not able to reach that judgment.” Does that say there was no obstruction?

MUELLER: No.

For good measure, Nadler kept going, asking about Mueller to explain why Trump wasn’t exonerated:

NADLER: Your investigation found “multiple acts by the present that were capable of asserting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.” Is that correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

NADLER: Can you explain what that finding means so the American people can understand?

MUELLER: The finding indicates that the president was not exonerated for the act he allegedly committed.

NADLER: In fact, you were talking about incidents in which the president sought to use this official power outside of usual channels to exert undue influence over your investigations. Is that right?

MUELLER: Correct.

This is not new information — it’s all in Mueller’s publicly available report.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WVUBRU

And it worked. Here’s the exchange:


NADLER: Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed your report found there was no obstruction and completely and totally exonerated him. That is not what your report said, is it?

MUELLER: Correct, not what the report said.

NADLER: You wrote, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are not able to reach that judgment.” Does that say there was no obstruction?

MUELLER: No.

For good measure, Nadler kept going, asking about Mueller to explain why Trump wasn’t exonerated:

NADLER: Your investigation found “multiple acts by the present that were capable of asserting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.” Is that correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

NADLER: Can you explain what that finding means so the American people can understand?

MUELLER: The finding indicates that the president was not exonerated for the act he allegedly committed.

NADLER: In fact, you were talking about incidents in which the president sought to use this official power outside of usual channels to exert undue influence over your investigations. Is that right?

MUELLER: Correct.

This is not new information — it’s all in Mueller’s publicly available report.
Can you point to the point in that conversation where he was charged with something? Oh you cant? So he is exonerated.
 

And it worked. Here’s the exchange:


NADLER: Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed your report found there was no obstruction and completely and totally exonerated him. That is not what your report said, is it?

MUELLER: Correct, not what the report said.

NADLER: You wrote, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are not able to reach that judgment.” Does that say there was no obstruction?

MUELLER: No.

For good measure, Nadler kept going, asking about Mueller to explain why Trump wasn’t exonerated:

NADLER: Your investigation found “multiple acts by the present that were capable of asserting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.” Is that correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

NADLER: Can you explain what that finding means so the American people can understand?

MUELLER: The finding indicates that the president was not exonerated for the act he allegedly committed.

NADLER: In fact, you were talking about incidents in which the president sought to use this official power outside of usual channels to exert undue influence over your investigations. Is that right?

MUELLER: Correct.

This is not new information — it’s all in Mueller’s publicly available report.

Since the report didn't charge, then he's explicitly not guilty in our justice system. What Mueller did is antithetical to our governmental systems.

Regardless of the above fact, since Mueller stated he was able to complete his investigation unobstructed, you cannot state there was a coverup. It's that simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JWG66
Since the report didn't charge, then he's explicitly not guilty in our justice system. What Mueller did is antithetical to our governmental systems.

Regardless of the above fact, since Mueller stated he was able to complete his investigation unobstructed, you cannot state there was a coverup. It's that simple.
Trump obstructed justice in the Mueller investigation, it's that simple.
 
Since the report didn't charge, then he's explicitly not guilty in our justice system. What Mueller did is antithetical to our governmental systems.

Regardless of the above fact, since Mueller stated he was able to complete his investigation unobstructed, you cannot state there was a coverup. It's that simple.

Remember when Mueller had to say "Not in my purview" several times. You know because he ran a two year investigation without going back and verifying all information that started all this. This thread will be a fun revival when Durham answers all the questions on why Mueller's team failed to complete the most important step in an investigation.
 
Remember when Mueller had to say "Not in my purview" several times. You know because he ran a two year investigation without going back and verifying all information that started all this. This thread will be a fun revival when Durham answers all the questions on why Mueller's team failed to complete the most important step in an investigation.

Throw in that the FBI *KNEW* 6 months prior to Mueller even being appointed that there was no Trump/Russia conspiracy, then what exactly was Mueller doing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JWG66 and Gunny46
I follow the logic. But it's wrong.
Fair enough. I have never said that companies should not have to pay taxes. My point is that ones that create jobs should should be allowed to offset their taxes based on agreed upon guidelines. My guess is that Amazon follows those guidelines. I would bet that 400,000 plus salaries puts more dollar into the economy than the taxes that Amazon saved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EEResistable
Fair enough. I have never said that companies should not have to pay taxes. My point is that ones that create jobs should should be allowed to offset their taxes based on agreed upon guidelines. My guess is that Amazon follows those guidelines. I would bet that 400,000 plus salaries puts more dollar into the economy than the taxes that Amazon saved.

Oh I agree with that fully.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bornaneer
Fair enough. I have never said that companies should not have to pay taxes. My point is that ones that create jobs should should be allowed to offset their taxes based on agreed upon guidelines. My guess is that Amazon follows those guidelines. I would bet that 400,000 plus salaries puts more dollar into the economy than the taxes that Amazon saved.

 
Seems pretty fair to me. Will get off even easier when the President he covered up for pardons him. And the Trumpers will swallow every drop of it up. It's gon be hilarious.
Another leftist conspiracy theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT
What is a "communitation?" You trumpers sure are smart. LOL!

Anyone still think this POS isn't corrupt?
What is corrupt about commuting a sentence? It was a small potatoes process crime stemming from an investigation that was clearly not based in reality.
 
Last edited:

iu
 
  • Like
Reactions: ahott
It's always a good day for Trump supporters when convicted felons go free. The legal system (NY) may not be done with Stone or Trump just yet. The corrupt Trump presidency marches on.
Lmao. Love it. Poor Moe. There will be more bumped threads in November. That’s a promise.
 
It's always a good day for Trump supporters when convicted felons go free. The legal system (NY) may not be done with Stone or Trump just yet. The corrupt Trump presidency marches on.

It was a good day for Obama supporters when a convicted terrorist was set free. What are you squawking about?

I mean...Call me crazy, but I fear a terrorist much more than Roger Stone.
 


On Monday, the Justice Department, now overseen by Attorney General Merrick Garland, released part of the memo but appealed the judge's ruling and asked to keep the majority of the document from the public.
Cant have the public knowing why Trump was innocent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Airport and Gunny46
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT