Mueller Report Imminent

"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. "

"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. "
Fairness..lol. ok
 
Definitely wasn’t lashing out, seemed to fit the criteria for “total exoneration,” though.

Mueller said today that if the President clearly hadn't committed a crime he would have said so.

Conversely then would that mean that if the President had committed a crime he would have said so?
Is the only reason indictment/prosecution wasn't recommended is because the OLC had suggested that a sitting President cannot (should not) be indicted?

I have not read the whole report, just snippets that held my interest as I do not have the patience or the give enough of a sh!t to read the whole thing. RockyTop85, you have said that you have read through the whole report and since you're an attorney, I believe that you understood what exactly is in that over 400 pages of legalese.

The question I have that I hope you can answer is this:

Does the Mueller report list those things that Trump has allegedly done, that if he were not President, would be an indictable crime?

If that is so, what exactly are those specific actions that Trump allegedly did that Mueller considers criminal?

Another question, not specifically for you, but just a musing on my part:

Why didn't Mueller specifically list those criminal acttions today , much in the way Comey did when Comey held his news conference regarding Hillary's email server?

Barr's interpretation of his conversation with Mueller makes me wonder if those two even speak the same language. Instead of clearing matters up, Mueller's conference today and his report in general, just muddied up the waters more, if that's possible.

Does anyone really know what the hell is going on anymore?
 
Nope not the point. Only the Donald has that protection. Any other member of the campaign could have been charged. None were. Thus it’s fairly certain there was no evidence of which they could level any other campaign individual on conspiracy. This was the original charge given to the Muell and it was a complete dry hole.

You should tell that to Paul Manafort, Konstantin Kilimnik, Rick Gates, George Popadoopoulos, Mikey Flynn and Alex Van der Zwann. I'm sure they'd love to hear your take on their obstruction convictions.
 
Here's the main question: Was the OLC guideline the only reason for not pursuing charges against Trump?

If so, then Barr may have perjured himself. If not, then both Muell's and Barr's testimonies can be reconciled.
 
You should tell that to Paul Manafort, Konstantin Kilimnik, Rick Gates, George Popadoopoulos, Mikey Flynn and Alex Van der Zwann. I'm sure they'd love to hear your take on their obstruction convictions.
😂😂😂 tell me how many were charged with conspiracy now? God you could see this reply coming over the horizon! 😂
 
Mueller said today that if the President clearly hadn't committed a crime he would have said so.

Conversely then would that mean that if the President had committed a crime he would have said so?
Is the only reason indictment/prosecution wasn't recommended is because the OLC had suggested that a sitting President cannot (should not) be indicted?

I have not read the whole report, just snippets that held my interest as I do not have the patience or the give enough of a sh!t to read the whole thing. RockyTop85, you have said that you have read through the whole report and since you're an attorney, I believe that you understood what exactly is in that over 400 pages of legalese.

The question I have that I hope you can answer is this:

Does the Mueller report list those things that Trump has allegedly done, that if he were not President, would be an indictable crime?

If that is so, what exactly are those specific actions that Trump allegedly did that Mueller considers criminal?

Another question, not specifically for you, but just a musing on my part:

Why didn't Mueller specifically list those criminal acttions today , much in the way Comey did when Comey held his news conference regarding Hillary's email server?

Barr's interpretation of his conversation with Mueller makes me wonder if those two even speak the same language. Instead of clearing matters up, Mueller's conference today and his report in general, just muddied up the waters more, if that's possible.

Does anyone really know what the hell is going on anymore?

You have confidence that a crime was committed, not no confidence that a crime was not committed. Abomination of law.
 
It is if you believe in alternative facts.
1*PXuzNpJZQNrLQnVXU5TpeQ.png
 
I'm going after Amash because I had really started to like the dude, I was beginning to think he was a different breed. He shattered any of those thoughts.

I'll give Huff credit, I made some disparaging remarks about Amash a while back and Huff schooled me on him and showed me I was wrong. So I started paying attention to Amash and his record.
WATCH: At Town Hall, Justin Amash Explains Impeachment Tweets, Gets Asked About Possible Libertarian Presidential Run

Elaborating on what he's already outlined in a series of Twitter threads, Amash said his reading of the second volume of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's report shows "all of the elements of obstruction of justice." He voiced agreement with Mueller's decision to stick with longstanding Justice Department precedent forbidding the indictment of a sitting president, but said it was Congress' responsibility to respond to executive misconduct.

"I'm confident that if you read Volume 2 [of the Mueller report], you will be appalled by much of the conduct. And I was appalled," Amash said. "We cannot allow conduct like that go unchecked. Congress has a duty to keep the president in check."
 

VN Store



Back
Top