The Mueller Report

[JimL]

Starr named crimes Clinton committed. What listed crimes did Trump commit?

He investigated, and left the evidence for congress to decide. Did any of you actually listen to the Mueller press conference. It seems not!

[Cow Poke]

Doll face, you've been ranting about it for 2 years.

Well, I suppose a drama queen would see my statements as rants.

I said possible treason, which, yes, I realize is not treason in the legal sense,

Ah, the back peddle begins!!!!

but conspiring with a foriegn adversary is treason in my book. And obstruction, for which there is plenty of evidence, points to conspiracy.

In your book? You mean this one?

everyone poops.jpeg

[lilpixieofterror]

Interesting how you still want to rant about candidate Hillary's emails, but don't concern yourself with the possible treason and obstruction by the President of the U.S.

[lilpixieofterror]

He investigated, and left the evidence for congress to decide. Did any of you actually listen to the Mueller press conference. It seems not!

[Mountain Man]

Mueller made it clear that he didn't indict, because it was both unconstitutional and a violation of DOJ policy.

That's not actually what he said. First he laid out Department of Justice policy, then he went on to say that there was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion that the President broke any laws. When you look at his words carefully, the two statements stand on their own. One statement has no connection to the other, but he worded it in such a way to allow low-information folks such as yourself to reach that conclusion anyway. The dirty cop is slippery, I'll grant him that.

[firstfloor]

Amash is putting other Republicans to shame. Well done that man.

[Cow Poke]

Amash is putting other Republicans to shame. Well done that man.

I think he's sweet on Rachel.

[Cow Poke]

For anybody who cares, HERE is a transcript of his speech.

[firstfloor]

For anybody who cares, HERE is a transcript of his speech.

[Mountain Man]

We have read the Mueller report, and we know the same thing now that we knew the day it was released: there's no there there.

In his statement today, Mueller said, "It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge," which is bull, and he knows it. The procedure, of course, is 1) The special counsel presents a clear case of criminal wrongdoing; 2) Congress uses that case to remove the president from office so that can be held accountable; 3) The former president is formally indicted and his case is tried in court.

Again, the legal precedent for this is Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton where he unambiguously said which crimes Clinton had committed, and the evidence to support the allegations. Mueller's report, in contrast, is extraordinarily vague and wishy-washy for what's supposed to be a legal brief.

By Mueller declining to clearly spell out evidence for a crime, he is attempting to establish a scenario where a president is removed from office but never charged with a crime, which is shady business.

[Mountain Man]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...g-impeachment/

[JimL]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...g-impeachment/

We all knew that Dershowitz, a friend of the President, was a biased hack long ago. The above makes it perfectly clear. He knows better!

[Mountain Man]

1) Dershowitz is no fan of Trump.
2) You're spouting off a genetic fallacy.

[One Bad Pig]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...g-impeachment/

It's been observed here and elsewhere that if Democrats institute impeachment proceedings, it's rather more likely to hurt than help them - which is why San Fran Nan has been trying to avoid doing so, in spite of her back benchers' vociferous support for doing just that.

[Cow Poke]

It's been observed here and elsewhere that if Democrats institute impeachment proceedings, it's rather more likely to hurt than help them - which is why San Fran Nan has been trying to avoid doing so, in spite of her back benchers' vociferous support for doing just that.

Yeah, I think Trump would LOVE impeachment proceedings to begin -- it would fire up his base.