Barr, in his testimony to the Senate panel, said that the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion came up in his March 5 meeting with Mueller: "Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying, but-for the OLC opinion, he would've found obstruction,"...
Access Denied
Zimmer note: Access not denied. Dive in Leftists... and learn.
For the TDS Leftists...
Is the job of the FBI or Robert Mullah to exonerate?
No. it’s to press charges or not. Mullah didn’t, and when asked if he would by Barr... THREE TIMES...
It’s fun watching Leftists lose their minds. Two-years of Leftists being misinformed, and now this A-bomb from Mullah.
ROTFLOL.
Now to declassify all the gunk, and rifle a few A-bomb styled torpedos into the Corrupt Leftist Cabal... the party and their Propagandists.
Fun to watch the RW melt down and run from what he actually said, which was damning.
"If we had confidence that (Trump) did not commit a crime, we would’ve said so...Under longstanding DOJ policy, a POTUS cannot be charged w/a federal crime while he's in office. Charging (Trump) w/a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."
Game. Set. Match.
For the TDS Leftists...
Is the job of the FBI or Robert Mullah to exonerate?
No. it’s to press charges or not. Mullah didn’t, and when asked if he would by Barr... THREE TIMES...
It’s fun watching Leftists lose their minds. Two-years of Leftists being misinformed, and now this A-bomb from Mullah.
ROTFLOL.
Now to declassify all the gunk, and rifle a few A-bomb styled torpedos into the Corrupt Leftist Cabal... the party and their Propagandists.
Fun to watch the RW melt down and run from what he actually said, which was damning.
"If we had confidence that (Trump) did not commit a crime, we would’ve said so...Under longstanding DOJ policy, a POTUS cannot be charged w/a federal crime while he's in office. Charging (Trump) w/a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."
Game. Set. Match.
Basically, he was telling the Dems that yeah, they can run with his stuff, but it will all be political...not judicial.
I really do wish the Dems would run with it. Impeach now.
For the TDS Leftists...
Is the job of the FBI or Robert Mullah to exonerate?
No. it’s to press charges or not. Mullah didn’t, and when asked if he would by Barr... THREE TIMES...
It’s fun watching Leftists lose their minds. Two-years of Leftists being misinformed, and now this A-bomb from Mullah.
ROTFLOL.
Now to declassify all the gunk, and rifle a few A-bomb styled torpedos into the Corrupt Leftist Cabal... the party and their Propagandists.
Oh, I'm pretty sure they're getting very close.
Mueller's statement was essentially about violation of the most critical duty a POTUS has: to take strive to faithfullly execute the laws.
This is about fitness for office and impeachment. That's why he wrote it like he wrote it and he expects Congress to run with it, given the ample evidence he provided for them.
Oh, I'm pretty sure they're getting very close.
Mueller's statement was essentially about violation of the most critical duty a POTUS has: to take strive to faithfullly execute the laws.
This is about fitness for office and impeachment. That's why he wrote it like he wrote it and he expects Congress to run with it, given the ample evidence he provided for them.
I'm confused -- what was the point of the investigation then? If there could be nothing done if he did commit a crime, why were they trying to find a crime? And if they did find evidence of a crime, but can't indict him while he's President - is Mueller holding back evidence for when Trump's NOT president anymore?
You are aware that they will fail, right?
Or, maybe you hope the Dems fail? Nancy will lose her Speakership if she impeaches.
But based on what? What evidence is there for impeachment? Is he holding back evidence?
Sigh. So you haven't actually read the report? The report clearly shows multiple instance of criminal obstruction on the part the POTUS, amongst other things.
He gave all the evidence that was necessary to congress in the report. His statements are pretty much, "And now over to you, Nancy".
Oh, I'm pretty sure they're getting very close.
Mueller's statement was essentially about violation of the most critical duty a POTUS has: to take strive to faithfullly execute the laws.
This is about fitness for office and impeachment. That's why he wrote it like he wrote it and he expects Congress to run with it, given the ample evidence he provided for them.
I see. So the investigation was never about finding a crime, but finding a way to impeach Trump.
It will be interesting, that's for sure. Do you think the Dems will go ahead with it? Should they?
and when Durham comes out with his indictments and proves it was a complete frame up job...dems know what's coming down the pike.
Does mueller believe Trump acted alone?Fun to watch the RW melt down and run from what he actually said, which was damning.
"If we had confidence that (Trump) did not commit a crime, we would’ve said so...Under longstanding DOJ policy, a POTUS cannot be charged w/a federal crime while he's in office. Charging (Trump) w/a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."
Game. Set. Match.
Please cling to your fantasy narrative about that. Cling TIGHTLY!
No, impeachment hearings wouldn't 'fail'. They would include hours and hours of testimony attesting to the crimes that twump committed and those he ordered his underlings to commit, thus exposing them to the US electorate in an up close and personal way, since hardly anyone has read the report.
The senate is utterly irrelevant to that.
No, it was about investigating Russian interference into our elections and it turned up evidence of actual crimes on the part of twump.
It was never about 'finding a way to impeach him'.
Yes, I think the dems will go ahead with it and, yes, I think they should.
I'm confused -- what was the point of the investigation then? If there could be nothing done if he did commit a crime, why were they trying to find a crime? And if they did find evidence of a crime, but can't indict him while he's President - is Mueller holding back evidence for when Trump's NOT president anymore?
No, impeachment hearings wouldn't 'fail'. They would include hours and hours of testimony attesting to the crimes that twump committed and those he ordered his underlings to commit, thus exposing them to the US electorate in an up close and personal way, since hardly anyone has read the report.
The senate is utterly irrelevant to that.
So...there you go. I just wish Nancy was as honest about this as you are.
It's all about making Trump look bad. It's all about the electorate. It's all about 2020.
The thing is, though, nothing the Dems can reveal in impeachment proceedings is new. The media has already splashed the whole thing to the public. I mean, seriously, do you really think people who haven't been paying attention already are going to pay more attention just because the media reports on the House repeating stuff we already know?
Yup. :mrgreen:Fun to watch the RW melt down and run from what he actually said, which was damning.
"If we had confidence that (Trump) did not commit a crime, we would’ve said so...Under longstanding DOJ policy, a POTUS cannot be charged w/a federal crime while he's in office. Charging (Trump) w/a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."
Game. Set. Match.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?