Mueller to make important statement

[This_person]

It's different because, again, Clinton was not President. The OLC made it crystal clear that they will not prosecute a sitting President. Investigators won't recommend any decision against Trump as clearly stated in the report. That's the main reason it's different.

And, investigators didn't recommend a decision in Trump, even though that was their charge to do. But, they did make the prosecutorial decision for the AG with Clinton, which they were NOT charged to do. Another notable difference.

However, in the report, Mueller made it clear that they didn;t evaluate Trump's conduct under Justice Manual standards because that could actually result in a judgement that he committed a federal crime. They didn't do that because the OLC already said they won't indicte a sitting President.

It clearly spells out that Trump is not completely innocent but because of legal standards (i.e. the OLC decision) they cannot conclude a crime was committed.

It clearly states that it's up to Congress.

And it clearly states that they did not make prosecutorial judgement in this case. And they stated, once again, that they'd say he was innocent if he was.

They do not have the authority to state that one is innocent. They did not state that he was innocent of "collusion", either. They said they didn't have the evidence to suggest he was guilty, to prosecute. Because, THAT is the job of the SC's office.

In the case of obstruction, they chose not to decide. They really should have left it there. The rest that they did was nothing more than a political hit job.

 

[Grumpy]

... and a strange argument coming from an alleged libertarian, isnt' it?

LINO?

 

[This_person]

Because, at no point in that report, did they come to a prosecutorial decision solely because Trump is President.

Then, why issue Volume II?

 

[This_person]

If that were true, the report would have said so.

The opposite happened and it clearly states, multiple times, that if Trump were innocent, the report would say so.

Can you name any other prosecutorial decision that states "we find the accused innocent", as opposed to "we do not find evidence to prosecute"?

 

[This_person]

Its right there in the graph. The page numbers are defended for each, and those are not opinions. That is an accurate representation of muellers findings in the report. If you haven’t read it yet you won’t. You are stuck on spin and propaganda. You don’t want to burst that bubble with reality.

Go read the report

The graph is some cut and pasted author's opinion that you won't name. The report does NOT come to the conclusions you post, they are opinions.

Are you intellectually prepared to debate the point your author's opinion states?



I didn't think so.

 

[This_person]

For various reasons pointed out in this thread, they never were going to.

If the President was honest, there wouldn't be 10 instances Mueller investigated as possible obstruction actions.

That's not what the report says. The report says he was directed to find potential obstruction and report on it. It's in the introductory paragraph of Volume II.

If the President was honest he wouldn't have sold his voters on the idea Mexico was paying for the wall, or that China is paying for his bailouts, or lie about his dealings with Russia, or Stormy Daniels, or Cohen, or Comey, or the "real" unemployment rate, or basic facts and figures, or the "thousands" of Muslims he supposedly saw in NJ celebrating 9/11, or moking a reporter, or his opposition to Iraq, or the "12" articles of the Constitution, or that judges can sign bills, or that he can rewrite libel laws, or ban birthright citizenship, or how he was going to eliminate the $19 trillion in national debt in 8 years, or that he was going to cut Medicare spending on prescriptions, or the number of people who voted illegally, or that he won via a landslide, or that vaccines cause autism, or the crowd size at his inauguration, or that Obama wasn't born in the US, or....

"honest" is not an adjective one uses to describe anyone in Washington, let alone Donald Trump.

Now, here we can agree.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

And, investigators didn't recommend a decision in Trump, even though that was their charge to do. But, they did make the prosecutorial decision for the AG with Clinton, which they were NOT charged to do. Another notable difference.



They do not have the authority to state that one is innocent. They did not state that he was innocent of "collusion", either. They said they didn't have the evidence to suggest he was guilty, to prosecute. Because, THAT is the job of the SC's office.

In the case of obstruction, they chose not to decide. They really should have left it there. The rest that they did was nothing more than a political hit job.

They didn't recommend one because they know the OLC says they can't prosecute!

The scope of the investigation was never, ever, about getting charges. It was to look into the Russian interference in the 2016 election and events surrounding that.

Why this must be spelled out again, I don't know, but they made a decision with Clinton because she was not a sitting President and didn't have OLC opinion saying investigators couldn't prosecute her.

Then, why issue Volume II?

Because that's part of the investigation.

Can you name any other prosecutorial decision that states "we find the accused innocent", as opposed to "we do not find evidence to prosecute"?

Can you name any prosecutorial decision about a sitting President, at all?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

View attachment 137585

It's off topic to point out all the times he was dishonest to a person who said he was honest?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The report says he was directed to find potential obstruction and report on it. It's in the introductory paragraph of Volume II.

Where?

This report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), which states that, " [a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he ... shall provide the Attorney General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special Counsel] reached."

Beginning in 2017, the President of the United States took a variety of actions towards the ongoing FBI investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters that raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice. The Order appointing the Special Counsel gave this Office jurisdiction to investigate matters that arose directly from the FBI's Russia investigation, including whether the President had obstructed justice in connection with Russia-related investigations. The Special Counsel's jurisdiction also covered potentially obstructive acts related to the Special Counsel's investigation itself. This Volume of our report summarizes our obstruction-of-justice investigation of the President.

We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:

The obstruction charges stemmed direclty from the Russia investigation which was well within Mueller's scope.

Our obstruction-of-justice inquiry focused on a series of actions by the President that related to the Russian-interference investigations, including the President's conduct towards the law enforcement officials overseeing the investigations and the witnesses to relevant events.

 

[This_person]

They didn't recommend one because they know the OLC says they can't prosecute!

The scope of the investigation was never, ever, about getting charges. It was to look into the Russian interference in the 2016 election and events surrounding that.

Why this must be spelled out again, I don't know, but they made a decision with Clinton because she was not a sitting President and didn't have OLC opinion saying investigators couldn't prosecute her.



Because that's part of the investigation.

So, since the scope of the investigation was to look into the Russian interference in the 2016 election and the events surrounding that, what part of Volume II is about that?

Can you name any prosecutorial decision about a sitting President, at all?

Nixon? Clinton?

 

[This_person]

It's off topic to point out all the times he was dishonest to a person who said he was honest?

Honest about this topic, not everything. But, your point is well taken - you were intentionally off the topic of the thread to attack Trump as seen through someone else's eye.

 

[GURPS]

Isn't it annoying

But Trump asked Russians to HACK ... Trump grabs pussy ... Trump made fun of a Gold Star Family

 

[This_person]

Here it is in graphic form since we all know Trumpers don’t read. But just in case they want to try, each of the instances of obstruction listed below includes the associated page numbers from the report.
View attachment 137581

So, since you're too chickenshit to start, I will.

Let's start with the first one - Flynn. The "obstructive act" is predicated on Comey's account - Comey is a known liar. No obstructive act

Shall we move on to the next? Or, will you continue to be incapable intellectually of discussing the opinions raised by the author you cut and paste from?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So, since the scope of the investigation was to look into the Russian interference in the 2016 election and the events surrounding that, what part of Volume II is about that?


Nixon? Clinton?

It's in Volume I.

And that decision came from? Hint: Not the DoJ.

Honest about this topic, not everything. But, your point is well taken - you were intentionally off the topic of the thread to attack Trump as seen through someone else's eye.

That's molding what was said (or more specifically, not said) to fit your narrative. That's not what was said. What was said was:

I don't know about you, but I kinda like having an honest President...FINALLY...

He's not honest and at least you can admit it.

 

[CPUSA]

For various reasons pointed out in this thread, they never were going to.

If the President was honest, there wouldn't be 10 instances Mueller investigated as possible obstruction actions. If the President was honest he wouldn't have sold his voters on the idea Mexico was paying for the wall, or that China is paying for his bailouts, or lie about his dealings with Russia, or Stormy Daniels, or Cohen, or Comey, or the "real" unemployment rate, or basic facts and figures, or the "thousands" of Muslims he supposedly saw in NJ celebrating 9/11, or moking a reporter, or his opposition to Iraq, or the "12" articles of the Constitution, or that judges can sign bills, or that he can rewrite libel laws, or ban birthright citizenship, or how he was going to eliminate the $19 trillion in national debt in 8 years, or that he was going to cut Medicare spending on prescriptions, or the number of people who voted illegally, or that he won via a landslide, or that vaccines cause autism, or the crowd size at his inauguration, or that Obama wasn't born in the US, or....

You have an active imagination and an unwaivering love for Trump. That's cool, but "honest" is not an adjective one uses to describe anyone in Washington, let alone Donald Trump.

And yet, just like Mueller....YOU AREN'T OFFERING ANY PROOF!!! No evidence either. You are just offering up Mueller's OPINION.
NO EVIDENCE TO INDICT...
Let's break this down into some simpler terms that you will STILL REFUSE TO ACCEPT....NO EVIDENCE!!!!
those other 2 extra words? Are just that...EXTRA WORDS

Look Chris, I don't expect you to get it. You'e shown on too many occasions in this forum that you just aren't that smart. It's ok buddy. You don't have to understand what NOT GUILTY means. You don't have to understand NOT NOT GUILTY means.
But the simple truth of the matter is this....Our President is innocent of all charges from this fake assed witch hunt. You don't have to accept the truth if you don't want to...but it's not going to change the fact that President Trump is...INNOCENT

 

[Chris0nllyn]

And yet, just like Mueller....YOU AREN'T OFFERING ANY PROOF!!! No evidence either. You are just offering up Mueller's OPINION.
NO EVIDENCE TO INDICT...
Let's break this down into some simpler terms that you will STILL REFUSE TO ACCEPT....NO EVIDENCE!!!!
those other 2 extra words? Are just that...EXTRA WORDS

Look Chris, I don't expect you to get it. You'e shown on too many occasions in this forum that you just aren't that smart. It's ok buddy. You don't have to understand what NOT GUILTY means. You don't have to understand NOT NOT GUILTY means.
But the simple truth of the matter is this....Our President is innocent of all charges from this fake assed witch hunt. You don't have to accept the truth if you don't want to...but it's not going to change the fact that President Trump is...INNOCENT

I offered you the link the the report that goes in depth into 10 instances of possible obstruction.

You've clearly got your doctorate degree and canin the report where it says Trump is innocent. Where is that part?

 

[Kyle]

Look Chris, I don't expect you to get it. You'e shown on too many occasions in this forum that you just aren't that smart. It's ok buddy. You don't have to understand what NOT GUILTY means. You don't have to understand NOT NOT GUILTY means.

Damn man... He's Mr. Omniscient!

Just ask him.

 

[CPUSA]

Damn man... He's Mr. Omniscient!

Just ask him.

He's Mr. Obtuse...Nothing else

 

[This_person]

It's in Volume I.

And that decision came from? Hint: Not the DoJ.

So, you agree Volume II was entirely unnecessary?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So, you agree Volume II was entirely unnecessary?

No, because, as spelled out on page 2,

The report on our investigation consists of two volumes:

Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Section IV describes links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions.

Volume II addresses the President's actions towards the FBI's investigation into Russia' s interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters, and his actions towards the Special Counsel' s investigation. Volume II separately states its framework and the considerations that guided that investigation