Muellers presser?

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Trey

Lol

Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you.

All that crying over OJ!!! He is obviously an innocent man. Just like trump.

Fuck O.J. We still have a double murder that was never officially solved.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Also, AG Barr said emphatically, under oath, that Mueller told him three times that not being able to indict a sitting President DID NOT play into their decisions. Mueller said today that he did not consider indictment because you cannot indict a sitting President.

He basically called AG Barr a liar.

FTFY. I disagree with your interpretation. There is a lot of lawyerly hair-splitting going on but he didn't call Barr a liar.

Mueller told Barr the DOJ policy did not enter into his inability to conclude that obstruction occurred. He could have concluded there IS enough evidence to support a charge of obstruction - but he didn't. Either way he couldn't indict.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by lustylad

FTFY. I disagree with your interpretation. There is a lot of lawyerly hair-splitting going on but he didn't call Barr a liar.

Mueller told Barr the DOJ policy did not enter into his inability to conclude that obstruction occurred. He could have concluded there IS enough evidence to support a charge of obstruction - but he didn't. Either way he couldn't indict.

Mueller looked bad. His logic was flawed. On one hand, he said he couldn’t “exonerate” Trump, but logically, he didn’t have enough evidence to indict. Then he punted to the DOJ policy. Which begs the question, why did he waste two years and 40 million dollars when a majority of Americans don’t want impeachment. Sad.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by bambino

Comey didn’t poke Lynch in the eye. He was Lynch’s lackey. He did what he was told to do. Lynch just caught the ball and walked off the field. But hey, Barr just threw a penalty flag.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Comey was clearly told what to do. and that really came from Obama through Lynch. Now that is collusion and obstruction of justice boys and girls!

Originally Posted by lustylad

FTFY. I disagree with your interpretation. There is a lot of lawyerly hair-splitting going on but he didn't call Barr a liar.

Mueller told Barr the DOJ policy did not enter into his inability to conclude that obstruction occurred. He could have concluded there IS enough evidence to support a charge of obstruction - but he didn't. Either way he couldn't indict.

well that cuts off at the knees all this jabbering about Barr lying and misrepresenting the report, doesn't it?

[Austin Ellen]

Remember when the Democrats demanded that Trump accept the election results? Hmmmm

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Geraldo, a lawyer and libertarian, says that Mueller has turned things upside down. You indict someone for PROBABLE cause. Mueller is now saying that it POSSIBLE that Trump committed a crime. Mueller couldn't find any negative evidence that would absolutely clear Trump. I heard that a unicorn took a dump in the Rose Garden last night...but I can't absolutely prove that it didn't happen. It must be true then.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Geraldo, a lawyer and libertarian, says that Mueller has turned things upside down. You indict someone for PROBABLE cause. Mueller is now saying that it POSSIBLE that Trump committed a crime. Mueller couldn't find any negative evidence that would absolutely clear Trump. I heard that a unicorn took a dump in the Rose Garden last night...but I can't absolutely prove that it didn't happen. It must be true then.

exactly. and i'm really Bill Gates (not the Bill Gates from Lufkin, TX, the other Bill Gates) but it can't be proven i'm not.


BAHHAHAAAAAa

[MrThom]

The only thing that came out of it is that the Dems don't believe anything that they don't want to believe.

[I B Hankering]

9 PM 29 May 2019

“The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel’s report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements,” in a joint statement from DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec and Mueller spokesman Peter Carr

.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MrThom

The only thing that came out of it is that the Dems don't believe anything that they don't want to believe.

[dilbert firestorm]

meuller stumbled over the word indictment twice.


sounds like he is mad that he couldn't stick it to trump and that report is all he had on on trump.


yeah, Mooller started a fire for the democrats to go after the impeachment charge.


also noticed the time of the presser... he held the presser while AG Barr was on the plane to Alaska.

[bb1961]

Mulehead is a partisan hack...he had his bench full of Trump hating left wing loons. He wasted millions on a partisan investigation that he knew from the start was a political witch hunt.
He ends it in a cowardly way by throwing red meat to left wing loons to keep propagating this bogus narrative that he hopes will continue to handicap Trump to the 2020 election...what a POS!!
He refused to testify for a reason...this punk doesn't want to answer hard question from Republicans in Congress!!
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/201...rdice-garbage/

[grean]

Originally Posted by lustylad

FTFY. I disagree with your interpretation. There is a lot of lawyerly hair-splitting going on but he didn't call Barr a liar.

Mueller told Barr the DOJ policy did not enter into his inability to conclude that obstruction occurred. He could have concluded there IS enough evidence to support a charge of obstruction - but he didn't. Either way he couldn't indict.

I don't like the inconsistencies between Starr's ability to draw conclusions during the Clinton investigation & Mueller's ability during Trump's.

Mr. Starr did and faced no consequences for drawing those conclusions that I am aware of, anyway.

The rules haven't changed have they?

I think if anyone prevented the investigation from discovering relevant evidence, they could have really cranked down on them to compel them.

That really didn't happen so it seems they were able to look under all the rocks and found nothing.

You all know me, I would have LOVED for something to be found. I fucking cannot stand trump. Apparently, I must learn to live with the embarrassing manner in which the person in the oval office acts.

Unless the unredacted report reveals something, I'm not certain what crime could be charged to justify impeachment or removal from office. Those who lied under oath should be removed. To my knowledge, while Trump does nothing but lie, I don't believe he has ever done so under oath.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by grean

I don't like the inconsistencies between Starr's ability to draw conclusions during the Clinton investigation & Mueller's ability during Trump's.

Mr. Starr did and faced no consequences for drawing those conclusions that I am aware of, anyway.

The rules haven't changed have they?

I think if anyone prevented the investigation from discovering relevant evidence, they could have really cranked down on them to compel them.

That really didn't happen so it seems they were able to look under all the rocks and found nothing.

You all know me, I would have LOVED for something to be found. I fucking cannot stand trump. Apparently, I must learn to live with the embarrassing manner in which the person in the oval office acts.

Unless the unredacted report reveals something, I'm not certain what crime could be charged to justify impeachment or removal from office. Those who lied under oath should be removed. To my knowledge, while Trump does nothing but lie, I don't believe he has ever done so under oath.

This explains the difference between the law that governed Ken Star and what governed Mueller.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...rr-and-mueller

Always keep in mind, a President can be impeached for no other reason than 51 % of the House doesn't like him. It is a political function.

However, getting a conviction in the Senate is another matter.

You are correct. The President stretches the truth on a daily basis. That is between him and voters as long as he does not commit the crime of purgery, which is not telling the truth while under oath.

[gfejunkie]

WTF???