Pam Bondi DROPS A MOAB ON Joe Biden and Son Hunter Biden at Senate Impeachment Trial

Yep, I agree he didn’t get the information he needed to conclude there was a crime.

 

Reading the lengthy report is far different than the statements made by Mueller & Barr. The report clearly details Trump's guilt...which is why Mueller said "my testimony is my report."

 

He had enough to implicate Trump per the very detailed report...but he didn't want to get involved with charging a sitting president...so he handed it off to congress to hopefully impeach him.

 

Mueller: "...the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing"

Mueller was after federal crimes...not political "high crimes & misdemeanors"...so that's why he didn't want to make a public announcement that he felt Trump was guilty or to further pursue the case against Trump. Trump was a sitting president. He felt congress should take the next step.

 

He didn’t though. He specifically cleared him and the campaign of any conspiracy with Russia and did not conclude a crime was committed. The House then reviewed, left by Shifty and decide there wasn’t enough to impeach on.

I know you were hopefully...so were many dems...but ah just wasn’t there

 

Mueller made no finding of guilt.

The report was quite clear on that.

 

When did Mueller ever say he "cleared" Trump? He said he could NOT exonerate Trump.

The House impeachment was never about the Russia probe. It was about the Ukraine scandal.

 

You're saying that Mueller is corrupt.

 

"The House impeachment was never about the Russia probe..."

Duh... Why is that?

 

In Vol 1 he cleared him and the campaign. Of any conspiracy with Russia

correct, the House didn’t impeach based on mueller and their own investigation in the Russian conspiracy hoax.

 

Not corrupt...reluctant, because he is (was) an FBI man who pursued federal crimes/criminals/statutory violations. Trump's case was more a political corruption issue, which Mueller didn't want to pursue further after Trump became president. It was a "constitutional" issue that he felt would be best pursued through constitutional means...not a true federal criminal case for the FBI to pursue. The Russia probe was also part of a counterintelligence operation which many may not know.

 

Jerry Nadler: "Did you actually totally exonerate the president?"
Mueller: "No."

Buck: "Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?"
Mueller: "Yes."
Buck: "You believe that he committed—you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?"
Mueller: "Yes."

Doesn't get any more clear than that.

Plus, the report did list at least 10 counts of obstruction of justice.

The House was hoping for more cooperation and a decisive conclusion from Mueller, but Mueller refused to make a public determination on Trump's guilt. They would also have to conduct impeachment against Barr's whitewash "summary" of the report, which Mueller denounced as not true to the character of the report (ie, Barr lied).

The Media Missed Mueller’s Clear Case for Impeaching Trump

Some Republican lawmakers criticized Mueller for this phrasing, arguing that it inverted the presumption of innocence. They argued that if he couldn’t bring charges against the president, he shouldn’t have released his findings on the matter. That misunderstands the unique legal situation in which Mueller found himself. In the report, Mueller explained that he still investigated whether the president obstructed justice “in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.” The unspoken rationale was that such evidence could be used to prosecute Trump after he leaves office or impeach him now. [LINK]

 

Yes, corrupt.

You're saying that he went beyond his authority. You're saying that he schemed to subvert his chain of command in pursuit of his personal agenda.

You're saying that he intentionally produced a document in which he couldn't prove an offence, but he could imply one. Thus leading others, who don't have to follow our exacting rules of evidence, to pick up and follow his agenda.

Yes, you're saying that he's corrupt.

 

I'm aware of Mueller's correction, but he was just trying to remain as impartial as possible by reiterating he hadn't made a determination on Trump's innocence/guilt. Still, he wouldn't have affirmed the OLC question unless it were true (it wasn't any mere slip of the tongue)...so we do have that on record.

The way it looks to me (and to others from articles I've read) is that Mueller didn't want to color or imprint his bias upon any conclusion about Trump because he really did want Congress to take the reigns and proceed with impeachment. And, if they didn't, then at least Trump can still be charged after leaving office. Either way, Mueller didn't want to push his personal opinion on the matter of Trump's guilt...although it was made quite clear in my opinion.

 

I believe YOU are saying he is corrupt. And, being a Trump follower, of course you would.

 

You can hope all you want, the evidence is in, heck the House has it...there is nothing there

 

I'm guessing the House would've pursued impeachment per the Mueller evidence had that been Trump's only accusation. But Trump is a one-man non-stop crime wave. So the House could literally pick and choose among dozens of violations of office to impeach him on. The emoluments violations alone would've been another strong one to add, which I wish they did...but they felt it was unnecessary I guess. They had enough obviously...but the sham Senate betrayed the people by not allowing evidence to be presented.

 

You must an Alinsky adherent.

 

Hahaha yeah

 

Um...no. I had to look up the name just to see who you were talking about. I found a "Saul Alinsky". Is that who you mean? If so, why do you think I follow him/his views? I don't understand.

 

That is a reference to a tactic often attributed to Alinsky, although I don't know if it's a fact. It is a tactic regularly used by leftists. It was widely used by and during the Clinton administration.

Anyway wherever it comes from, the tactic is: 'Accuse your opponent of what you are doing.'

I tagged your post with it because, while from the beginning, I believed the RUSSIA! collusion hoax was a hoax, I hadn't taken the next step of thinking of Mueller as corrupt. The first post you made, that I replied to, convinced me to make that step.

I explained the logical steps in my reply.

That brings us back to the Alinsky reference. As your post outlines Mueller's corruption, I made note of that. Then, as you stated that the idea, which was in your post, was mine; the rule (Alinsky's, or not) applies.

I admit the whole line of thought is a stretch, and may have been inspired by mind altering substances, but that's the story.