Mueller testified: "We did not reach a determination that Trump committed a Crime" - Politics Discussion

[–] chilone (17472) 5 years ago

As you know, with Trump it's guilty till proven innocent. Then when he's proven innocent, he's still guilty. He could cure cancer and the dems would complain that he's putting doctors out of work.

reply

[–] BigWorm (683) 5 years ago

What shit are you smoking? Trump is being protected from prosecution because hes the president. Having immunity doesnt mean a crime wasnt committed.

reply

[–] chilone (17472) 5 years ago

What shit are you smoking? You're clearly wrong. See how that works?

reply

[–] BigWorm (683) 5 years ago

"Okay. But the -- could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?"

"Yes!" answered Mueller

"You believe that he committed -- you could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office? ", asked Buck who was stunned by the answer and needed clarification.

"Yes!" reaffirmed Mueller.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) then asked Mueller:

"The reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting President, correct?"

Answered Mueller, "That is correct."

reply

[–] chilone (17472) 5 years ago

So he said if a crime was committed, a president can be charged after he leaves office. How is that a revelation?

reply

[–] BigWorm (683) 5 years ago

where do you see the “if” in what I posted? Read the transcript yourself, or watch the thing. You don’t have to take my word for it. Trump attempted to obstruct. That’s a crime. A sitting president can not be charged. Ergo, he can be charged once he leaves office.

reply

[–] chilone (17472) 5 years ago

You might want to read about Mueller walking that back.

California Rep. Ted Lieu had asked Mueller if the Office of Legal Counsel guidance against indicting a sitting president was the reason he didn't indict Trump. Mueller said that was "correct" at first. He later clarified, stating, "As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime."

reply

[–] BigWorm (683) 5 years ago

Bass: "The president told the White House staff secretary, Rob Porter, to try to pressure [Don] McGahn to make a false denial. Is that correct?"

Mueller: "That's correct."

Is that enough? Maybe, maybe not. But its an attempt an obstruction, no?

Also; https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1154039882278305793

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

That ABC video was posted before Mueller's afternoon retraction completely crushed the way it was being interpreted.

Do you care at all about the truth?

None of that other garbage in the Weissmann report comes close to proving Trump lied about anything or tried to get McGahn or anyone else to lie, as opposed to two people having a difference of interpretation of a past conversation. Trump's was probably right since as president he could have fired Mueller at any time but didn't. Even if he had that wouldn't have been obstruction of justice either, btw.

If you honestly cared about obstruction of justice you'd be demanding that Clinton be indicted.

reply

[–] BigWorm (683) 5 years ago

Demings: "Lies by Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation."

Mueller: "I would generally agree with that."

reply

[–] chilone (17472) 5 years ago

No charges filed and no charges will be filed. Get over it.

reply

[–] BigWorm (683) 5 years ago

lol and there was me thinking you were actually interested in the truth. But, hey. If youre OK with russia fixing the election thats up to you. I wonder though, would you feel the same way if it was hilary they had backed?

reply

[–] chilone (17472) 5 years ago

Your version of the truth. Do you honestly think ANY of us will actually ever know "the truth" about all the political (and worse) crimes in our great nation?

Washington and corruption walk hand in hand.

reply

[–] BigWorm (683) 5 years ago

Indeed, and this is as clear an example of it as you will ever see.

reply

[–] chilone (17472) 5 years ago

Nah. There have been and will be bigger but I fear we'll never know about the most heinous.

reply

[–] BigWorm (683) 5 years ago

So you agree. Cool. You’re right though, this is nothing compared to what I’m sure goes on away from prying eyes. It’s like that whole thing with Weinstein. We all knew that there was predatory producers in the industry, we all saw tv and movies tell stories about such things yet everyone was still so shocked when it all came out. Same thing with saville in the uk. Everyone “knew” it was going on, yet once again everyone acted surprised when it all came out.

Trump will turn out to be everything that people say he is as well. Smoke, fire and all that jazz.

reply

[–] chilone (17472) 5 years ago

And just like the Clintons, Obamas, etc. I agree that there are no perfect politicians (or anyone else). Trump is less flawed than some and more flawed than some, just like who preceded him was and whoever succeeds him will be. The division will never end.

reply

[–] BigWorm (683) 5 years ago

See, you’re expecting me to disagree. I hope you aren’t too disappointed when I don’t. 😊

reply

[–] chilone (17472) 5 years ago

Not at all. Only someone who's completely deluded would disagree. My post wasn't a challenge. Just the world we live in. All of us.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

If youre OK with russia fixing the election

Now they supposedly fixed the election? LOL! Source? Evidence?

reply

[–] BigWorm (683) 5 years ago

https://twitter.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1154095914258243591

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Did you not watch the afternoon hearing where Mueller went out of his way to retract that? The Buck answer was a hypothetical generalization about any president (even Obama could be tried if the shoe falls on the real abuse of power and it leads all the way to him) and Mueller apparently misunderstood the Lieu question. Let's face it, Mueller was barely following what was being said throughout the hearing. His specific clarification later is more relevant, especially when Republican Ratcliffe pushed him further:

RATCLIFFE: I want to ask you about it so that the record’s perfectly clear. I recorded that he asked you, quote, “The reason you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president,” to which you responded, “That is correct.” That response is inconsistent. I think you’ll agree with your written report.

I want to be clear that it is not your intent to change your written report. It is your intent to clarify the record today .

MUELLER: Well, as I started today, this afternoon, and added either a footnote or an endnote, what I wanted to clarify is the fact that we did not make any determination with regard to culpability in any way. We did not start that process down - down the road.

RATCLIFFE: Terrific. Thank you for clarifying the record.

He explicitly said they didn't even start down that road of concluding guilt on obstruction. No sane, honest legal expert believes there's remotely a case that Trump committed obstruction of justice anyway.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7623) 5 years ago

He should have been in jail with his fixer Michael Cohen a long time ago

reply

[–] Wuchak (8329) 5 years ago

What part of "We did not reach a determination that Trump committed a Crime" don't you grasp? The whole witch hunt was set-up by Dems/Libs and Mueller & his (pro-Dem) team failed to find evidence that Trump & Co. committed a crime. Spit out the Leftie Kool-Aid

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7623) 5 years ago

He signed the checks dildo!

reply

[–] chilone (17472) 5 years ago

Do you even know, in your brilliant reply, you said the name in the signature field on the check says "dildo"?

You're clearly the byproduct of the democrat run education system.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7623) 5 years ago

Lol!

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 5 years ago

He is guilty enough to say impeach if you have a progressive running against you.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

We did not reach a determination means that they didn't come to a conclusion either way.

Mueller made this clear when he also said that Trump was NOT exonerated.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8329) 5 years ago

It wasn't his job to exonerate him in the first place. His job was to investigate and prove a crime, if he could. He could't prove a crime by his own testimony. And, guess what? In America people are innocent until proven guilty.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

He said they didn't reach a determination either way, which is kind of ridiculous but that's Mueller.

If you read the report, you'll find several instances of Trump lying, instructing people to lie, and encouraging the Russians to attack the Democrats. That's enough for impeachment, whatever Mueller said about his conclusions.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8329) 5 years ago

We are all still waiting for that certain evidence #BullSchiff repeatedly told the world he had seen but strangely no one else has. Why? Because he's #FullOfSchiff.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

"encouraging the Russians to attack the Democrats"

You mean by that public joke he told in a speech on national tv that everyone saw? LOL! "Attack"? He made a satirical point about how corrupt the Democrats and leftist media were and how it'd be nice if Clinton's hidden email evidence was finally found. A subjective statement prioritizing the public knowing the truth over how it gets revealed, especially when the latter was mostly a diversionary scandal involving alleged Russians (which still hasn't even been proved) is not a crime in any way, shape, or form. Trump was even a private citizen then.

Peter Fonda tweeting out that they should kidnap Trump's 11 year old son, put him in a cage, and feed him to pedophiles,........that's a crime. And yet there were no consequences. I don't even think his account was suspended. Prominent leftists come far closer to committing crimes with public statements on a daily basis than Trump's comments did.

Talking points like that one make it hard for people to take Democrats seriously. They lose credibility. As for the alleged "lies", I haven't been impressed by those either. Organizing a defense isn't lying, and it's certainly not illegal. That's aside from the issue of proof in he said/he said situations.

Impeachment is dead, and there's nothing at this point to indict Trump for after he leaves office either. If there's any justice Democrats will be too busy on defense in the coming months anyway as the real traitors are nailed.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Right, he was just joking. Meanwhile the Russians were in the middle of a very real attempt to sabotage and influence our election. That was no joke.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

His sarcasm was obvious and even followed him casting doubt on whether the Russians had really hacked the DNC. The statement was logically structured as sarcasm. I and many others watching laughed when we saw him crack the joke. It was also a way for him to pivot the discussion back to Clinton's missing 30,000 emails.

Russia had no impact on our election. Even Wikileaks didn't, though it should have. Only conservative blogs and FNC gave much coverage to what was in the emails. The 95% of the media with a leftist bias followed the Clinton campaign's strategy of deflecting to "Russia" whenever it came up. We should be having hearings over the rampant Democratic party and domestic media corruption and collusion exposed by Wikileaks. That's far more damaging to our democracy than anything Russia did.

Do you care about that at all?

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

QAnon follower spotted above.

"as the real traitors are nailed" = Delusional "Patriot"-speak.

Peter Fonda tweeting out that they should kidnap Trump's 11 year old son, put him in a cage, and feed him to pedophiles,........that's a crime.

No it's not, and thanks for proving you have no clue what crimes are, OR are too biased to care.

All the people from Trump's "team" who have gone to prison should tell you something.

But you already know that, which is why you post this kind of stuff. I clicked on your profile just now to prove that you are in fact just posting propaganda, and it's the main thrust of your krl97a account.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

You're the guy who followed me to another board a while back about a show you admitted you had never watched just to post an angry reply to me. You're creepy. You also don't know what "prove" means.

So you feel that Trump cracking a sarcastic joke about hacking and Clinton's missing 30,000 emails (she actually broke the law) is more illegal than a deranged partisan man posting this violent incitement to violence against a child in a public forum (sic):

"WE SHOULD RIP BARRON TRUMP FROM HIS MOTHER’S ARMS AND PUT HIM IN A CAGE WITH PEDOPHILES AND SEE IF MOTHER WILL STAND UP AGAINST THE GIANT ASSHOLE SHE IS MARRIED TO. 90 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE STREETS ON THE SAME WEEKEND IN THE COUNTRY. FUCK" - Peter Fonda on Twitter

Got it. I disagree, but I respect your freedom to be stupid.

As for Trump's team, not one is in "prison" or under indictment for conspiring with Russia in the 2016 election. The few convictions are garbage process crimes (e.g. someone remembering a months old conversation the wrong way when ambushed and questioned under duress without a lawyer present) or old stuff not previously deemed worth prosecuting (e.g. fudging some on bank loan applications like lots of people do). An unscrupulous special counsel like Mueller will do anything to put some skins on the wall to justify his office.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

"You're the guy who followed me to another board a while back"

This is one site. There are no divisions. That's why the posting history for every user is open to all and clickable. DUHHH

"You also don't know what "prove" means."

Best way to make a point: State it and don't explain it. That literally makes the opposite point. THANK YOU LOL. You betray yourself.

"So you feel that Trump cracking a sarcastic joke about hacking... is more illegal"

Trump's joke is not illegal as far as I know and I've never claimed it was.

"than a deranged partisan man posting this violent incitement"

I agree, Fonda's rant was horrific and he should be ashamed.

Not illegal though.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

"This is one site. There are no divisions. That's why the posting history for every user is open to all and clickable. DUHHH"

And your personal obsession with me is creepy, following me around (sometimes to other boards) and posting that bizarre "QAnon" crap as a lame ad hominem diversion, along with increasingly angry and incoherent screeds instead of just having a rational, even civil substantive discussion. I didn't say anything about how the site works. I know how it works. I was a regular on IMDB for years. The layout isn't mutually exclusive with some people abusing it to be stalkers or engage in other sorts of unsavory activity.

Me: "You also don't know what "prove" means."
You: "Best way to make a point: State it and don't explain it. That literally makes the opposite point. THANK YOU LOL. You betray yourself."

Wrong. One clue is the quotes. You only used "prove" once in your post, when you claimed that you clicked on my profile just now (apparently a habit for you) "to prove" that' I'm "in fact just posting propaganda" without supporting your claim with a single example or bit of....proof.

"Trump's joke is not illegal as far as I know and I've never claimed it was."

Then your interjection into this exchange was unwisely one sided.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8329) 5 years ago

There is no such thing as exonerating as a prosecutor. You prove guilt. If you cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then the person is presumed innocent. Period.

As far as "obstruction" goes, how do you obstruct a phony crime that never happened? IF there was a crime, Mueller & team had over 2 years to find evidence to prove it, which he couldn't do.

As far as lying goes, why wasn't Obama impeached for his many blatant lies. For instance, he lied almost daily about his health care proposal, promising, “If you like your health care plan you can keep it.” Others: " I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage . . . "; the Benghazi attack was supposedly a "spontaneous reaction to a video"; there's "not a smidgen" of corruption with the IRS targeting conservatives; and all the whoppers he told to support / garner support / sway public opinion / fool people with respect to the absurd Iran deal.

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11342) 5 years ago

Nailed it.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

Investigations precede charges and see what further investigation is necessary post-charging, when the power of the courts allows a deeper look.

Thus, Mueller's job was not to determine criminal actions, but simply to advise on further investigation.

reply

[–] SnagsWolf (1172) 5 years ago

Thus, Mueller's job was not to determine criminal actions, but simply to advise on further investigation.

That's hilarious. For almost two years we heard from all you idiots how Mueller was going to lock up Trump for collusion. Now when he doesn't, you back peddle to this inane claim. Of course his job was to determine criminal actions. How can you say something so stupid?

reply

[–] Keelai (33093) 5 years ago

Willful ignorance on the OP's part who obviously did not read the Mueller report. Many of Trump's cohorts are in prison now which is where Trump will join them after he leaves office.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 5 years ago

Well no since he didn't do anything. But even a chance at finding a puppet president after Donald wins again,then Nikki in 8 years as president. That is far past the statue of limitations for crime to get to trial.

reply

[–] Keelai (33093) 5 years ago

Trump must have known he committed criminal behavior since he obstructed justice at least ten times which is detailed in the Mueller Report. He's going to have the distinction of being the first American president to go to prison.

reply

[–] elcamino (15540) 5 years ago

Who was the judge that said he obstructed justice?

reply

[–] Keelai (33093) 5 years ago

Willful ignorance on your part or are you really ignorant?

reply

[–] JoWilli (17197) 5 years ago

no collusion delusion...

reply

[–] Keelai (33093) 5 years ago

If you read the report then you would know Mueller never looked for collusion since it doesn't legally exists. Plenty of obstruction though.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

If you read the report you'd know that they cleared Trump of both conspiracy and coordination, defining the latter as any agreement, tacit or express, with Russia. That more than covers any definition of "collusion" one might come up with, meaning they cleared Trump of collusion.

They also didn't make a determination on "obstruction", because they're a bunch of anti-Trump political hacks, but they didn't find any so Barr and Rosenstein cleared Trump of that.

reply

[–] Keelai (33093) 5 years ago

Rubbish! I suggest you read the report instead of watching Fox propaganda.

How do you feel about China buying wheat and soybeans from Russia instead of American farmers who are filing for bankruptcies in large numbers because of Trump's tariff war? Why is Trump helping Russia's economy?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-agriculture/china-approves-wheat-soy-imports-from-russia-idUSKCN1UL275

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-07/china-turns-to-russia-in-search-to-replace-u-s-soybeans

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

LOL, I've read the report. I suggest you do so instead of trying to change the subject. Here, I'll help you:

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." - Vol. 1 p. 2

reply

[–] Keelai (33093) 5 years ago

President can be charged with obstruction of justice once he leaves office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNRjTd9AH68

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

He was just saying hypothetically any president could be indicted after leaving office, including Obama, Clinton, etc.. He was not saying Trump would or should be indicted, as he made clear in his later clarifications. Ridiculous leading questioning by Lieu, Nadler, and other Democrats in the morning sometimes confused Mueller and your video, with his 50 or so "uhs" and stammering for words was pathetic. Here after the recess he gets very clear on the matter with his prepared statement and under questioning by Republican Ratcliffe.

https://youtu.be/UzSAbfKHW8I?t=266
https://youtu.be/rLmpAbr6h5c?t=64

None of the supposed "potential" bad behavior by Trump (a sleazy phrasing that just means Weissmann and his comrades don't have to defend or prove any of it) is illegal, as Rosenstein, Barr, and every sane legal scholar to comment has stated. The angry Democrats' failure to find any actual obstruction of justice or even claim that Trump committed obstruction of justice exonerates the president on that score too.

reply

[–] Keelai (33093) 5 years ago

You're deflecting.

Obstruction charges will be filed once Trump leaves office instead of while he's a sitting president. And yes, there is enough evidence to charge him. Read the report!

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

I literally addressed your claim head on, which is the opposite of "deflecting", lol. Contrary to your earlier implication, Mueller certainly didn't say charges would or should be filed against Trump ever. No one but the most unscrupulous, deranged partisan Democrat hacks have suggested that.

You should read the report. Or watch the hearing. Start with the videos I helpfully linked for you.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Did not reach a determination means they didn't come to a conclusion either way.

reply

[–] Keelai (33093) 5 years ago

No, it means that a sitting president can't be charged with a crime therefore they'll wait until he leaves office to indict him.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12975) 5 years ago

What was really pathetic, was that it was clear that Mueller wasn't really heavily involved in the investigation. He didn't even know what was written in his own report! He apparently had been set up as a mascot for this entire biased "investigation," while others did the work and the writing.

It was worth hearing the Democrap's biggest scheme to dethrone Trump fizzle out and die.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8329) 5 years ago

One of the reasons they chose him was because he conveniently has an 'R' by his name. That way they could say the investigation -- witch hunt -- was unbiased and legitimate.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12975) 5 years ago

Trouble is, we know for a fact he didn't like Trump, and was still biased.

reply

[–] Keelai (33093) 5 years ago

Nonsense! Trump is a crook in bed with Russia which helped him win the election.

reply