The Right Side of the News

No the Mueller report did NOT SAY there was obstruction of justice. It listed some things Trump said that it insinuated were obstruction of justice but weren't. If the report had found true obstruction of justice it would have charged him with it, because that was its purpose, to find chargeable criminal activity. It found nothing it could charge him with, and made up a lie to explain why which contradicted a previous statement, but they couldn't resist pretending he was criminally at fault anyway because that's what the Left does these days. It's a massive fraud on the American public and I would like to see the whole bunch of them prosecuted for their part in it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This Ukraine thing is just the latest version of the failed Muelller report. He said and did nothing wrong. But let's see what the Democrats manipulate into a basis for impeachment. Ho Hum.

You quote the weasel words from the report about how it couldn't exonerate Trump although it found no crime to charge him with, but as ICANT points out all the investigation could do is find or not find a chargeable crime. It found none. In any normal context that means he was exonerated by the investigation.One of the biggest weasely things that was done was Mueller's claiming to Barr that there was absolutely no effect on the report due to the rule that you can't prosecute a sitting President, and then contradicting that later when he needed an explanation for bringing no criminal charges although insinuating Trump had done criminal things.If a crime had been committed the whole point of the investigation was to discover it and identify it. The reason no crime was reported was that there was no crime, no crime of collusion or conspiracy with Russians to influence the election and no crime of obstruction of justice either. But the political concern was to insinuate that there was nevertheless. Without a clear identification of a crime or clear conclusion that no crime was found there was no reason at all for the investigation. You can't find no chargeable crime and yet insinuate that one existed anyway. You either find a crime or you don't. And truth be told there was no reason for the investigation, it was all a fishing expedition that caught nothing and was in itself a violation of the whole legal apparatus involved in having such an investigation in the first place.It was a political fraud that unfortunately convinced many people through verbal trickery, innuendo and insinuation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The extreme aggressive absolute absence of substance in your post is remarkable as is the personal attack.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Remarkble defense of the weasel words there. Since I've already addressed it I'll leave it for now unless I get further inspiration.

Let's see, what's that, the third or fourth post tonight that is nothing but personal attack?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The rule against charging a sitting President with a crime does not in any way affect the investigation which had the job of identifying whether there was a crime or not COMMITTED BY TRUMP OR FAVORABLE TO HIS CAMPAIGN. IT FOUND NONE., It's a big fat lie that the rule had anything to do with that. THERE WAS NO CRIME FOUND, no matter how hard they tried during and after the report came out to insinuate there was one against their own findings. You've bought a big fat lie. There would have been no reason whatever to have the investigation at all if they couldn't identify a true crime. They could have and they did not.As for the other indictments and convictions, NONE OF HAD TO DO WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION and are utterly irrelevant to the whole lying effort to pin something on Trump. It failed at what it was supposed to do. There wasn't even a defensible reason to have it in the first place.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I have no problem understanding this. I know it's wrong.Consider the Starr Report on Clinton. It concluded that Clinton had actually committed various criminal offenses. Nothing at all of such a clearcut conclusion was made by the Mueller Report.Here's Wikipedia on the Starr Report: Such a clear identification of criminal activity -- lied under oath for instance -- WAS made by the Starr Report. The only reason such a clear statement about any kind of criminal activity was not made by the Mueller Report is that there was no such criminal activity. All the Mueller Report could do was insinuate and try to create an impression of criminality which didn't exist, and that fact alone makes the whole Report a sham.

Mueller was contradicting himself. His whole endeavor was partisan. He had only Hillary supporters working for him. The whole thing was a sham and he didn't really do much of it anyway, the poor man's mind was gone, and the Hillary cronies put it all together.Starr's was Independent Counsel Report. That later became Special Counsel which is what Mueller's was. Starr was recommendeing, he was not representing Congress, but he was able to recommend and so was Mueller, who didn't because he found no criminal activity on trump's part at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

NOT FOR ANYTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIANS OR THE ELECTION. The Russians tried but the Americans did not bite.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

HE DID NOT!!!Barr specifically asked him if the rule against indicting a sitting President had anything to do with the conclusions of his report and he said NO. Then tried to take it back but then corrected that attempt too. Such a position would have made such an investigation ridiculous. The point was to IDENTIFY CRIMES HE COULD BE CHARGED WITH IF THERE WERE ANY. NONE WERE FOUND.

NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

THERE WAS... NO.... COLLUSION... FOUND

THERE WAS NO COLLUSION FOUND AND THE MUELLER REPORT SAID SO.There are always legitimate or simply innocent contacts between American politicians and Russians or any other foreign representatives. If any on your list amounted to "collusion" the Mueller Report would have said so but it specifically concluded that they found none.Just because YOU erroneously think there was collusion does not make ME a liar for believing there was none.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's the gist of the report, perhaps not stated in so many words but Barr's summary of the main points said it found no evidence of collusion, and here's the American Bar Association saying the same thing.You are trying to turn innocuous contacts into collusion. There was no collusion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.