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

No.

What Mueller said, there was not enough evidence to find Trump innocent.

What he should have said, there was not enough evidence to find Trump guilty.

For crying out-loud.

 

he said if he thought Trump was innocent he would of said so

 

The choice of words was not up to tis schmuck. If he was not saying Trump was guilty, he had to say he was innocent. Is this still America?

 

he explained that though, he felt it was unfair to say he thought Trump was guilty as he could not indict and Trump woudl not have a chance to defend himself in court, he said this was a political issue that congress should handle and decide on

he also told the Trump lawyers he would go by this policy in the beginning and he was true to his word

 

Unfair? Is this a word prosecutor would use? Unfair my old, bony hairy ass!

Irrelevant as tis all is, I still find it all mildly entertaining. Go for it, Democrats.

 

when they can't indict, and think he is guilty, yes, they woudl use those words as he did

 

Trumpkinism.

 

Where did we see that? Surely Mueller's testimony exonerated Barr from all allegations?

 

Lynch was obviously happy to let Comey be the fall guy for that.

 

To a Lefty, a lie is anything said that goes against their narrative.

 

When have you ever heard a prosecutor or investigator say they couldn't prove someones innocence? You can't prove a negative, so you can't prove someone did not commit a crime.

 

Never mind that firing Mueller wouldn't have obstructed the investigation.

Never mind that Mueller wasn't fired.

 

No I didn't miss that part but I did role my eyes at that part. Just as Comey listed Hillarie's infractions of law and then gave his opinion that "no reasonable prosecuter would indict because there was no intent" Mueller could have listed Trumps infractions of law and given his opinion that those infractions were obstruction of justice. In fact Mueller was assigned the duty of telling America if our president conspired with Russia to win an election and in his statement he glossed that over and concentrated on if maybe the President obstructed that investigation. Obviously he couldn't find evidence of collusion of obstruction or he would have listed those offenses for the American people to digest. Instead he told us nothing and handed the baton to Congress saying sorry guys I gave it my best shot, better up.

 

trump didn’t try to cover up anything, he tried to stop the investigation.

Obstruction does not require someone be guilty of the crime being investigated. Thats rightwinglandia fodder

 

I completely agree that he should testify 100%

 

Thats NOT what he said. He said he was not allowed to indict him. Don’t make this something it is not.

 

“Failed coup”. FFS thats beyond ridiculous because it completely ignores what the investigation WAS, and why it was started. Understand one thing, and one thing only, and this “failed coup atttempt” talking point goes out the window. This was NOT in investigation of the Trump campiagn, this WAS an investigation into why the Russians meddled in our election.

Trump was only investigated AFTER he was elected and fired Comey. And Mueller’s charge was not to investigate Trump as the appointment letter clearly states. He was to investigate Russian interference, and was allowed to investigate the Trump campaign if thats where the investigation went.

 

He did ?

He clearly spelled out 10 instances of obstruction. And he also clearly said that he wasn’t allowed to indict him, and that was congress job.

Why do you guys always leave that part out ?

 

Notice how Mueller qualified these remarks with the word "possible" obstruction of justice. An important word you left out of your post.
The American people first deserved to hear the results of the original investigation. Did our president conspire with Russia to win the election? Yes or no? Mueller glossed that over and instead concentrated on "possible" obstruction charges in the investigation he avoided giving any definitive answer too.
Now for his weak "possible" obstruction examples they are so weak he wouldn't even spell them out for the American people as he whined about the Attorney General recognizing how weak they were and summarily dismissing them .
Lets take your first pathetic example and look at it.

"He said Trump's attempt to interfere with the Flynn investigation was obstruction."



"This potential ‘obstruction charge’ stemmed from Comey’s ‘Trump memos’ he penned shortly after Trump was sworn into office.

President Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation into General Flynn. “Let General Flynn go Trump said to Comey, stating “he [Flynn] is a good guy.”

Comey gave this very memo to a friend to leak to the New York Times in order to prompt a special counsel investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice when he fired Comey as FBI Director.

AG Barr ruled that this is not obstruction"

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...e-proving-muellers-investigation-was-a-farce/

 

Ok, if you really wish to learn, I can help. Consider a really simple scenario.

Let us say that you have a video tape that can be used to identify a burglar. You do not want the police to see that the burglar is your friend and so you destroy the tape. Unknown to you, the police already had a copy of that exact same video tape. You are still guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice, even though you did not actually obstruct justice.

The reason that "actual obstruction" is not an element of the crime is because you would force prosecutors to prove two different crimes, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law. You would effectively require prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone obstructed a crime and that the prosecutors would have to prove that crime ALSO took place, beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Fastest revisionist history on record. Trump was accused of conspiring with Russia to get elected and democrats were saying this made his presidency invalid. That's what this investigation was about and the using of the game dossier to initiate spying on trump proved that.

 

He also covered why he would not make an accusation but not an indictment. Did you see or hear it? He did however carefully document Trump's infractions for future prosecution by either Congress or the courts.
The discussions over Russian interference were somewhat more acceptable because he said 2 things very clearly.
1- It was true Russia aided Trump.
2- There was not enough evidence to charge anyone with conspiracy. (a Hillary)

 

YES! And he explained that as has been explained here several times. So what is that explanation? Are you paying attention?

He did??? He devoted the first volume to it. ... And he published conclusions.

It's an attempt to obstruct justice. Barr was saying it didn't succeed; Trump wasn't able to actually get Comey to let Flynn go with that comment. Do you know that is irrelevant? It's still the crime of obstruction of justice.

 

No. Mueller would use it in a carefully scripted speech, to fuel Democrats rage and hate and hope. Mueller is a schmuck doing dog and pony show before an equally impressive assembly of schmucks.

But entertaining it is.

 

Do it again, Vladimir