Mueller’s Preposterous Rationale for Tainting the President with ‘Obstruction’ Allegations

www.nationalreview.com...

Wow. I am really surprised that even Yahoo is running with this story as it was written by the National Review. Unfortunately I have Yahoo email so they bombard us all daily with left winger zinger stuff so when they posted this I said huh? Must be a cash flow situation. Anyway look at what this guy wrote. Yes it contains passion and rage for justice. I personally felt that Muller wrote this report with unfounded and unanswered clues and wink winks on purpose so the left could crawl in through that door.

Actually, I think I have the whole Deep State figured out but that's going to be another Thread as Mueller + Germany + WWII + Propaganda = MSM + WWII Middle East connections.

In gross violation of Justice Department policy and constitutional norms, a prosecutor neither charges nor recommends charges against a suspect, but proceeds to smear him by publishing 200 pages of obstruction allegations. Asked to explain why he did it, the prosecutor says he was just trying to protect the suspect from being smeared.

a reply to: Waterglass

It's clear that Mueller was stacking the deck, telling a one-sided story in order to smear Trump and protect the swamp. Mueller knows personally the likes of Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, and he has a deep institutional loyalty to bodies whose contemporary character he helped create. He's the perfect guy to stage a coverup. It's a tax-payer funded smear, the likes of which belongs in the WaPo opinion section.

a reply to: Waterglass

It so you guys are finally admitting that the report didn't completely clear him of obstruction?? Well that's a start I guess.
Maybe they need to revisit the rule that says a president can't be indicted since this is causing so much confusion.

a reply to: dawnstar

The gist of it is: if there is no crime to obstruct, then there can be no obstruction.

Seems like a very logical thing to surmise. To each their own.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Waterglass

It so you guys are finally admitting that the report didn't completely clear him of obstruction?? Well that's a start I guess.
Maybe they need to revisit the rule that says a president can't be indicted since this is causing so much confusion.

So long as you admit it didn't conclude that the President committed a crime.

I think what they want to stay is that for a small-handed, small minded orange idiot he somehow managed to obstructicate Mueller soooo good that Mueller couldn't find the OBVIOUS crime Trump is DEFINITELY guilty of. They need more investigations and smarter investigators. They'll find it next time for sure!

Here is an article about The Barr incident. Seems pretty apparant that Democrats are just causing chaos, since not one person granted access to the slightly redacted document, in a safe place where they can go read it, have actually gone in to read it.

www.yahoo.com...

The Democrat congressmen are being one hundred percent disfunctional in our government. Time to get rid of the ones causing all the chaos, they are demanding to see everything, they are demanding the law of the land bow down to them.

I'm still trying to figure out how a binary decision ended up with a quantum algorithm.

It was a yes/no question, and we got a "maybe".

that is NOT how it works.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Waterglass

It so you guys are finally admitting that the report didn't completely clear him of obstruction?? Well that's a start I guess.
Maybe they need to revisit the rule that says a president can't be indicted since this is causing so much confusion.

Why do we need the report of a two year witch hunt to completely clear him of obstruction? To satisfy you?

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.

As he hasn't been prosecuted and found beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty, he is presumed innocent.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Mueller specifically states the reason for not making the conclusion. He points to the evidences for the conclusion to be made by rational minds who have the means and processes to enact on a conclusion. He is basically using a masterfull pokerface and waiting to be called

a reply to: Waterglass

It Never was a " Deep State " ,it is Staring you in the Face 24/7 .

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Waterglass

It so you guys are finally admitting that the report didn't completely clear him of obstruction?? Well that's a start I guess.
Maybe they need to revisit the rule that says a president can't be indicted since this is causing so much confusion.

Yes it did. We are just wondering why the smear job.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Waterglass

It so you guys are finally admitting that the report didn't completely clear him of obstruction?? Well that's a start I guess.
Maybe they need to revisit the rule that says a president can't be indicted since this is causing so much confusion.

Of course it cleared President Trump...There are only two options...Guilty and not guilty...Nothing else matters, until it comes to politics and perception is a tool...Mueller should be prosecuted for slander...