• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why aren't we talking about how Mueller said Trump committed a crime?

Vic

Vic

Elite Member
"If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

More to the point, why aren't we talking about the Republicans support having a criminal as President? And how Republicans are eagerly hoping to re-elect a criminal as President?
 
Vic said:
"If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

More to the point, why aren't we talking about the Republicans support having a criminal as President? And how Republicans are eagerly hoping to re-elect a criminal as President?
Click to expand...
Because it’s to painful for them to realize how they failed themselves their party and this country so they continue do double down?
 
Paratus said:
Because it’s to painful for them to realize how they failed themselves their party and this country so they continue do double down?
Click to expand...
Then we should keep talking about it until they have no choice but to recognize their own complicity in criminality.
 
Because they are all criminal of course. Trumps just stupid criminal BUT he keeps those taxcuts and judges and other Taliban agendas flow... so who cares about the "optics".
With Roe vs. Wade I think you guys should be nervous. Its so unpopular that you wouldnt expect R to ever recover from it.. Unless...
 
Didn't you know Mueller exonerated Trump the other day on live TV? Just ignore the words that were coming out of his mouth and listen to the Trump voice over.
 
It is kind of amazing how the party that claimed the mantle of patriotism threw away their loyalty to the country as soon as it became inconvenient.
 
Vic said:
"If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

More to the point, why aren't we talking about the Republicans support having a criminal as President? And how Republicans are eagerly hoping to re-elect a criminal as President?
Click to expand...
We didn’t need the Mueller investigation to know Trump is a criminal. It’s been crystal clear who Trump is from the moment he announced his candidacy, and the GOP chose to hitch their wagons to him anyway. It is indefensible, but we’ve adequately had this conversation.

More to the point, the only conversation worth having is why Congress is not doing its job. Mueller’s report cannot establish innocence or guilt, but there is ample evidence to justify inpeachment proceedings. There has been for some time.

All the Democrat frontrunners now support impeachment. Congress, your move.
 
^
trump was a known quantity for a long time, long before 2016, he was a known scumbag back in the 80s, what with all the contractors he stiffed.
 
Mueller also said this:

"When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrong doers accountable."
Click to expand...

"When", not "If". Obstruction is an impeachable offense.
 
This is either funny or scary

Hannitys take :

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6042498605001/

Its funny cause it sort of sounds like Alex Jones, (ie. switch Sandy Hook coverup).
Its scary cause, what if that is the level of radicalization that Fox++ have pushed the whole segment to.
Fox Alternative Fact Level for the conservative America: Alex Jones 10/10.
 
Vic said:
"If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

More to the point, why aren't we talking about the Republicans support having a criminal as President? And how Republicans are eagerly hoping to re-elect a criminal as President?
Click to expand...
Because he did not say that. All we got after 2 years of investigation was a bunch of double talk, ambiguous, legalese that specifically states nothing.
 
ondma said:
Because he did not say that. All we got after 2 years of investigation was a bunch of double talk, ambiguous, legalese that specifically states nothing.
Click to expand...

Why are you trying to obscure the plain language of what the special council said?

Why are you supporting this felonious activity?
 
Starbuck1975 said:
We didn’t need the Mueller investigation to know Trump is a criminal. It’s been crystal clear who Trump is from the moment he announced his candidacy, and the GOP chose to hitch their wagons to him anyway. It is indefensible, but we’ve adequately had this conversation.

More to the point, the only conversation worth having is why Congress is not doing its job. Mueller’s report cannot establish innocence or guilt, but there is ample evidence to justify inpeachment proceedings. There has been for some time.

All the Democrat frontrunners now support impeachment. Congress, your move.
Click to expand...
Actually not all the front runners support immediate impeachment hearings, namely Biden and Bernie.

When there is a massive wildfire, the benefits of setting additional small fires are not always intuitive.
 
ondma said:
Because he did not say that. All we got after 2 years of investigation was a bunch of double talk, ambiguous, legalese that specifically states nothing.
Click to expand...
According to Trump the Mueller Report is the Bible. That means you think it is the Bible.

Does that make Robert Mueller.......??
 
ondma said:
Because he did not say that. All we got after 2 years of investigation was a bunch of double talk, ambiguous, legalese that specifically states nothing.
Click to expand...

He couldn't say that directly because of DOJ rules. What he did is to explain that obstruction was found and that because of "the rules" Trump was immune and Mueller was forced to silence on matters of guilt. He then went into something completely outside of the report itself and told America that if these serious issues are to be addressed then Congress has a Constitutional mechanism to hold an Officeholder accountable, and that is obviously impeachment. I think an argument that Mueller wasn't aware of that statement's significance would be foolish. There was nothing ambiguous about Mueller, his investigation or the path he was forced to take but there was double talk and outright lies by the administration and Republicans. There was no exoneration by Mueller and Barr outright lied. That was perfectly understandable by people not familiar with "legalese".

Naturally the wagons circle and part of that is misleading as you have in your statement of outright fabrication.

Your hope is that Americans are so ignorant that you can play them and by heavens, you are right in the case of too many. The Great Deceiver must heartily approve of you and yours.
 
umbrella39 said:
Why are you bald faced lying and what does your keyboard look like?
Click to expand...

Think of this as a one image graphic representation.

image001.jpg
 
Starbuck1975 said:
We didn’t need the Mueller investigation to know Trump is a criminal. It’s been crystal clear who Trump is from the moment he announced his candidacy, and the GOP chose to hitch their wagons to him anyway. It is indefensible, but we’ve adequately had this conversation.

More to the point, the only conversation worth having is why Congress is not doing its job. Mueller’s report cannot establish innocence or guilt, but there is ample evidence to justify inpeachment proceedings. There has been for some time.

All the Democrat frontrunners now support impeachment. Congress, your move.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that it's the Democrats' fault that the Republicans voted for, and continue to support, a criminal?
 
ondma said:
Because he did not say that. All we got after 2 years of investigation was a bunch of double talk, ambiguous, legalese that specifically states nothing.
Click to expand...
"If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

That seems very unambiguous IMO.
 
Until McConnell is bound at his wrists and ankles, a ball-gag sealing his mouth, and very publicly carted out of Congress lashed to one of those Hannibal Lecter S&M stretchers, this country will never be well.
 
ondma said:
Because he did not say that. All we got after 2 years of investigation was a bunch of double talk, ambiguous, legalese that specifically states nothing.
Click to expand...

wtf.

seriously man: a 4th grader would understand exactly what Mueller said. Why are you pretending otherwise? Do you honestly believe what you are saying here?
 
I found it an odd thing to say about an onging investigation.

Our system works on the idea that people are innocent. Prosecutors generally shouldn't make public declarations that a suspect is guilty.
Not that they don't do it, mind you.

It would be odd if a prosecutor, commenting on Mr X, accused of bank fraud, said in public:

"If we had confidence that Mr X did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

I think such a statement would seriously jeopardize the case against Mr X.

The only thing i can think of is that Mueller knows there's no case against Trump, and wanted to get a shot in at Trump.

Because I think as a prosecutor, Mueller would not have wanted to make a possibly prejudicial statement about an ongoing proceeding.

Anyway, we've known all along that charging a sitting President is a job for Congress.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I found it an odd thing to say about an onging investigation.

Our system works on the idea that people are innocent. Prosecutors generally shouldn't make public declarations that a suspect is guilty.
Not that they don't do it, mind you.

It would be odd if a prosecutor, commenting on Mr X, accused of bank fraud, said in public:

"If we had confidence that Mr X did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

I think such a statement would seriously jeopardize the case against Mr X.

The only thing i can think of is that Mueller knows there's no case against Trump, and wanted to get a shot in at Trump.

Because I think as a prosecutor, Mueller would not have wanted to make a possibly prejudicial statement about an ongoing proceeding.

Anyway, we've known all along that charging a sitting President is a job for Congress.
Click to expand...

First: Mueller's investigation is over. You knew that, right?

Second: Mueller is not a prosecutor and that was not his role.

You might want to rethink the rest of your analysis as your premise seems to be entirely wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top