Mueller To Make Statement Today

originally posted by: Stealu1two
Mueller clarifies: The report does not exculpate Trump of criminal activity and we couldn't charge Trump with a crime even if we found one. . Also, it'd be unfair to accuse someone of a crime without recommending prosecution.

So which is it?

Well read the report and see...He said its all there, so there is no need to speculate on it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan Can see that 100%. It's crazy that its getting this bad and I agree at some point its going to the E/W coast going against the Midwest and Rural areas. the sad part is we all care about the same things but the MSM twist so much.

a reply to: shooterbrody

First there's the investigation. Then if there was enough evidence to warrant it there is an indictment. An indictment doesn't mean the person is guilty it just means that a prosecutor believes he could prove it in a court of law. An indicted person is brought to trial where all the evidence is presented and then either a jury or judge decides weather that evidence is sufficient to prove guilt.
Only you can't indict a sitting president or so the justice department says. He would have to be impeached and removed from office. Which I am beginning to think trump may have been right when he said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and get away with it because our current senate ain't gonna impeach him no matter what he has done.
Although I am not sure if a president would be so protected if the indictment was coming from the state level.

originally posted by: face23785
That statement was a waste of time.

Actually there was one very important nugget in it all.

He said straight forward that the DOJ and Barr did an excellent job in releasing as much as he did. More than what Mueller originally suggested to release. This one statement basically puts an end to any house investigations of Barr that suggested he was trying to cover up the report as much as possible.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: butcherguy

I didn't sissy foot around he isn't without wrongdoing.

But he's one of the few left of a dying bread who put their work where their mouth is. Look at the differences between him and Comey as Director of the FBI. Comey treated it like a political office.

"If we had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

Not everything is black and white.

Sometimes investigators won't play Miss Cleo and make proclamations they can't support.

I hope Pelosi will give in to the radicals and begin impeachment proceedings.

Same here.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: face23785
That statement was a waste of time.

Actually there was one very important nugget in it all.

He said straight forward that the DOJ and Barr is an excellent job in releasing as much as he did. More than what Mueller originally suggested to release. This one statement basically puts an end to any house investigations of Barr that suggested he was trying to cover up the report as much as possible.

Good call. I bet this part of the statement will conveniently be omitted from the sound bites that make their run on the news tonight.

a reply to: dawnstar

Only you can't indict a sitting president or so the justice department says.

So why the disclaimer for "obstruction" and not the entire investigation?

seems simple enough doesn't it?
other than there is no actual real evidence for either?

Also if you can not charge from the beginning, what is with the "exoneration" bs?
A finding of no charges does this, does it not?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: dawnstar

Only you can't indict a sitting president or so the justice department says.

So why the disclaimer for "obstruction" and not the entire investigation?

seems simple enough doesn't it?
other than there is no actual real evidence for either?

Also if you can not charge from the beginning, what is with the "exoneration" bs?
A finding of no charges does this, does it not?

Damn facts getting in the way of the narrative.

Where does this all go now?

My guess is there will be broader democrat run committee investigations, and they will initiate an impeachment process against president Trump, they will drag it all out up to and through the 2020 election, and mostly for political gains from relentless MSM negative coverage. The impeachment is DOA in the Senate, but it won't halt the process. They are going to go after everything they can now, and with an impeachment process underway it will be more difficult for Trump to fight their subpoenas and requests.

This is not good for anyone, but I think it will ultimately be worst for the democrats.

imo

originally posted by: ausername
Well, that didn't change anything.

It settled nothing, the left will take what they want from it, make their own conclusions and interpretations, and so will the right, the president and administration.

The cloud remains over the president.

The #show continues...

The left will say that the President in any other position would go to jail when that is not what Mueller said in anyway. I think in the most simple explanation for Mueller is the report does not assign guilt or innocence but just reports...

So the big deal I have with this is I have not seen a single report passage from the left to point to that might suggest guilt. If they could quote line after line that showed the President or staff acted with the Russians then they would have a case, but the report doesn't and even Mueller left the bad actors part very vague as in who might actually be the bad actors in all this.

The other part is it seems Mueller is grabbing on to anything at all to support two years of basically nothing burger. The whole Russian social media event was minimal at best with roughly 230k spent on the project. WOW! big news...a couple of bad actors setup fake accounts and worked to push bad political posts, he also didn't suggest which way and we know they push both directions, but 230k ...really...

As to Hillary's emails do we even know yet if Russia was involved? I think it was suggested they did a fishing event on everyone and stupid Hillary with her unprotected private server took the hit, AND if her emails were nothing burgers too then it all would have been just that... Can't protect her crap and she had emails that basically showed just how corrupt her and the DNC were.

Once again not something Russia created even if they stole it.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DoubleDNH

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: butcherguy

I didn't sissy foot around he isn't without wrongdoing.

But he's one of the few left of a dying bread who put their work where their mouth is. Look at the differences between him and Comey as Director of the FBI. Comey treated it like a political office.

"If we had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

Not everything is black and white.

Sometimes investigators won't play Miss Cleo and make proclamations they can't support.

I hope Pelosi will give in to the radicals and begin impeachment proceedings.

Same here.

Mitch McConnell has said the Senate will spike any impeachment resolution, immediately. Paraphrasing, he that that the constitution requires them to consider an impeachment resolution, but it doesn't require them to turn it into a circus.

Mueller says if there was evidence of innocence, he would have put it in the report..... but he wouldn't have put evidence of guilt?
Evidence of innocence?
Preposterous.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Mueller says if there was evidence of innocence, he would have put it in the report..... but he wouldn't have put evidence of guilt?
Evidence of innocence?
Preposterous.

Since president Trump won the election in 2016, the burden of proof in any case related in any way to the president has changed. Everyone is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Not that I trust Napalitano, but he just said that the OLC guidance that a sitting President can't be indicted doesn't actually say that, it just says it's not a good idea because it interferes with his executive duties. It also was disregarded several months after it was written by the DOJ. So it sounds like a bogus excuse from Mueller and just a way to keep this political charade going for the anti-Trump crowd.

a reply to: shooterbrody

He clearly states that he couldn't come up with the evidence that would prove conspiracy. He also says that further investigation could possibly change that. But it all comes down to the evidence isn't there to prove it. That doesnt mean that there wasn't some unethical stuff happening and conspiracy and collusion don't really have the same meaning. And it's possible to collude without it being illegal. So when people say that the investigation says there was no collusion they are kind of wrong since the investigators weren't looking for it.
The wording is different when it comes to obstruction though. He gives many of examples that seem to fit the requirements for that. And there's been a whole bunch of current and former prosecutors who have said that They have indicted people with far less evidence. I really think (and if you'd would read the report You would agree) that Mueller just wasn't gonna recommend charges that wouldn't have had a pathway to lead anywhere since he would never have been indicted while in office.
But like I said most ain't gonna read the report (neither within the body of congress or the populous) so what does it matter.
I just hope you guys are right otherwise you might find yourselves living in a Russian dominated oligarchy instead of the democratic republic we've inherited from our forefathers.

a reply to: dawnstar

Still gaslighting the country with red baiting? Wow.

Capri Cafaro (a Democrat, by the way) just said something I've been saying for months. This whole thing plays into Russia's hands. It's over, it's done with, Trump isn't getting impeached. Continuing down this road does nothing but divide the country further, which was Putin's goal, and weaken America on the world stage.

Translation: Stop helping Russia, Democrats.

a reply to: dawnstar

As he could not charge ANYTHING why is the "wording different"?
Why does the "charge" matter with respect to "exoneration"?
It sounds like bs to me.

How do you explain muellers "appreciation" of barr determining no charge of obstruction?
And muller labellilng barrs efforts as being in "good faith" if trump should have been charged?

I just hope you guys are right otherwise you might find yourselves living in a Russian dominated oligarchy instead of the democratic republic we've inherited from our forefathers.

ok chicken little
that is the funniest line I have read all day
stolen clinton emails(not altered just stolen) and 280k of facebook ads are going to take down the republic?
hardy harr harr
sounds like sour grapes to me

originally posted by: face23785
Translation: Stop helping Russia, Democrats.

If you haven't been paying attention, Democrats have been contributing to wrecking anything the US stood for as a country and against anything that made the US a superpower. They don't mind who they help.. China, Iran, Russia, as long as it weakens the US as a superpower.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Stealu1two

He wouldn't answer anything they don't have answered already, as it would jeopardize ongoing investigations.

I think you are correct about this, there are a lot of investigations that were stimulated by the Mueller report and the improper way it was started. Mueller cannot interfere with those investigations, and I do not think he wants to, in fact his report given now might actually act as a catalyst to gain more proof to charge people and identify leaks. I am sure there is a lot of spying going on in the departments now, or should I clarify that, surveillance of all employees working for the FBI. I would bet every FBI phone is tapped...Oops, not tapped anymore, being monitored.