BREAKING: Robert Mueller is speaking right now, for the first time since the report was released

Trump being a petulant little bitch who is also a ****ing moron comports directly with the facts.

 

Tired of all of his successes I take it.

 

Yeah, He is a rules guy not a political guy. So he takes thing literally.

 

“There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report,” Mueller told reporters in his first public statement since the conclusion of his office’s two-year probe into Russian election interference and possible collusion with Donald Trump’s campaign.

“It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decision we made. We chose these words carefully, and the words speak for itself. The report is my testimony,” Mueller added.

THE REPORT IS MY TESTIMONY.

Looks like Nadler's gonna get another nothing burger.

 

No, Fail in that you didn't read pages 81-84 of Volume 2.... even more clearly by this 2nd post...

 

Giving kudos to McGahn for obeying the law does not mean that you should avoid criticizing Trump for attempting to obstruct justice.

 

The left: Thought crime proposal accepted.

 

That isn’t true. Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller. He didn’t “take time to think”, or make any decisions. He simply went onto his next cable tv fed rant.

And this is not the only time Trump ordered someone to fire Mueller. He publicly attacked Jeff Sessions for recusing himself and ultimately fired him for not shutting the investigation down.

Since Mueller’s instructions did NOT include prosecution, even though he had the power to do so, there was no reason to force the issues.

As for “unless we’re about to charge”.......impeachment is still on the table. ‘

 

Obeying the law usually gets you held in contempt of Congress lately.

New crime: "attempting" to obstruct justice.

HE WANTED TO DO IT!

 

And it was both necessary and appropriate(if he believes in his own case that is.) He was supposed to indict based on the facts his Counsel found, not all of a sudden to be feeling 'compassion' for the supposed criminal, and the information which would lead to his guilt in a report presumed to be public.

He's not a "rules guy", he is a cowardly individual. I grant him that he finally spoke, but he spoke in a way that cowards do: Controlled settings. He has met my expectation for two years on cowardice. You and I both know he's a coward, we just differ on whether that cowardly behavior is honorable.

 

Thought crimes? Trump made a statement and gave an order. He only backed down when the person to whom he gave that order refused to obey.

And that is only one of the ~11 acts that Trump took that arguably qualified as obstruction of justice.

 

The report makes clear of McGhan's testimony, I thought you read it.

 

'arguably qualified', so you publicly admit that the case is weak. Because it is weak.

 

He didn't say guilty, charged. Clinton was charged with multiple felonies as reported to the Congress, he was presented the indictment when he left office. It is not Congress that decides if a crime has been committed and then adjudicates it. Mueller presented NO CRIME.

 

Where did I say the case was weak?

 

Then we have that order in writing?

 

Yep, still no obstruction. You know, the decision that was made by Barr and Rosenstein.

 

Sorry your not of fan of the constitution but he has executive privilege, the same as Obama did with Fast and Furious and the IRS scandal. Just like I said back then if we don't like it change the law but neither party should ever get to use it purely for political research. That's the way the founders wanted it and that's life. Congress has a out and it's called impeachment either do it or quit whining about it and let the American people be the judge. Mules pussed out blaming a President can't be indicted, he could've said crimes were committed but didn't instead pulled the Comey. Well blah blah blah but we can't charge BS, that's called prosecution malpractice. It's a could charge or not, Mules gave it to the guy who started the investigation and the new Attorney General and they along with DOJ counsel said there wasn't enough there to bring charges regardless if he were the President or not. Now house dems have their play and America won't buy the we got him so we're not going to impeach yet continue to investigate to make him look bad. Crap or get off the pot time dems.

 

It is not the job of prosecutors to state that a suspect "clearly did not commit a crime", only to state whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

Mueller is playing politics for the useful idiot democrats in Congress.

 

Starr refused to hold himself to the conclusion of the OLC opinion. That is why he said that Clinton should be charged.

Mueller absolutely presented evidence of criminal activity, but he also deemed the OLC opinion to be binding and since he could not indict Trump, his team decided that they would not make the statement that he should be indicted.

If Trump were any other person but the President, he would have been indicted for obstruction of justice.

 

I like how Mueller went from savior to sinner at Mach 4.

 

Go read the federal rules on OOJ, then look up the word endeavor, and then attempt to put those 2 concepts together, if possible...

 

That's essentially the legal theory. But it falls so flat and so hard. Because intent requires follow through. It is not enough that Trump gave the order to have Mueller removed. To show intent, once there was opposition to his firing, if Trump had pushed past that opposition then that would clearly show the intent. That's actually what happened in Watergate. The first few officials refused, then Nixon fired them until he found a lackey that didn't want to lose a job.

Follow through is not a new and unusual criminal application to intent, as Mrtlegal knows, it's one of the essential elements to intent. If someone was held at gunpoint to rob a store, the person who technically 'robbed' the store did not have intent, he was threatened with his livelihood.

 

Yeah. I am more than willing to consider (and respect) the opinions of those from the "other side" if they are rational (well-reasoned) and not just generic "troll" posts.

You made a very good point, and you deserved to have your input acknowledged.

And, once again, I agree with your assessment.

Mueller should have indicted Trump and left it to the SCOTUS to decide whether a Sitting Pres. can be indicted.

Mueller didn't go far enough.

 

No no. This question of obstruction stems from a opinion based on something that didn't even happen. I'm not falling for this quasi-rational what if scenario.