Mueller Report Imminent

#2,827
#2,827
DC_Vol said:
Can you please explain to me why Mueller didn’t charge obstruction? He had two years to investigate with an unlimited scope!!

Why are you still braying about collusion when it wasn’t charged by your boy Mueller?
Click to expand...

the quote he posted said it perfectly - we aren't charging obstruction but we can't conclude for sure that it wasn't. Not sure when the standard moved from proving guilt to proving innocence but this statement clearly says we can't prove him innocent so we can't say he's innocent. Well legally, he is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, theFallGuy and BigOrangeD
#2,828
#2,828
Me watching the Democrats go absolutely bonkers at this point.

2ywlpm.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Obsessed and BigOrangeD
#2,829
#2,829
volinbham said:
You realize that quote says "we could not prove him innocent" so we cannot say he is innocent.

Aren't you a lawyer? You know about the "proven guilty" standard right?
Click to expand...


For one thing, they did not interview him given time constraints. Report says so.

Trump should be subpoanead by the House to get the answers that Mueller had to forego.
 
#2,830
#2,830
volinbham said:
You realize that quote says "we could not prove him innocent" so we cannot say he is innocent.

Aren't you a lawyer? You know about the "proven guilty" standard right?
Click to expand...

C'mon, don't you recall those halcyon days of when LG would be telling us what people were thinking when anything happened? (or didn't) Him ignoring something a banal as a major tenet of his profession based on bias is pretty blah.
 
#2,832
#2,832
volinbham said:
the quote he posted said it perfectly - we aren't charging obstruction but we can't conclude for sure that it wasn't. Not sure when the standard moved from proving guilt to proving innocence but this statement clearly says we can't prove him innocent so we can't say he's innocent. Well legally, he is.
Click to expand...


Absolutely false. Mueller is saying HE could not conclude guilt or innocence, it is up to Congress to do so.
 
#2,839
#2,839
A little Floyd feels fitting today for the dem libs out there:


Big man, pig man
Ha ha charade you are
You well heeled big wheel
Ha ha charade you are
And when your hand is on your heart
You’re nearly a good laugh
Almost a joker
With your head down in the pig bin
Saying “Keep on digging”
Pig stain on your fat chin
What do you hope to find
Down in the pig mine?

Trying to manipulate society so the rank and file Dem political puppets can remain powerful. Sorry, you failed. Buckle up for the real seditious and treasonous pieces of s*** to be punished.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and LouderVol
#2,840
#2,840
Stew Cook said:
I think Barr did a disservice to Trump with the preempting. Trump's political death is in the details. Successful impeachment would not be realistic, but more than enough daggers to ensure he won't be reelected. IMHO

Busy day, I'll get back to ya later, if by chance you disagree.
Click to expand...

If impeachment is pursued it outweighs any negative info here.

The smart move by Dems would be to drag this out for the next 2 years but they do not have control of their most rogue members nor the patience in general.

Almost all of the 10 obstruction items were already publicly known - they were baked into his current situation.

The big question COLLUSION has been put to bed. There is no equivocation in the report.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher
#2,841
#2,841
BigOrangeD said:
Nope. He said is was up to the DOJ to do so. And they made the determination that it was not. Case closed.
Click to expand...


No, he said it is up to Congress, not Barr. Well said by this gentleman:

William Barr Has Failed America
Click to expand...
His press conference was appalling even by the Trump administration’s standard.
By MARK JOSEPH STERN


Observers of the Justice Department will spend the rest of our lives talking about Attorney General William Barr’s jaw-dropping and horrifically inappropriate address on Thursday morning, which attempted to spin special counsel Robert Mueller’s report in Donald Trump’s favor—before the public has seen it. In just a few minutes, Barr managed to throw Mueller under the bus, mount a Fox News–style defense of Trump, and further obscure his dubious decision to absolve the president of obstruction of justice. It is hard to convey just how appalling Barr’s performance was, and it will take a while to assess the extent of the damage Barr just inflicted on the Department of Justice and the office of the attorney general. But let me take a first crack: This was Pravda-style propaganda, pure and simple, a grotesque display of spineless fealty to the president, and a confirmation that Barr views the Mueller investigation as fundamentally illegitimate.
Click to expand...
 
#2,844
#2,844
BigOrangeD said:
Nope. He said is was up to the DOJ to do so. And they made the determination that it was not. Case closed.
Click to expand...

In fairness, he said that Congress could investigate the 10 instances described, and could determine that they represent obstruction.

Of course, that's stating the obvious. Congress could do this entire thing over again if they so choose.
 
#2,845
#2,845
volinbham said:
If impeachment is pursued it outweighs any negative info here.

The smart move by Dems would be to drag this out for the next 2 years but they do not have control of their most rogue members nor the patience in general.

Almost all of the 10 obstruction items were already publicly known - they were baked into his current situation.

The big question COLLUSION has been put to bed. There is no equivocation in the report.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that most of the obstruction was known. But it depends on motive. Your side's insistence that Trump did not have bad motive is laughable.

As to collusion, your characterization is false, yet again. There is a difference between saying he could be charged with saying he acted wrongfully. The evidence of the latter is overwhelmingly against Trump.
 
#2,846
#2,846
lawgator1 said:
Absolutely false. Mueller is saying HE could not conclude guilt or innocence, it is up to Congress to do so.
Click to expand...

That is what I said - the prosecutor said I can't conclude enough to bring charges. He didn't say "it's up to Congress" though it is there prerogative to take it up. It is absolutely true that Mueller concluded he didn't see enough to bring criminal charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD and LouderVol
#2,848
#2,848
lawgator1 said:
I agree with you that most of the obstruction was known. But it depends on motive. Your side's insistence that Trump did not have bad motive is laughable.

As to collusion, your characterization is false, yet again. There is a difference between saying he could be charged with saying he acted wrongfully. The evidence of the latter is overwhelmingly against Trump.
Click to expand...

Nope and nope.

You don't know the motive any more than anyone else yet you've ascribed one as you always do.

Did Mueller say POTUS acted wrongfully with regard to collusion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, BigOrangeD, tennvols77 and 1 other person
#2,849
#2,849
volinbham said:
That is what I said - the prosecutor said I can't conclude enough to bring charges. He didn't say "it's up to Congress" though it is there prerogative to take it up. It is absolutely true that Mueller concluded he didn't see enough to bring criminal charges.
Click to expand...


Correct.

But that is not exoneration.

And it does not mean that some other mechanism of government could not conclude that there was criminality.

The finding is actually very narrow, and phrased in that manner purposefully. Not surprising that Trump and Barr have colluded to try to sell it as a broader conclusion than it really is.
 
#2,850
#2,850
lawgator1 said:
I agree with you that most of the obstruction was known. But it depends on motive. Your side's insistence that Trump did not have bad motive is laughable.

As to collusion, your characterization is false, yet again. There is a difference between saying he could be charged with saying he acted wrongfully. The evidence of the latter is overwhelmingly against Trump.
Click to expand...

Mueller doesn't say that there's evidence of collusion, but not enough to merit charges. It says there is no evidence of collusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top