The Right Side of the News

evidence? especially since this is contradicted by the report itself. they couldn't bring charges against the president himself, everyone else around him could be charged, and some were. what record?

This is actually false. Trump DID absolutely nothing of a remotely criminal nature. If he had and Mueller was identifying it, he could and should have clearly said so, possibility of indictment or not, but he didn't, because there is nothing criminal there. But there is enough innuendo to fuel the impeachment brigade.All that was documented was things he said but nothing he actually did. It's idyotic but the Lft is actually trying to make that into criminal behavior because they've got nothing else. Trump is completely innocent but if you make people criminals based on innuendo you can treat him llke a criminal without any actual justification. The Llftsts are acting llke totalitarian dictators. But of course, Alinsky fashion, they accuse Trump of doing what they themselves are actually doing. I wish you all would wake up. You are being led by your irrational haytrud of Trump, not by facts, not by reason.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The report clearly states that the president can not be exonerated of obstruction of justice. things he said = orders. Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller and then after McGahn refused that order he told McGahn to lie about the first order, both incidents of obstruction of justice.

The assertion can't be supported because it never happened. Mueller has only spoken publicly and on the record on two occasions as special counsel, once when he accepted the appointment, and again a couple days ago. The claim that Mueller said something different in private discussions at the DOJ comes from Barr, who had no qualms about misrepresenting Mueller's words in the report, and apparently not in those discussions, either.--Percy

So, on record three times and you can't come up with one. I understand. See below.From Fox News Gregg Jarrett: The two faces of Robert Mueller, and Trump's presumption of guilt

quote:

---

Here’s what Barr told Senators during his May 1st testimony:

​

quote:

---

“We were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction and we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this. Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.”

---

---

That's Barr going on record. Mueller’s not on record, Barr's on record claiming what Mueller said. As I said.Bar's impugned himself in his writing and sworn testimony. But note that RedState is typical of the lying right-wing sites: Mueller told Barr THREE Times His Non-Decision On Obstruction Had Nothing To Do With OLC. At least they admit it's second-hand in the article. But they had you at "Mueller told Barr", righr?Dinner calls... Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Yes, so you've said. Which raises the question why Mueller told Barr that didn't figure in his judgments in the report, and the other question based on his recent statement that it was THE reason he didn't pursue anything about crimes by Trump, WHY ON EARTH THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION AT ALL SINCE INVESTIGATING THE CLAIM OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR IS SUPPOSEDLY THE WHOLE POINT OF SUCH AN INVESTIGATION.Which shows the whole thing to be the fraud and the farce we've known it to be from the beginning.With all the innuendo, however, insinuating criminality where he'd found none, he could possibly fuel an impeachment. But that is not the point of such an investigation. The whole Volume 2 of his report is a fraud and a farce but it feeds the ravenous Democrat and Never-trumper appetite to do harm to Trump so we'll never hear that from them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

but you've never shown that this statement is true. to charge everyone else. Multiple people have been indicted/convicted/plead guilty as a result of the investigation. The federal government has actually turned a profit given what they seized from Manafort. he found criminality, at least ten incidents that would be obstruction of justice if this was anyone but the president.

Were you around for the Bill Clinton years? Ken Starr didn't indict Bill Clinton, but he was impeached. The point of these investigations is to FIND THE FACTS. It is then up to Congress to decide to impeach. That was exactly the point.

Clinton was clearly charged with criminal behavior, which is supposedly the reason for such an investigation as Starr's or Mueller's, but there was no such thing in the case of Trump, there was no reason for an investigation at all except partisan dislike of Trump. Cause for impeachment is not the point of such an investigation but obviously it can be used for that purpose. However, without any criminal charge whatever (not to mention the claim that they didn't investigate criminality anyway because of the policy against indicting a sitting President) this Mueller fraud had no reason to exist at all. Which was not the case with the Starr investigation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That’s Barr spinning again.Mueller didn’t say “Trump is guilty but we can’t charge him”. He refused to make that determination, leaving it to Congress to decide based on the evidence he provided. Answering “yes” to Barr’s question would undermine that.As we know many former Federal Prosecutors- who are certainly in a position to know - say that Trump should have been prosecuted on the basis of the evidence in the Mueller report if he were not President.

what criminal charge was brought against clinton? Mueller was empowered to investigate the Russian interference in the election and all other crimes related to it. That's why his report is in two parts, the Russian part and the obstruction of justice part. Multiple criminal charges have been brought in regards to the Russian interference.

Imposed on you? In what way is it imposed on you? You are not losing anything if there is no death penalty. No one is forcing you to get an abortion. There are churches everywhere that you can attend anytime you want. You can pray anytime you want. You can criticize Obama for wearing a tan suit anytime you want. You can tell lies about anyone who disagrees with you with impunity.Just what horrid thing is being imposed on YOU Faith? That's the problem, right there. Innocent people were convicted and sentenced to death who were later proven to be innocent by exculpatory evidence. Sometimes there is evidence that they were railroaded and before you get all indignant, it could happen to you.Guilty people are still being punished with incarceration, even if we don't kill them, so they're not getting off Scott free.

Out of curiosity, how often do you ask yourself this question?

For crying out loud, what is the matter with you?Read the fucking report!!!!!It clearly states that right from the start they knew that they could not bring criminal charges because the President could not defend himself in court. So they collected and preserved all the evidence and listed it all extensively in the report.There is a major propaganda push by the Whitehouse and the right wing media to paint Mueller as corrupt to lie about what Barr said.Read the report, everyone of your stupid questions is answered.

I don’t think you understand the gravity of Trump’s problem.The Democrats are out to get him. And they will get him. But they have to be careful and get it all scrupulously legal. You don’t trifle with the Presidency of the US.Just movement on impeachment and a flurry of subpoenas have got to be bothersome in an election year.If he loses?Then the rest of the legal system gets to rip him apart. He is about to lose his fortune, his properties, his now tarnished name, all of it. By the time his enemies (in business and in law) get through with him . they may never be through with him.Your boy is toast as soon as he loses his presidential shield. That’s how much he’s made people hate him.