Adam Schiff rejects reports that Mueller indictments are over, says special counsel could be called

That's too easy - especially when you don't even identify the hoax - who is perpetrating it, how that conspiracy is maintained, etc.

 

I understand completely and Mueller had two of them in before which the witnesses he called and those under investigation testified. And no evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice Barr couldn't be more clearer.

NO FURTHER INDICTMENTS.

YOU do not understand grand juries. Grand juries rule supreme and tell prosecutors what to do like we the people of the United States indict and order the prosecution of Mr. X. Prosecutors don't go to grand juries unless they are seeking to go to trial against someone, or at least they aren't supposed to. They don't go so the grand jury can refuse to prosecute.

NO FURTHER INDICTMENTS.

 

Who said no evidence of crimes was found?

Barr certainly did not say that.

 

Mueller had "two of them"? Two of what?

Barr said something about Trump and the one issue of coordination with Russia in the presidential campaign.

There is no reason to believe that there weren't other crimes found - even crimes involving Trump.

Barr didn't comment on that as far as I can tell. Let me know if you can quote something different.

 

It is easy. It was blatantly obvious.

You know it's a hoax.

Bwaahahahahaaa!

 

He had two of WHO in WHERE?

You're totally missing the role of the grand jury, why they are selected, what they are presented, who does the presenting, etc.

BTW, we don't even necessarily know who went before a grand jury.

 

Geezzzz Mueller had two grand juries he was using one in Virginia and one in DC. We have very good ideas of who went and how many. And BTW grand juries aren't "selected" they are impaneled and if a prosecutor needs one he uses the one that is empanelled at the time.

 

Haahahahahaaa!

Your hoax crashed and burned.

 

Your hoax failed.

Go ahead. Hang your hat on hopes of other crimes.

The bottom line is that your hoax failed.

Haaahahahahaaa!

 

If he found evidence of a crime his duty is to prosecute it or inform the AG the reason for the declination. It wouldn't be a secret. On his two mandates he found no crimes, what don't you understand?

 

The catch is that Mueller wasn't chartered to prosecute all the crimes he found.

His charter was to investigate the connection between the Trump candidacy and Russia.

He was ALLOWED to prosecute cases of crimes he uncovered along the way, but he wasn't required to. It was only a tool that he was ALLOWED to use.

And, grand juries are NOT given review of all possible crimes - they review what prosecutors want them to review.

Also, it is KNOWN that not all grand jury reviews conducted by Mueller's team returned results that motivated prosecution. In fact, it is known that we don't know what WAS reviewed by grand juries - outside of charges actually brought.

In the end, there is absolutely NO indication that all crimes found by Mueller have been prosecuted - or even just reviewed by a grand jury.

 

You can't even identify a hoax.

And, you certainly can't identify one that had anything to do with me.

Let's remember that this particular investigation was ENTIRELY a Republican operation.

Republicans chose to HAVE a special prosecutor, chose a Republican special prosecutor, and this Republican administration did the oversight.

Now, you want to blame ME for something????

 

and another one refusing to accept the Mueller decision. This gets so tired and old.

 

False.

He was only ALLOWED to prosecute if he felt it was necessary and appropriate for him to do so. Mueller was known to see that as intended - a limitation in that he would not prosecute if it weren't both necessary and appropriate in his conduct of the investigation.

And, he HAS done his duty by turning over his results to the AG - who can now prosecute stuff Mueller found, if anything.

Two mandates? There was only one order to Mueller - Order No. 3915-2017.

 

Yes - it's hard to believe that people still don't seem to get what Barr said.

It seemed pretty clear.

 

I usually don't read your posts, but I saw this one:

"BTW: We know very little at this point. For example, Barr's statement does not rule out that there WAS illegal cooperation with Russia, but that it couldn't be tied directly to Trump."

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ould-be-called.552926/page-20#post-1070374445

What part of "...the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts..." are you having difficulty with?

What part of no American has been charged with "collusion" are you having difficulty with?

Your hoax failed.

Haaahahahahaaa!

 

Well, we'll see exactly what Barr meant when we see the Mueller material, obviously. By "associated", would you include Steele? Would you include Assange? I wouldn't. I think there are operators around who Trump could rightfully deny any association who could have played a role in what absolutely WAS an assault on our democracy by Russia.

My point is that we do not know what Mueller found yet - other than that Barr is convinced that Mueller didn't find that Trump conspired with Russia.

I'm glad to hear that, of course.

But, we ALL still need to see the Mueller material.

 

According to Barr, no more indictments, as a result of Mueller's investigation, are forthcoming. No American has been charged with "collusion". No American will be charged. No one tied to Trump has been charged with "collusion". No one tied to Trump will be charged.

Steele is neither American nor tied to Trump.

Assange is neither American nor tied to Trump.

 

Schiff reminds of a biblical verse:

"As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly." - Proverbs 26:11

 

You just made that up and in one sentence, you literally confirmed what the entire Russia hoax narrative was about all along. Just people making stuff up and the #MSM parroting it 24/7.

I guess some people will never except the Mueller report or it's conclusions.

 

Hey, Barr can refuse to prosecute anyone he wants to refuse to prosecute. Or, he can say those he prosecutes weren't because of Mueller's investigation.

You're pretty fixated on the "collusion" thing, but there is no law against "collusion" anyway, so no surprise there.

I'M the one who said Steele and Assange wouldn't be considered associated with the campaign, remember???

We're not going to know the full story until we see ....

... the Mueller investigation!

 

No, I just pointed out what "associated" should mean.

How can anyone accept (or "except"?) the Mueller report without having seen ...
... the Mueller report?

 

The bottom line is that your hoax failed.

Haaahahahahaaa!

 

I don't think shifty Schiff wants to do that because Republicans will also get to question Mueller like on why he didn't look into the Clinton Russian collusion with her paid for dossier

 

I didn't have any hoax.

You haven't been able to describe any hoax - let alone suggest I'm part of it.