I've Now Read 100% of the Redacted Report | My Final Word

It is not Mueller's job to convict nor was he permitted to indict the president much less prosecute him. Mueller was crystal clear in his statement that Trump was not exonerated. He made that point throughout his report. Yes, the charges laid out by Mueller were most definitely criminal. Now it is up to the House to decide where to go with this. Clearly, they are working up to articles of impeachment. Where are you getting your information? You have no credibility.

 

Sure it’s the job of a prosecutor to convict and recommend charges...that’s a prosecutor’s main job

 

The report is the prosecution's spin. There is no part of the report where the defense is allowed to respond.

 

Only a judge and jury can convict, so of course it is not Mueller's job to convict -- he can't, so your point is irrelevant and orthogonal. It is his job to prosecute and get indictments. Mueller did not pursue prosecuting or indicting Trump for obstruction because, in his words, there was insufficient evidence to do so. He and Barr have said that choice was based only on the facts of the evidence and not on the prohibition against indicting a sitting president. Secondly it is not a prosecutor's job to clear or exonerate anyone; they never do that. Prosecutors either charge or do not charge .... period. Mueller snuck "exoneration" in there for the purpose of uncommonly throwing out extra breadcrumbs for the ravenous Democrats. That is also the reason he wrote the entirety of his Volume II of the report. Prosecutors are not supposed to and almost never not charge someone but then write up all the seemingly suspicious things that person did which is a libelous violation of due process. Though it can also be done to help the target as was Comey's July 2016 review of all the laws Hillary broke which concluded with no charges.

 

Total nonsense, if Trump wanted to obstruct he could have. If Mueller was certain we'd all know it, he wasn't which confirms it was nothing more than a witch hunt and milking millions of dollars from the people...

 

There is only one problem with your opinion. Mueller's report never needed to be seen by Congress since all a prosecutor does is either charge or not charge and the only person he reports to is the AG. A prosecutor also does not relay information about people not charged with any crime since that is also that 'tradition' you talk about. If Mueller wrote the report for impeachment then he is tipping his hand that he is a political flunky and reflects badly on him as a lawyer.

 

Except for the fact that some of the meetings were setups where nothing happened, or set up by US intelligence to start an investigation.

Campaigns often talk to other countries before an election. There is no law against that. So it would be no surprise that there were connections but no collusion or conspiracy to affect the election. If anything, the foreign country involved with democrats trying to gain information to affect the election appears to be the Ukraine.

 

You have unwittingly touched on another reason Mueller decided he couldn't indict Trump.

 

That would be lack of evidence to prosecute.

 

I think your assumption is correct. I think Mueller knew a long time ago that there was no collusion/conspiracy/coordination with Russia, and that is what he was charged with finding out. But he kept going, as you say, to develop a case for impeachment. It was not what he was assigned to do, authorized to do, nor what he was paid (with my money) to do. But it is what he did.

 

I have no idea why you would claim such nonsense. For instance candidates expect help from PACs out the ying-yang, but are barred from coordinating, colluding, or conspiring with them.

 

Way to subtle for them.

 

There is no defense for your BLOTUS's crimes.

 

More than enough documented evidence of your BLOTUS obstructing justice to prosecute since he did it on TEN occasions. Impossible to make them all go away when you have testimony from his own lawyer saying that the BLOTUS asked him to obstruct justice.

 

Crimes ...that’s funny and foolish.

 

I agree that you BLOTUS is a fool to have committed those crimes but what he is doing to our nation as a result of his crimes is anything but funny.

 

Yet, still nothing so...

 

It was always their intention to get dirt on him so they could:

• remove him from office or
• prosecute him or
• silence him

None of that is new. If it took two years of investigation and 400 pages of an opinion piece, I feel very sorry for you.

You did write a nice editorial.

 

Kneejerk denialism of documented factual evidence does not make it disappear.

 

You mean the ‘not enough evidence to charge’ evidence?

 

Kneejerk denialism CONFIRMED!

 

It might help if you had even a basic understanding of what constitutes obstruction of justice......... or not.

 

Oh, the IRONY!

 

Keep dreamin...........Bobby Baker.

 

If you still can’t accept the conclusions you might be a lefty.