Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nanker

The Mueller Report. BREAKING NEWS: AG’s Summary Report Released. NO COLLUSION!

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Conversely, if they thought there WAS collusion, they would have said so. They couldn't prove *****, and in this country you have to actually PROVE ***** before you indict someone.

 

Which is why Trump should unleash the IRS on every major Democratic figure in this country. Let's find out what's in their financial closets.

 

 

Their hands are tied.  You can not convict a sitting president.   

 

Even charging his kids can't happen because it all ties into the guilt of Donald.  If you can;t do the first then proving the latter can't be done either.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
1
15 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Conversely, if they thought there WAS collusion, they would have said so. They couldn't prove *****, and in this country you have to actually PROVE ***** before you indict someone.

 

Which is why Trump should unleash the IRS on every major Democratic figure in this country. Let's find out what's in their financial closets.

 

Hmm, guess our criminal justice system has a 100% conviction rate!!! Awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

Their hands are tied.  You can not convict a sitting president.   

 

Even charging his kids can't happen because it all ties into the guilt of Donald.  If you can;t do the first then proving the latter can't be done either.

 

 

Wasn't Clinton charged as a sitting POTUS?

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

Their hands are tied.  You can not convict a sitting president.   

 

Even charging his kids can't happen because it all ties into the guilt of Donald.  If you can;t do the first then proving the latter can't be done either.

 

 

 

That's utter baloney, because it was clear that Mueller and team were scalp hunting.  If there was a scintilla of indictable evidence of obstruction on anyone in Trump's orbit, you would have seen a very public perp walk.   

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GG said:

OTOH, we'll see if you dare show your face here once Horowitz, Huber, etc present their findings.

Why wouldn't he show his face? If the findings show anything other than #Orangemanbad, then obviously Horowitz, Huber, etc are just lying Trump stooges.

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

He also said he doesnt go above and beyond, so why should we expect him to do the same with this?

Being honest, straightforward and curious is not going above and beyond here even though that may be true in his classroom.

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

Their hands are tied.  You can not convict a sitting president.   

 

Even charging his kids can't happen because it all ties into the guilt of Donald.  If you can;t do the first then proving the latter can't be done either.

 

 

 

Laughable logic there. Don't think for one moment if there was even an IOTA of credible evidence, it wouldn't have been in the hands of the Democratic party leadership.


And @plenzmd1 our justice system ROUTINELY lets people walk because of lack of evidence. Routinely.

 

Take a look at arrest/conviction rates around the country.

 

Edited by Joe in Winslow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Laughable logic there. Don't think for one moment if there was even an IOTA of credible evidence, it wouldn't have been in the hands of the Democratic party leadership.


And @plenzmd1 our justice system ROUTINELY lets people walk because of lack of evidence. Routinely.

 

Take a look at arrest/conviction rates around the country.

 

100% agree..you post said 

 

Quote

They couldn't prove *****, and in this country you have to actually PROVE ***** before you indict someone.

That's not even close to a factual statement..an indictment simply means we going to trial...where one needs to prove guilt...trial does equal indictment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

100% agree..you post said 

 

That's not even close to a factual statement..an indictment simply means we going to trial...where one needs to prove guilt...trial does equal indictment

 

arrest ----> indictment ----->conviction or exoneration

 

Take a look sometime on the percentages of arrest that even cause a trial.

 

It's quite low in most circumstances. Why? Because prosecutors know the bar is high.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

arrest ----> indictment ----->conviction or exoneration

 

Take a look sometime on the percentages of arrest that even cause a trial.

 

It's quite low in most circumstances. Why? Because prosecutors know the bar is high.

 

I agree..but your statement was there was no indictment because Mueller had no evidence, and in this case that is just 100 % not correct. He stated yesterday no indictment because the President cannot be indicted while he is the President..totally different argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

I agree..but your statement was there was no indictment because Mueller had no evidence, and in this case that is just 100 % not correct. He stated yesterday no indictment because the President cannot be indicted while he is the President..totally different argument

 

List all the evidence contained within the mueller report.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2019 at 11:37 AM, Tiberius said:

I guess you right wingers have to declare victory before the report is out to try and convince casual news consumers "drive byes" that there is nothing in it, when you have no clue at all yourselves. 

 

What if Mueller concludes a president can't be indicted but there is evidence he should be? 

 

Tibs the soothsayer

On 3/23/2019 at 11:59 AM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Trump knew. 

 

Ive said this for months. Trumps mueller jabs were kabuki theater. The design to accomplish exactly what happened yesterday. 

 

Muellers job was to isolate the corrupt plotters and have them chase their tail while good cops watched the dirty cops like Hawks, logging every corner they cut, every law they broke in their attempt to "get" Trump. 

 

Pain comes next. 

 

DR the moron

Edited by McGee Return TD
  • Thanks! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, plenzmd1 said:

I agree..but your statement was there was no indictment because Mueller had no evidence, and in this case that is just 100 % not correct. He stated yesterday no indictment because the President cannot be indicted while he is the President..totally different argument

Didn't he also say he didn't have enough to convict in court? He spent 2 years looking. He was never going to prove innocence, that wasn't his job, but he seems to believe that what he did find would result in not guilty.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

I agree..but your statement was there was no indictment because Mueller had no evidence, and in this case that is just 100 % not correct. He stated yesterday no indictment because the President cannot be indicted while he is the President..totally different argument

 

Its not a prosecutors job to exonerate. We are all innocent until proven guilty. If a prosecutor does not have enough evidence to make a case, the subject remains innocent. 

 

Which is where we are w Trump. Mueller, by not indicting him, declared him innocent even if he wants to play semantics. There's not a single accusation of guilt in all 400 pages in the report. Not one. Starr wrote Clinton was guilty 13 times in his, and charged him. 

 

Its sad that so many liberals (I say this as one) are so quick to turn their backs on the very nature of our system of justice just because orange man bad and tds. Its not only sad, it's dangerous. 

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Its not a prosecutors job to exonerate. We are all innocent until proven guilty. If a prosecutor does not have enough evidence to make a case, the subject remains innocent. 

  

Which is where we are w Trump. Mueller, by not indicting him, declared him innocent even if he wants to play semantics. There's not a single accusation of guilt in all 400 pages in the report. Not one. Starr wrote Clinton was guilty 13 times in his, and charged him. 

  

Its sad that so many liberals (I say this as one) are so quick to turn their backs on the very nature of our system of justice just because orange man bad and tds. Its not only sad, it's dangerous. 

I think the argument from the other side is that Mueller elected not to indict because DOJ rules prevented him from indicting a sitting President.

 

Even though he didn't state that exactly, that is the inference.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bdutton said:

I think the argument from the other side is that Mueller elected not to indict because DOJ rules prevented him from indicting a sitting President.

 

Even though he didn't state that exactly, that is the inference.

 

I agree that's the argument - it's just very thin. As covered yesterday if the only thin holding him back was that rule, they would have indicted Flynn, Don Jr, and Manafort for obstruction to make the case easier for congress. But he didn't. Because he could never make any of those cases with or without the rule. 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America left to face the nasty consequences of Robert Mueller’s actions

New York Post, by Michael Goodwin

Original Article

 

 

 

 

 

ROBERT MUELLER, PARTISAN FRAUD

Much has been written about Robert Mueller’s appearance before the press today, in which spoke briefly and nervously, repeating points that have already been made ad nauseam in his own report and elsewhere. Why did he do it? And why did he appear so nervous while he did it? Speculation has been rampant.

Scott posted a transcript of Mueller’s remarks earlier today. Much could be said about them, but I want to focus on just one aspect of Mueller’s characterization of his own investigation.

Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel and he created the special counsel’s office. The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

The key word there is “included.” What else did Mueller’s charge include? Nothing, apparently. But we actually know that there were “links” between a presidential campaign and Russians who (if they existed at all) likely were associated with Putin’s regime. The campaign was Hillary Clinton’s, and the Russians were those on whose reports Christopher Steele based his infamous dossier.

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller muddied the waters on purpose and he is the one who is obstructing justice.

 

 

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/05/30/mueller-backtracks-presser-tries-clarify-matters-joint-statement-bill-barr/

 

"In other words, Mueller is now saying “wait, wait I never said Trump would have been charged if he weren’t President, only that the fact that he was President is why I didn’t bother to answer the question.”

It’s still a weak kneed answer in my humble opinion. If that is what he meant, he could have specifically clarified that at the presser to quell the storm. Instead, his weasel language gave the entirely of the media and Democrat party the green light to claim that the OLC opinion is all that stopped Trump from being charged. He threw chum into the water and it’s really hard to interpret his actions as anything other than intentional.

Now, some will take issue with the use of the word backtrack in this article. I think it’s accurate."

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Didn't he also say he didn't have enough to convict in court? He spent 2 years looking. He was never going to prove innocence, that wasn't his job, but he seems to believe that what he did find would result in not guilty.

No, he said it was not in the realm of "fairness" to accuse(indict) someone of a crime that did not have the ability to defend and clear himself in court. So, if the 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7
17 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Its not a prosecutors job to exonerate. We are all innocent until proven guilty. If a prosecutor does not have enough evidence to make a case, the subject remains innocent. 

 

Which is where we are w Trump. Mueller, by not indicting him, declared him innocent even if he wants to play semantics. There's not a single accusation of guilt in all 400 pages in the report. Not one. Starr wrote Clinton was guilty 13 times in his, and charged him. 

 

Its sad that so many liberals (I say this as one) are so quick to turn their backs on the very nature of our system of justice just because orange man bad and tds. Its not only sad, it's dangerous. 

He specifically said he did declare him innocent..nor guilty

 

Quote

if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.

What he said is the President cannot be charged, and it is up to Congress now to decide .

***** @Deranged Rhino, i cannot edit my post

 

he declared he did NOT find him innocent..nor guilty

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...