It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bob Mueller Affirms President Trump's Innocence - Nadler Misrepresents Mueller to Investigate Trump.

page: 1
38
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+15 more 
posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 02:02 AM
link   
July 31, 2019

The Liberal News Media and Liberal Pundits keep (wrongly) stating that Special Counsel Bob Mueller would have charged President Donald J. Trump with "Obstructing Justice", if Department of Justice rules allowed a sitting President to be indicted.

House Judiciary Chairman JERRY NADLER is colluding with liberal media in repeating and propagating this out-right LIE.

To continue the Russia investigation, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler is using a misinterpretation of the special counsel report.

During a press conference on July 26, Nadler said of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony, “He told us in a remarkable exchange with Mr. Lieu that but for the Department of Justice policy prohibiting him from doing so, he would have indicted President Trump.


The TRUTH... Special Counsel Mueller confirmed that President Trump remains INNOCENT, because even after interviewing 500+ witnesses, and retrieving millions of pages of documents, over the course of almost 3 years, there was not enough evidence to reach a GUILTY verdict.

During his opening statement for the day’s second hearing, Mueller corrected his former statement. He said: “I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. I wanted to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu. It was 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 in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”


Again, in an exchange with Rep. John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican, Mueller reiterated the point: “Well, as I started today, this afternoon, and added either a footnote or an endnote, what I wanted to clarify is the fact that we did not make any determination with regard to culpability in any way."
Source: thefederalist.com...

So there you have it. LIKE EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN, President Donald J. Trump is INNOCENT according to the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Law.

However, I think Congressman Jerry Nadler, and certain Pundits in the Liberal Media may be committing a crime. They're using a FABRICATED LIE as their legal basis for investigating a sitting U.S. President, his family, and his cabinet!


-CareWeMust

edit on 7/31/2019 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



+3 more 
posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Seems many Democrats are trying to overturn the presumption of innocence.

Could be a hidden agenda with a dirty little secret.

🤫



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust




They're using a FABRICATED LIE as their legal excuse for investigating a sitting U.S. President, his family, and his cabinet.


well, it wasn't called a "fishing expedition" for nothing.



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Imagine the chaos that would engulf our country if every lawyer used a LIE for investigating any one of us. That's the big story here, me thinks.



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dr UAE
a reply to: carewemust




They're using a FABRICATED LIE as their legal excuse for investigating a sitting U.S. President, his family, and his cabinet.


well, it wasn't called a "fishing expedition" for nothing.


If that's legal, then AG Barr should launch fishing expeditions to seek out Democrat crimes in Congress and the News Media.



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I wonder if these collusions between the dems and the media can be investigated as campain contributions. All that airtime of live political ads during their ‘news’ is worth millions.



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Investigators do not reach guilty verdicts. A decision to indict is a decision to charge someone with a crime. The person still has a right to a trial. Well, I suppose an investigator might reach a conclusion that they personally believe someone has committed a crime but they don't have the final word on it because of the Constitution. It kind of forbids it.



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

www.commondreams.org...


Mueller said, "if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Goedhardt
I wonder if these collusions between the dems and the media can be investigated as campain contributions. All that airtime of live political ads during their ‘news’ is worth millions.


They are gifts in-kind by democrat standards. Depends on if the FEC sees it that way.



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Investigators do not reach guilty verdicts. A decision to indict is a decision to charge someone with a crime. The person still has a right to a trial. Well, I suppose an investigator might reach a conclusion that they personally believe someone has committed a crime but they don't have the final word on it because of the Constitution. It kind of forbids it.


This is some crazy mental gymnastics Flanders. You dont indict innocent people -- you indict the ones with enough evidence that you think they are guilty.



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 08:01 AM
link   
One thing that is frightening about this whole situation, the accepting of "he said she said" as fact and ignoring actual facts. When facts were presented to Mueller he would not discuss it. It's obtuse and an effrontery to justice and the rule of law.

It's funny for people who hate Trump but it won't be funny when the same approach is taken against them that's for damn sure.



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: drewlander

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Investigators do not reach guilty verdicts. A decision to indict is a decision to charge someone with a crime. The person still has a right to a trial. Well, I suppose an investigator might reach a conclusion that they personally believe someone has committed a crime but they don't have the final word on it because of the Constitution. It kind of forbids it.


This is some crazy mental gymnastics Flanders. You dont indict innocent people -- you indict the ones with enough evidence that you think they are guilty.


Right. But an investigator is not a judge or a jury. At least not on the planet I'm from.



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: grey580

What's your point?

Being unable to prove he didn't do it is not proof that he did do it...



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: carewemust

www.commondreams.org...


Mueller said, "if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
So, what is Mueller prosecuting and recommending?

You keep beating a dead horse.



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

Muellers job was to investigate.

It's up to congress to Impeach the President.



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust




The Liberal News Media and Liberal Pundits keep (wrongly) stating that Special Counsel Bob Mueller would have charged President Donald J. Trump with "Obstructing Justice", if Department of Justice rules allowed a sitting President to be indicted.


They keep asserting it because its true.
Did you not hear him say that his report did not exonerate the president.
Did you not hear him say that the president can be charged as soon as he is no longer in office?

No of course you didnt.

edit on 7312019 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: carewemust




The Liberal News Media and Liberal Pundits keep (wrongly) stating that Special Counsel Bob Mueller would have charged President Donald J. Trump with "Obstructing Justice", if Department of Justice rules allowed a sitting President to be indicted.


They keep asserting it because its true.
Did you not hear him say that his report did not exonerate the president.
Did you not hear him say that the president can be charged as soon as he is no longer in office?

No of course you didnt.


We do not have an "office of exoneration".

Exoneration isn't even a legal term.

His job was to present enough evidence to convict, then turn it over to the AG.

He could not.

So what would he be charged for once out of office?




posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

your outright lies have come apart
from good ole bobby 2 sticks himself
www.foxnews.com...


“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "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.”

lol
that is not the correct way to say it silly
he did not reach a determination
lol
Bobby 2 Sticks busted YOU



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Goedhardt
I wonder if these collusions between the dems and the media can be investigated as campain contributions. All that airtime of live political ads during their ‘news’ is worth millions.


That will be tested before the 2020 elections.

"Like-Kind" value added 😎



posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: carewemust

www.commondreams.org...


Mueller said, "if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."


unIndicted Assumptions and unDeductive Reasoning 😎

Wiffle Ball competition 😃




top topics



 
38
<<   2 >>

log in

join