The Desperation of U.S. Democrat Leaders

a reply to: Sookiechacha

“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.”

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They could not indict because no wrongdoing occurred, that is what Mueller said.

They could not indict because no wrongdoing occurred, that is what Mueller said.

Mueller never said that. That's a lie.

Trump is an unindicted coconspirator in a felony, in which his attorney is serving time. Don't say there was no wrong doing found. There was plenty of wrong doing. Lot's of wrong doing.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: mtnshredder

If they could have CHARGED the president of crimes, they would have.

Nope. Mueller couldn't have been clearer. A sitting president can't be indicted. They were never going to indict, because of the rule. Because of the rule, they didn't even make a determination. They lobbed it to Congress, as it says in the report, only Congress can determine the "corrupt intent" of a president.

Now go back and read your last sentence again. Only Congress can determine the "corrupt intent" of a president.

The whole reason Mueller said that was because "corrupt intent" was one of those "difficulties with laws and facts" that the Special Counsel said that they had a problem with, making it impossible for them to make a LEGAL decision. This is EXACTLY why Mueller wanted to pass it off to Congress. Congress doesn't even need to prove corrupt intent within the boundaries of the law. All they need to do is convince each other enough to vote for impeachment.

Do you get it now?!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Thank you for requoting Mueller to reprove my point. They made no determination because of he rule.

They didn't decide to indict, and then not indict because they couldn't because of the rule. They made no determination, because of the rule. Not because there wasn't evidence of "wrong doing". LOL But, because "only Congress can determine the "corrupt intent" of a president.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Show me where he says that. He says the opposite. Please quote in his clarification him saying that. Mueller corrected what you claim and said you are wrong.

a reply to: Deetermined

It wasn't "difficult" for Mueller to determine corrupt intent. He suggested intent several times in the report. He was forbidden to make a determination of intent, guilt or to recommend indictment, because of the rule.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Mueller report is pacted with facts and laws. There is no ambiguity to the facts documented and case laws cited in the report.

More proof that you didn't watch the Mueller hearing. Republicans actually pointed out the flaws in Mueller's legal footnotes on case law that he cited in the report and it's all related to that link by Cornell Law that I put in my original post. Now go watch the hearing, the flaws that were pointed out, and then review them against the law that I posted.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

False. He 100% clarified your claim and said you are wrong.

“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.”

No crime was committed, that is the reason.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's minple 5th garde sentence parsing dear.

“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,


Liu: ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion.
Mueller: Correct

(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.”

Please show me, in the report, or in his actual testimony, where he says they didn't made a determination because they didn't find any "wrong doing".

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No crime was committed, that is the reason.

False. You are 100% wrong.

Trump can't be indicted, as a sitting president. But, he can be indicted for the crimes he committed after he leaves office, or he can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It wasn't "difficult" for Mueller to determine corrupt intent. He suggested intent several times in the report.

Are you taking language lessons from Mueller now? Him "suggesting" intent, or as he claims in his report "possible" intent, is not a case or legal reason for stating that Trump broke the law. Mueller didn't accuse Trump of a crime because he couldn't prove squat under the guidelines of the law.

He was forbidden to make a determination of intent, guilt or to recommend indictment, because of the rule.

He was not forbidden from making a legal determination under the law. Barr has told us that over and over again. Besides, I already proved you wrong on how Mueller's correcting statement said no such thing about him not being able to make a determination due to the OLC rule.

a reply to: Deetermined

There were over 448 pages with foot notes.

Mostly, Mueller rejected their claims and objections. But, the objections that I remember were about whether or not Mueller had to the right to exonerate or not. Mueller didn't exonerate Trump for obstruction, but he exonerated everyone for conspiracy. Do you and your Republican friends have a problem with that too? I sure didn't hear about it the hearing where they discussed Part 1.

a reply to: Deetermined

Mueller didn't accuse Trump of a crime because he couldn't prove squat under the guidelines of the law.

Did you even read the report? Mueller didn't indict Trump because he was not allowed to even consider it. That's why there was no determination. But, Mueller's report did suggest corrupt intent, by the president, and then lobbed the issue of "corrupt intent" to Congress.

Now, go back and read the report!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Mueller corrected the Liu statement. Stop using the Liu statement. They did not charge him because they could not find a crime to charge him with. No crime was committed.

Listen, keep chasing your white whale. Next time you will get him, I am sure of it!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Deetermined
Mueller didn't exonerate Trump for obstruction, but he exonerated everyone for conspiracy.

really? show us where Mueller uses the term exonerated in the report!

(hint, it's not a legal term)

(hint 2 innocent until proven guilty)

carry on

a reply to: Sookiechacha

we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

Please show me, in the report, or in his actual testimony, where he says they didn't made a determination because they didn't find any "wrong doing".

Likewise, show us were he said he didn't make a DETERMINATION because of the OLC rule.

He didn't.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There were over 448 pages with foot notes.

Mostly, Mueller rejected their claims and objections.

Mueller's repeated replies of "I disagree with your characterization" is not an argument for why his footnotes were legal or worthy. Both Barr and Rosenstein both said they didn't agree with Mueller's legal theories, but regardless of all that, the written law I posted from Cornell proves why Mueller couldn't make a legal claim against Trump for tampering with witnesses. None of the tampering was done to obstruct a legal proceeding.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

While your contemplating all of Mueller's lies, why did he even bother to put the "Comey firing" on his list of 10 "possible" cases of obstruction? Once again, I'll remind you that Mueller admitted in his testimony that Trump had the authority to fire Comey for any reason at any time. So, you have to ask yourself, why would he even put that on the list? Where's the worthy legal citations for that? Please, do us all a favor, and try not to be so gullible.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

the statute of limitations for that is 5 years ,so when he wins re-election you couldnt even go after him after he leaves office on the offchance they did have any evidence to even attempt a trial

www.washingtonpost.com... moderately slanted article that covers my above point

Mueller’s answer needs to be front and center as Congress decides its next move. If the president is reelected and serves his full term, the five-year statute of limitations on obstruction of justice will run out before he leaves office. Thus, reelection would almost guarantee that Trump will never stand trial for his crimes. The only way Congress can ensure Trump is ever held accountable is to begin impeachment proceedings.

and as the republicans hold the senate impeachment is a non starter and wont get them anywhere and they know it . so even that dream of going after trump when hes out of office is a non starter and doomed to failure as its looking more and more likely that he will win re-election. and knowing how choatic trump likes to keep things some times if it looks like hes going to loose in 2020 he could resign make pence president and get a shiny new pardon on his way out the door( president cant pardon him/her self but sure as hell can resign a day before new pres takes over and get pardoned by his vp turned pres for a day)

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

the statute of limitations for that is 5 years ,so when he wins re-election you couldnt even go after him after he leaves office on the off chance they did have any evidence to even attempt a trial

You just reminded me of another biased statement that Mueller made during his testimony. When the question was posed to Mueller about what would happen if Trump is re-elected and the statute of limitations ran out on charging him with a federal crime, Mueller's somewhat smug reply was, "I can't see the possibility that you suggest."