███████████ Mueller Investigation Results Thread ███████████

[Wrong Element]

Parsing the words to create a narrative which isn't present on the surface of those words still doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

Had Mueller had evidence that Trump committed a crime, he would have SAID SO even if he couldn't indict him.

Wait a second: Mueller not saying Trump committed a crime amounts to an exoneration? Talk about "creat[ing] a narrative which isn't present on the surface of those words."

And how is it parsing words to point out that the report states, and Mueller reiterated it today, that if the evidence gathered had clearly exonerated Trump of obstruction of justice, they simply would have said so? And Mueller's own words contradict your second paragraph.

I'm not really sure what to do with people who don't understand the concept of an inference. Not saying a person is not guilty is tantamount to saying he might be guilty.

 

[Rightguide]

Thank you, Mueller, for putting lies from deplorables to rest.

This is a great day.

Thank you Mr. Mueller for admitting your investigation of the President for Obstruction was according to the DOJ/OLC, was unconstitutional, a waste of taxpayer money, and a violation of long standing OLC guidance.

 

[icanhelp1]

See people like Zip and others would prefer a system where the prosecutor makes an allegation and the poor fucker so charged is automatically found guilty without the due process of judge and jury or the benefit of the Constitution.

I find the controversy as to whether Mueller used OLC guidelines or is Barr lying when he, in front of the Dep AG, asked Mueller if he was. I think Barr, Rosenstein and Mueller should testify together before both house and senate judiciaries.

 

[bbx56]

I find the controversy as to whether Mueller used OLC guidelines or is Barr lying when he, in front of the Dep AG, asked Mueller if he was. I think Barr, Rosenstein and Mueller should testify together before both house and senate judiciaries.

yes, BigBad Barr said he AXED MuleLiar that and MuleLiar said it had nothing to do with anything

SOMEONE IS LYING

and we all kow who

 

[icanhelp1]

Thank you Mr. Mueller for admitting your investigation of the President for Obstruction was according to the DOJ/OLC unconstitutional, a waste of taxpayer money, and a violation of long standing OLC guidance.

I find that Judge Napolitano found the OLC as guidance and not constitutional law. Which means Mueller could have indicted. If the foundation for the investigation is strictly by OLC guidelines than why have it at all.

 

[HisArpy]

Wait a second: Mueller not saying Trump committed a crime amounts to an exoneration? Talk about "creat[ing] a narrative which isn't present on the surface of those words."

And how is it parsing words to point out that the report states, and Mueller reiterated it today, that if the evidence gathered had clearly exonerated Trump of obstruction of justice, they simply would have said so? And Mueller's own words contradict your second paragraph.

I'm not really sure what to do with people who don't understand the concept of an inference. Not saying a person is not guilty is tantamount to saying he might be guilty.

UNLESS Mueller SAYS a crime was committed, then no crime was committed. That's not an inference, it's a fact.

However, when you read between the lines in order to try to say something which isn't actually present in the words used, you create an inference which isn't supported by the actual statements made.

Guess who is doing which.

 

[HisArpy]

LOL, you're such a sad little man, vette.

Why do right wingers always have to make shit up that people never said?

No wonder you love Trump so much, he lies as much you idiots do.

Strange, he never said that.

What he said was that you, and others of the same elk, "prefer" a system of guilty because you say so.

In support of such a position, which I agree with, I offer the Kavanaugh circus/debacle AND the Nicholas Sandman smear campaign as evidence of such.

 

[Rightguide]

I find the controversy as to whether Mueller used OLC guidelines or is Barr lying when he, in front of the Dep AG, asked Mueller if he was. I think Barr, Rosenstein and Mueller should testify together before both house and senate judiciaries.

Barr's Summary statement simply said putting consideration of the OLC guidance aside, he and the AAG found that no evidence of obstruction existed, which was his prerogative to do so. Barr has also stated twice that Mueller, when asked if he reached his decision not to charge the President on the basis of the OLC guidance that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime, he said "No."

 

[Rightguide]

Strange, he never said that.

What he said was that you, and others of the same elk, "prefer" a system of guilty because you say so.

In support of such a position, which I agree with, I offer the Kavanaugh circus/debacle AND the Nicholas Sandman smear campaign as evidence of such.

They like a system where the defendant has to prove his innocence. I might add Torquemada thought the same way.

 

[HisArpy]

They like a system where the defendant has to prove his innocence. I might add Torquemada thought the same way.

I think it's hilarious that they cannot seem to understand what "elk" means.

They get pwnd, and teh, and all the rest, but not "elk" even though it's all over the board.

Their political wisdom and commentary is on par with that failure. They see what they want to see, even if it's totally fake, and ignore reality whenever it suits them.

 

[KeithD]

Nine straight ignored posts. I guess the Trumpettes are working overtime trying to convince themselves that Mueller didn't say what he said--like that his report didn't say what the unredacted parts of it we can see said.

 

[Rightguide]

I think it's hilarious that they cannot seem to understand what "elk" means.

They get pwnd, and teh, and all the rest, but not "elk" even though it's all over the board.

Their political wisdom and commentary is on par with that failure. They see what they want to see, even if it's totally fake, and ignore reality whenever it suits them.

I knew there might be some here with huge racks but wasn't thinking they had four legs and were so plentiful.

 

[bbx56]

MuleLiars eight- to nine-minute statement Wednesday morning at the DOJ was designed for one thing only: to avoid having to answer one key question in his testimony. When did you know there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?

If the answer, as many, including Andrew C. McCarthy, are indicating, is somewhere in Fall 2017, what in the world was MuleLiar doing putting the country through two years of prolonged agony? It's not likely he did all this to prop up CNN's faltering ratings.

 

[HisArpy]

Nine straight ignored posts. I guess the Trumpettes are working overtime trying to convince themselves that Mueller didn't say what he said--like that his report didn't say what the unredacted parts of it we can see said.

Wait, you posted something? Huh. I guess no one cares what you have to say.

 

[icanhelp1]

Thank you Mr. Mueller for admitting your investigation of the President for Obstruction was according to the DOJ/OLC, was unconstitutional, a waste of taxpayer money, and a violation of long standing OLC guidance.

If the protocol was OLC guidelines and couldn't indict, than what does that say about the first part. Can you use OLC guidelines sometimes and not use it other times. Couldn't sealed indictments have been initiated and if this is so then Mueller failing to indict means there was a lack of sufficient evidence. I think Mueller confused the issues even more.

 

[HisArpy]

I knew there might be some here with huge racks but wasn't thinking they had four legs and were so plentiful.

A herd is a herd is a herd. And, when they stampede, totally mindless.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Mueller statement:

That was the policy from that would not reach a determination one way or another if the about whether the President committed a crime.

That is the answer just given to the question about Barr stating the policy had no impact on Mueller and his teams decision.

 

[Rightguide]

MuleLiars eight- to nine-minute statement Wednesday morning at the DOJ was designed for one thing only: to avoid having to answer one key question in his testimony. When did you know there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?

If the answer, as many, including Andrew C. McCarthy, are indicating, is somewhere in Fall 2017, what in the world was MuleLiar doing putting the country through two years of prolonged agony? It's not likely he did all this to prop up CNN's faltering ratings.

Maybe at some point soon, he might have to answer that question in front of a grand jury.

 

[Aglaopheme]

"When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrong doers accountable."

Mueller

 

[HisArpy]

"When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrong doers accountable."

Mueller

Moar parsing.

Tell us, is the ham sandwich guilty?

 

[Rightguide]

If the protocol was OLC guidelines and couldn't indict, than what does that say about the first part. Can you use OLC guidelines sometimes and not use it other times. Couldn't sealed indictments have been initiated and if this is so then Mueller failing to indict means there was a lack of sufficient evidence. I think Mueller confused the issues even more.

I think we have to remember what all of this was in the beginning, a conspiracy under the guise of a counterintelligence investigation which is not a criminal investigation. The Mueller investigation was the "Insurance Policy" ie coup attempt that is still ongoing. OLC guidelines do not allow sealed indictments of a sitting President.

 

[bbx56]

how cum no axes

WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE "RUSSIANS" HACKED THE EMAILS

 

[Rightguide]

how cum no axes

WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE "RUSSIANS" HACKED THE EMAILS

It was an inside job that may have turned information over to Wikileaks. I think Brennan knows what happened.

 

[zipman]

Strange, he never said that.

What he said was that you, and others of the same elk, "prefer" a system of guilty because you say so.

In support of such a position, which I agree with, I offer the Kavanaugh circus/debacle AND the Nicholas Sandman smear campaign as evidence of such.

And once again, you are wrong. Of course, since you want to provide "evidence" why don't you post a link of my comments regarding Kavanaugh that support your position.

That should be easy enough for you to find.

Or are you going to deflect/avoid backing up your lies.

How are you not getting tired being wrong?

 

[HisArpy]

And once again, you are wrong. Of course, since you want to provide "evidence" why don't you post a link of my comments regarding Kavanaugh that support your position.

That should be easy enough for you to find.

Or are you going to deflect/avoid backing up your lies.

How are you not getting tired being wrong?

dudly, just stop with the deflection and start to learn to read.

It's not all about you, or always about you, even though it's obvious to everyone that you'd really like it to be that way.

Please try to keep up.