Mueller Report Imminent

[Hayezb]

What is the over under in minutes of how long it takes trump to either tweet the words "total exoneration" or "total loser" after Mueller speaks?

That all you got?

 

[volfanjustin]

Ok.... did you read the report? In it, it specifically says they couldn’t make a determination on obstruction.

In the United States if a prosecutor can’t prove you committed a crime, that means you’re innocent.

The radical left doesn't care if there was a crime or not, they just want mean man gone

 

[golfballs]

I still don't think the Dems move forward with Impeachment.

I hope they do

 

[volfanjustin]

I still don't think the Dems move forward with Impeachment.

Of course they won't

 

[BearCat204]

Clean the earwax out dude. Prosecutors make a choice to charge or not charge. Mueller said if they lacked sufficient evidence to charge obstruction, they would have said so (and in fact did say so with respect to conspiracy). So, in other words, there was sufficient evidence to charge obstruction. The reason they didn't charge obstruction was doj policy.

That's not what he said. He said if Trump was found to be innocent of these things they would have said so.

 

[McDad]

I still don't think the Dems move forward with Impeachment.

Surprising. Why not?

 

[RockyTop85]

What is the over under in minutes of how long it takes trump to either tweet the words "total exoneration" or "total loser" after Mueller speaks?

Whoever had 28 minutes wins the pool.

 

[BearCat204]

Surprising. Why not?

I don't think Pelosi will see it as a smart move, politically.

 

[Stew Cook]

Mueller pretty much telling congress, "WTF, Congress, my hands were tied."

 

[volfanjustin]

I don't think Pelosi will see it as a smart move, politically.

They will just let it linger with some of the most radical members of the House to keep the base riled up

 

[McDad]

I don't think Pelosi will see it as a smart move, politically.

If Trump is guilty of a crime, don't they have a duty to impeach?

 

[n_huffhines]

Ok.... did you read the report? In it, it specifically says they couldn’t make a determination on obstruction.

In the United States if a prosecutor can’t prove you committed a crime, it means you’re innocent.

Obstruction and attempted obstruction are two different things. The report details multiple attempts at obstruction. It's saying he attempted to obstruct justice. It's not saying he successfully obstructed justice. It's been explained that Mueller is not going to indict a sitting president. He's leaving it up to congress to pursue any punishment for these crimes. You're grasping at straws.

 

[golfballs]

Surprising. Why not?

Maybe Dems don’t think ‘attempted obstruction’ over a proven witch hunt is compelling to the people outside of their unhinged base

 

[rjd970]

Clean the earwax out dude. Prosecutors make a choice to charge or not charge. Mueller said if they lacked sufficient evidence to charge obstruction, they would have said so (and in fact did say so with respect to conspiracy). So, in other words, there was sufficient evidence to charge obstruction. The reason they didn't charge obstruction was doj policy.

This is what I heard as well and if you read Mueller's statement it says this.

 

[hog88]

I still don't think the Dems move forward with Impeachment.

No they will just keep the fire stoked through the 2020 elections.

 

[BearCat204]

If Trump is guilty of a crime, don't they have a duty to impeach?

That's the thing, nothing has said he is guilty of anything.

 

[NorthDallas40]

He said he couldn't charge a sitting president of a crime.

Actually he stated that since there was no remedy in the courts he would not make an accusation as he said that would not be fair. And he’s right on that. It would just be left hanging.

Another unspoken topic was did Trump’s actions raise to the level that would warrant an indictment if he felt he could do so.

And all of his discussion on this topic is contrary to what AG Barr stated under oath to Congress. Barr stated he asked Mueller three separate times if the OLC opinion factored into his non indictment decision and he said Mueller stated no on all three.

Frankly as others have said everybody is going to infer what they want from this statement of which there was no new information. The tldr summary of the whole statement is “ read the damn report, I’m not saying another damn word on it, peace out I’m done”

 

[NorthDallas40]

No they will just keep the fire stoked through the 2020 elections.

Yep

 

[n_huffhines]

I don't think Pelosi will see it as a smart move, politically.

I agree. She hates Trump, but she loves Trump. Trump is one of the best things to happen to D's in liberal strongholds. Fighting Trump makes them heroes.

 

[McDad]

That's the thing, nothing has said he is guilty of anything.

But they are the body which decides guilt in this case. If they decide he is guilty, they have a duty to impeach. Correct?

 

[NorthDallas40]

5,389,546

I’ve got the over on that.

 

[Bjorn_Yesterday]

If Trump is guilty of a crime, don't they have a duty to impeach?

They do. Here's why I don't think they will:

A.) They are wussies
2.) They want to let this fester into 2020

 

[BearCat204]

But they are the body which decides guilt in this case. If they decide he is guilty, they have a duty to impeach. Correct?

Correctomundo

 

[n_huffhines]

If Trump is guilty of a crime, don't they have a duty to impeach?

I don't think that's necessarily so. The language of the constitution is extremely vague about impeachment, so they can basically do whatever they want. Of course, that's only looking at it legally. Moral duty, civic duty, etc. is a different question.

 

[McDad]

They do. Here's why I don't think they will:

A.) They are wussies
2.) They want to let this fester into 2020

Nice work on "A" and "2".