Another FBI and/or Obama "Deep State" screw-up?

[detltu]

Not saying that he has been proven. Can’t say it is proven until Trump has had a chance to offer any evidence he has to rebut the case that has been laid out in the Mueller report. But the bottom line is that there is sufficient evidence to impeach/indict, but if the Republicans aren’t willing to hold him accountable, impeaching Trump would only be doing him a favor.

Not according to a majority of the house, a majority of the senate, and a majority of the nation (based on polling). Your buddies are in control. if they feel there is enough to impeach they should just go ahead and do it. They already have one republican on board. Lay out the facts as they see them. Shift the public opinion on the matter. Heck, they could even say afterwards they did their job and the republicans in the senate refused to do theirs (although if the senate doesn't indict you could argue the House didn't do their job either).

The bottom line is the evidence is shaky at best after two years of investigation.

[Guisslapp]

How about we take a survey of who the tool is? Nothing you say carries any credibility because of your hatred of Trump.

Mueller had to come back out and state that a determination about obstruction was not made, meaning he didn't have enough for obstruction, otherwise he would have said so.

Mueller is senile, he didn't even know what Fusion GPS was, or so it seemed from his testimony. The real collusion, if any, was between the Clinton campaign and the Russians. Why did Mueller's team not follow that evidence. I've yet to see any evidence that the Russians impacted the election anyway. I'm still waiting on that.

As I've told you before, I get my news from the WSJ. That is the only source I need. You should try it sometimes instead of that left-wing garbage you love so much.

Did you hear David Gergen on CNN after the testimony? His comments were very telling.

You are easily confused. Mueller came back out to say a determination had not been made because he didn’t want his previous testimony to be used to suggest he made a determination of obstruction when he was basically set up to concede that the facts of the report supported all of the elements of obstruction.

The other thing he clearly said is that if he could have concluded no obstruction he would have concluded so. It was the OLC opinion that he followed that made it impossible for him to take the final step of the analysis to conclude that an indictable offense was committed by Trump. He did exonerate Trump for conspiracy, he couldn’t do so for obstruction.

You are really going to try harder to keep up if you want to speak at the adult’s table.

[glm47]

You are easily confused. Mueller came back out to say a determination had not been made because he didn’t want his previous testimony to be used to suggest he made a determination of obstruction when he was basically set up to concede that the facts of the report supported all of the elements of obstruction.

The other thing he clearly said is that if he could have concluded no obstruction he would have concluded so. It was the OLC opinion that he followed that made it impossible for him to take the final step of the analysis to conclude that an indictable offense was committed by Trump. He did exonerate Trump for conspiracy, he couldn’t do so for obstruction.

You are really going to try harder to keep up if you want to speak at the adult’s table.

Ratcliffe: "Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"
Mueller: "I cannot, but this is a unique situation."
Ratcliffe: "You can’t...because I’ll tell you why. It doesn’t exist. The Special Counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the Special Counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It’s not in any of the documents, it’s not in your appointment order, it’s not in the Special Counsel regulations, it’s not in the OLC Opinions, it’s not in the Justice manual, and it’s not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution...it was not the Special Counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him. Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence...You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided. And respectfully, respectfully, by doing that, you managed to violate every principle and the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged...I agree with the Chairman this morning when he said Donald Trump is not above the law. He’s not, but he DAMN sure shouldn’t be below the law, which is where volume two of this report puts him.

[detltu]

You are easily confused. Mueller came back out to say a determination had not been made because he didn’t want his previous testimony to be used to suggest he made a determination of obstruction when he was basically set up to concede that the facts of the report supported all of the elements of obstruction.

The other thing he clearly said is that if he could have concluded no obstruction he would have concluded so. It was the OLC opinion that he followed that made it impossible for him to take the final step of the analysis to conclude that an indictable offense was committed by Trump. He did exonerate Trump for conspiracy, he couldn’t do so for obstruction.

You are really going to try harder to keep up if you want to speak at the adult’s table.

Actually he didn't.

And Mueller's clarification was because the question was misleading. "Can he be indicted after he leaves office" is not the same question as "Was there sufficient evidence to indict him after he leaves office". One of the questions approached the second framing (although the wording was confusing and seemingly changed mid sentence) and Mueller answered yes, but really that is not a question he could answer (because of the limits of his testimony and doing so would contradict other statements he has made). It is the question that needed to be answered and would have provided the democrats the "gotcha" moment they were looking for. Unfortunately he couldn't answer that question and had to clarify because it kind of sounded like he did.

[DONW]

440 page report and 8 hours of testimony and Schiff is still looking for Olga Buzova. If he could only find her and get those pictures, he would be so happy.

[Guisslapp]

I am trying to unconfuse you. Mueller laid out every fact you needed to prove to show all of the elements of the offense of obstruction. Normally that would result in an indictment. Mueller believes he is not allowed to indict a sitting president. This creates an issue in that Mueller is prohibited from producing the conclusion he was asked to investigate. So he did all the analysis but did not reach the only possible legal conclusion that can be reached from the factual predicate he laid out.

It is like he said 1+1 =, but never said 2, because he is not allowed to say “2”. Because he can’t indict and charge, he said it wasn’t proper to reach this legal conclusion.

[glm47]

You are easily confused. Mueller came back out to say a determination had not been made because he didn’t want his previous testimony to be used to suggest he made a determination of obstruction when he was basically set up to concede that the facts of the report supported all of the elements of obstruction.

The other thing he clearly said is that if he could have concluded no obstruction he would have concluded so. It was the OLC opinion that he followed that made it impossible for him to take the final step of the analysis to conclude that an indictable offense was committed by Trump. He did exonerate Trump for conspiracy, he couldn’t do so for obstruction.

You are really going to try harder to keep up if you want to speak at the adult’s table.

Here is Mueller's exact quote in response to Ted Lieu trying to get Mueller to say he would've indicted but for the fact Trump is the sitting president - "That is not the correct way to say it. 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." It can't be any clearer than that.

[Guisslapp]

Actually he didn't.

And Mueller's clarification was because the question was misleading. "Can he be indicted after he leaves office" is not the same question as "Was there sufficient evidence to indict him after he leaves office". One of the questions approached the second framing (although the wording was confusing and seemingly changed mid sentence) and Mueller answered yes, but really that is not a question he could answer (because of the limits of his testimony and doing so would contradict other statements he has made). It is the question that needed to be answered and would have provided the democrats the "gotcha" moment they were looking for. Unfortunately he couldn't answer that question and had to clarify because it kind of sounded like he did.

Actually, you are confused to. But it isn’t surprising because Trump and the right wing media made you fall for their misrepresentation. I listened to this play out live. The question he was correcting came from Lieu and it was

"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?"


To which, Mueller replied “that is correct.”

Thus the purpose of Mueller’s correction was that he didn’t want it to be implied that he reached a positive legal conclusion. In my previous example, Mueller was clarifying that he didn’t actually say “2” in response to Lieu’s question.

[Guisslapp]

Here is Mueller's exact quote in response to Ted Lieu trying to get Mueller to say he would've indicted but for the fact Trump is the sitting president - "That is not the correct way to say it. 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." It can't be any clearer than that.

I know what Mueller said, but you are confused about the statement he was correcting.

[Guisslapp]

Here is Mueller's exact quote in response to Ted Lieu trying to get Mueller to say he would've indicted but for the fact Trump is the sitting president - "That is not the correct way to say it. 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." It can't be any clearer than that.

Here is the fuller Mueller quote that the right wing media is leaving out to mislead you:

"I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, 'You didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say it. 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."

Again, the OLC opinion prohibits Mueller from reaching a positive legal conclusion that Trump committed a crime. Mueller laid out the facts that would prove he committed all of the elements of the offense but would not state the only conclusion that results from the factual predicate. He walked up all the way to the line he couldn’t cross and didn’t take a step further.

[FriscoDog]

Here is the fuller Mueller quote that the right wing media is leaving out to mislead you:

"I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, 'You didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say it. 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."

Again, the OLC opinion prohibits Mueller from reaching a positive legal conclusion that Trump committed a crime. Mueller laid out the facts that would prove he committed all of the elements of the offense but would not state the only conclusion that results from the factual predicate. He walked up all the way to the line he couldn’t cross and didn’t take a step further.

Supposedly there is a memo or a meeting between Mueller and Barr that Barr asked if the OLC was the reason Mueller did not reach a conclusion, and his answer was "No".

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Supposedly there is a memo or a meeting between Mueller and Barr that Barr asked if the OLC was the reason Mueller did not reach a conclusion, and his answer was "No".

Don't confuse our fellow dawg with facts.

[detltu]

Actually, you are confused to. But it isn’t surprising because Trump and the right wing media made you fall for their misrepresentation. I listened to this play out live. The question he was correcting came from Lieu and it was

"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?"


To which, Mueller replied “that is correct.”

Thus the purpose of Mueller’s correction was that he didn’t want it to be implied that he reached a positive legal conclusion. In my previous example, Mueller was clarifying that he didn’t actually say “2” in response to Lieu’s question.

You and I are saying the same thing here. I probably should have used the word leading instead of misleading, but essentially Mueller implied something that he was not in a position to imply. I can see why you are so confused though.

[detltu]

Here is the fuller Mueller quote that the right wing media is leaving out to mislead you:

"I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, 'You didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion.' That is not the correct way to say it. 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."

Again, the OLC opinion prohibits Mueller from reaching a positive legal conclusion that Trump committed a crime. Mueller laid out the facts that would prove he committed all of the elements of the offense but would not state the only conclusion that results from the factual predicate. He walked up all the way to the line he couldn’t cross and didn’t take a step further.

Everyone has heard that quote. I can't say where, but it seems the full quote is readily accessible. it doesn't change anything. The right wing media boogie man isn't the catch all and probably isn't your villain in this specific instance.

Mueller built the case as best he could. Whether he met the burden is debatable- and being debated. Those who don't care about the rule of law (like yourself and maybe Mueller if you are right about him) have already made a determination of his guilt or lack of innocence, while those who care about the rule of law are taking a more measured and analytical approach to the issue.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Fox legal analyst: Barack in on it

'I think that the Obama administration had Trump in their sight'

image: https://www.wnd.com/files/2018/07/ob...ca-596x283.jpg

Fox legal analyst: Barack in on it

'I think that the Obama administration had Trump in their sight'


Read more at https://www.wnd.com/#yC4qTS31bfmlPGPI.99


Justice coming for Russia hoax perpetrators?» Read the article

Read more at https://www.wnd.com/#yC4qTS31bfmlPGPI.99