New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Why didn't Mueller state in his report.

If it were not for the fact that a sitting President cannot be indicted, we would have charged him with blah, blah, blah.
Why did he hide behind his phony statement that he made.
Gave himself good cover didn't it...
 

worldlymrb

Revenge
Mueller did state in his report that after 2 1/2+ years, an army of democrat prosecutors, and $10s of millions of dollars, all he got was a lousy T-shirt.

C1ce8y0uOwS._CLa_2140,2000_71+vF8MLV6L.png_0,0,2140,2000+0.0,0.0,2140.0,2000.0._UL1500_.jpg
 

llovejim

Current Champion
even Judge Napolitano of Fox news, no less, said there were 5 clear examples of Trump obstructing justice. Usually, if fox news said something, trump voters swear by it....why not this time?

In the video outlining his opinion, Napolitano states in a simple, straightforward manner the reasons he believes Trump committed a crime and why he believes Attorney General William Barr is misinterpreting the obstruction of justice statute.

He says in part:

“When the president asked his former (Deputy National Security) Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter to the file knowing the government would subpoena it — that’s obstruction of justice. When the president asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired — that’s obstruction of justice. When the president asked his then White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about — that’s obstruction of justice. When he asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and change his testimony — that’s obstruction of justice. When he dangled a pardon in front of Michael Cohen in order to keep Cohen from testifying against him — that’s obstruction of justice."

“So why not charge him? Because the attorney general of the United States would have blocked such a charge. Because the attorney general of the United States is of the view that obstruction of justice can only occur if you’re interfering with a criminal investigation of yourself. But that’s not what the obstruction statute says. And that’s not what law enforcement believes and that’s not what prosecutors do. Prosecutors prosecute people who interfere with government functions. And that’s what the president did by obstruction."

“If (Trump) had ordered his aides to violate federal law to save a human life or to preserve human freedom, he would at least have a moral defense to his behavior. But ordering them to break federal law to save him from the consequences of his own behavior, that is immoral, that is criminal, that is defenseless, and that is condemnable.”
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2019/04/26/andrew-napolitano-mueller-report-donald-trump-william-barr/3585006002/

and here is where Mueller clearly outlines why he did not try to indict a sitting president for his obvious crimes of obstructing justice...IN HIS REPORT- READ IT-

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

"As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."

AND NOW THE CRUX OF WHY MUELLER DID NOT CHARGE TRUMP WITH OBSTRUCTION OR EVEN CLAIM HE DID, JUST LAID OUT 10 DIFFERENT EXAMPLES WHERE HE CLEARLY DID....

"The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.

Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy.

Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
The Department's written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report.

And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/29/robert-mueller-statement-russia-investigation-text-transcript-1346453
 
even Judge Napolitano of Fox news, no less, said there were 5 clear examples of Trump obstructing justice. Usually, if fox news said something, trump voters swear by it....why not this time?

In the video outlining his opinion, Napolitano states in a simple, straightforward manner the reasons he believes Trump committed a crime and why he believes Attorney General William Barr is misinterpreting the obstruction of justice statute.

He says in part:

“When the president asked his former (Deputy National Security) Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter to the file knowing the government would subpoena it — that’s obstruction of justice. When the president asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired — that’s obstruction of justice. When the president asked his then White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about — that’s obstruction of justice. When he asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and change his testimony — that’s obstruction of justice. When he dangled a pardon in front of Michael Cohen in order to keep Cohen from testifying against him — that’s obstruction of justice."

“So why not charge him? Because the attorney general of the United States would have blocked such a charge. Because the attorney general of the United States is of the view that obstruction of justice can only occur if you’re interfering with a criminal investigation of yourself. But that’s not what the obstruction statute says. And that’s not what law enforcement believes and that’s not what prosecutors do. Prosecutors prosecute people who interfere with government functions. And that’s what the president did by obstruction."

“If (Trump) had ordered his aides to violate federal law to save a human life or to preserve human freedom, he would at least have a moral defense to his behavior. But ordering them to break federal law to save him from the consequences of his own behavior, that is immoral, that is criminal, that is defenseless, and that is condemnable.”
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2019/04/26/andrew-napolitano-mueller-report-donald-trump-william-barr/3585006002/

and here is where Mueller clearly outlines why he did not try to indict a sitting president for his obvious crimes of obstructing justice...IN HIS REPORT- READ IT-

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

"As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."

AND NOW THE CRUX OF WHY MUELLER DID NOT CHARGE TRUMP WITH OBSTRUCTION OR EVEN CLAIM HE DID, JUST LAID OUT 10 DIFFERENT EXAMPLES WHERE HE CLEARLY DID....

"The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.

Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy.

Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
The Department's written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report.

And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/29/robert-mueller-statement-russia-investigation-text-transcript-1346453
Alas poor yorick. If only Judge Nappi was in charge of the investigation.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
If it were not for the fact that a sitting President cannot be indicted, we would have charged him with blah, blah, blah.
Why did he hide behind his phony statement that he made.
Gave himself good cover didn't it...
He said it would not be fair to do that because, unlike other people, Trump cannot - ahem - clear his name at a trial (since presidents can’t be indicted). Mueller should now know, however, that Trump and Baghdad Barr don’t deserve such “fairness” - Barr’s 4 page letter left the absurdly dishonest impression that Mueller just couldn’t decide because the issues were too hard.

Of course, what Mueller really said was that the issues could only be decided by Congress through impeachment. But Mueller should stop being so cryptic out of concern for “fairness” to Trump. Enough of the Yoda routine.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
even Judge Napolitano of Fox news, no less, said there were 5 clear examples of Trump obstructing justice. Usually, if fox news said something, trump voters swear by it....why not this time?

In the video outlining his opinion, Napolitano states in a simple, straightforward manner the reasons he believes Trump committed a crime and why he believes Attorney General William Barr is misinterpreting the obstruction of justice statute.

He says in part:

“When the president asked his former (Deputy National Security) Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter to the file knowing the government would subpoena it — that’s obstruction of justice. When the president asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired — that’s obstruction of justice. When the president asked his then White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about — that’s obstruction of justice. When he asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and change his testimony — that’s obstruction of justice. When he dangled a pardon in front of Michael Cohen in order to keep Cohen from testifying against him — that’s obstruction of justice."

“So why not charge him? Because the attorney general of the United States would have blocked such a charge. Because the attorney general of the United States is of the view that obstruction of justice can only occur if you’re interfering with a criminal investigation of yourself. But that’s not what the obstruction statute says. And that’s not what law enforcement believes and that’s not what prosecutors do. Prosecutors prosecute people who interfere with government functions. And that’s what the president did by obstruction."

“If (Trump) had ordered his aides to violate federal law to save a human life or to preserve human freedom, he would at least have a moral defense to his behavior. But ordering them to break federal law to save him from the consequences of his own behavior, that is immoral, that is criminal, that is defenseless, and that is condemnable.”
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2019/04/26/andrew-napolitano-mueller-report-donald-trump-william-barr/3585006002/

and here is where Mueller clearly outlines why he did not try to indict a sitting president for his obvious crimes of obstructing justice...IN HIS REPORT- READ IT-

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

"As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."

AND NOW THE CRUX OF WHY MUELLER DID NOT CHARGE TRUMP WITH OBSTRUCTION OR EVEN CLAIM HE DID, JUST LAID OUT 10 DIFFERENT EXAMPLES WHERE HE CLEARLY DID....

"The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.

Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy.

Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
The Department's written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report.

And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/29/robert-mueller-statement-russia-investigation-text-transcript-1346453
Textbook obstruction of justice. So textbook that even GOP toady Anthony Napolitano said so.
 

worldlymrb

Revenge
Crikey. He gave you a very lengthy summary and link setting them out, and here you are asking what they are.

Deplorable!
I would expect nothing less than a lengthy summary of BS from you.

What was the clearly stated obstruction? Trump SAYING he wanted to fire Mueller? You honestly going to try to peddle that as obstruction? Or, are you obstructing by burying the ridiculousness in a lengthy summary?
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
I would expect nothing less than a lengthy summary of BS from you.

What was the clearly stated obstruction? Trump SAYING he wanted to fire Mueller? You honestly going to try to peddle that as obstruction. Or are you obstructing by burying the ridiculousness in a lengthy summary?
Read it. It’s been spoon-fed to you and you’re still ignorant.
 

llovejim

Current Champion
....and why did Mueller spend $35 MILLION to miss them?
actually, when you factor in the 25 million dollar fine and seizures collected by the government during the Manafort case for fraud, it was at most 10 million bucks. and well worth it. there is no price you can put on the American people knowing just how corrupt and dishonest trump and his cronies are, how unpatriotic, how unamerican.

deal with it. how much did trey weasel face gowdy spend on the many investigations of hillary that ended up with no fines, no indictments, no guilty pleas compared to the 34 such actions that occurred due to Mueller's investigation?

Mueller's Russia report: The 34 people indicted by the special counsel

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/.../muellers...report...indictments.../3266050002/

Mar 25, 2019 - Mueller's work resulted in indictments for 34 individuals, although none of ... What happens now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has delivered his report? ..... he didn't find enough evidence to recommend any such charges. ... He also pleaded guilty in August 2018 to charges relatedto making hush ..
 

llovejim

Current Champion
I would expect nothing less than a lengthy summary of BS from you.

What was the clearly stated obstruction? Trump SAYING he wanted to fire Mueller? You honestly going to try to peddle that as obstruction? Or, are you obstructing by burying the ridiculousness in a lengthy summary?
even judge nappy of fox clearly admits trump committed obstruction of justice 5 times, by any standard.

In the video outlining his opinion, Napolitano states in a simple, straightforward manner the reasons he believes Trump committed a crime and why he believes Attorney General William Barr is misinterpreting the obstruction of justice statute.
He says in part:
“When the president asked his former (Deputy National Security) Adviser K.T. McFarland to write an untruthful letter to the file knowing the government would subpoena it — that’s obstruction of justice. When the president asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired — that’s obstruction of justice. When the president asked his then White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about — that’s obstruction of justice. When he asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and change his testimony — that’s obstruction of justice. When he dangled a pardon in front of Michael Cohen in order to keep Cohen from testifying against him — that’s obstruction of justice."
“So why not charge him? Because the attorney general of the United States would have blocked such a charge. Because the attorney general of the United States is of the view that obstruction of justice can only occur if you’re interfering with a criminal investigation of yourself. But that’s not what the obstruction statute says. And that’s not what law enforcement believes and that’s not what prosecutors do. Prosecutors prosecute people who interfere with government functions. And that’s what the president did by obstruction."
“If (Trump) had ordered his aides to violate federal law to save a human life or to preserve human freedom, he would at least have a moral defense to his behavior. But ordering them to break federal law to save him from the consequences of his own behavior, that is immoral, that is criminal, that is defenseless, and that is condemnable.”
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2019/04/26/andrew-napolitano-mueller-report-donald-trump-william-barr/3585006002/
 

Nostra

Governor
actually, when you factor in the 25 million dollar fine and seizures collected by the government during the Manafort case for fraud, it was at most 10 million bucks. and well worth it. there is no price you can put on the American people knowing just how corrupt and dishonest trump and his cronies are, how unpatriotic, how unamerican.

deal with it. how much did trey weasel face gowdy spend on the many investigations of hillary that ended up with no fines, no indictments, no guilty pleas compared to the 35 such actions that occurred due to Mueller's investigation?
Um..............OK, Mueller still spent $35 MILLION on his investigation. The fact he recouped some of it from Manafort's crimes from over a decade ago means nothing.

Tell my why Mueller spent $35 Million and 2+ years to find no collusion, no obstruction, no crimes.

GO!
 

Zam-Zam

Senator
If it were not for the fact that a sitting President cannot be indicted, we would have charged him with blah, blah, blah.
Why did he hide behind his phony statement that he made.
Gave himself good cover didn't it...

Circa February 2019:


For a year and a half, leading Democrats argued that the safest response when asked about the Russia investigation was to defer to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, saying they just want to make sure he can complete his work.

But with rumors swirling that Mueller may be close to finishing, some now think that was the risky choice after all.

Several worst-case scenarios now loom for Democrats. The special counsel’s report could get tangled up in a separation of powers dispute and never see the light of day. Mueller or Attorney General William Barr could choose to leave out the parts about Trump since he’s not being charged with a crime. The report could have a lot of circumstantial evidence but no smoking gun. Or the report, whether damaging to Trump or not, could land with a thud, with Republicans claiming vindication and Democrats seething in anger.

Any one of those outcomes puts Democrats in a bind, especially given their previous statements on Mueller.


https://time.com/5539438/robert-mueller-report-democrats/



And that, as we all know, is exactly what unfolded. For Democrats, it was a train wreck, and now they're trying to salvage something, anything, out of what has been a political disaster for them.

This should be fun.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Um..............OK, Mueller still spent $35 MILLION on his investigation. The fact he recouped some of it from Manafort's crimes from over a decade ago means nothing.

Tell my why Mueller spent $35 Million and 2+ years to find no collusion, no obstruction, no crimes.

GO!
Er yes...not dishonest. He said no collision all along. No conspiracy.
 

Nostra

Governor
you could also refer to the letter written by 500+ federal judges, prosecutors and attorneys that agreed with Judge Nappy, if you could be fair and unbiased for a few minutes. i used fox's chief legal expert because i figured even trump voters MIGHT believe that....
Wow! You mean there are 500 anti-Trump attorneys in the US?

I'm shocked............SHOCKED I TELLS YA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:D:D:D:D:D
 
Top