Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Mueller says Trump was not exonerated but Trump declares victory

Recommended Posts

 
I guess nobody cares that Mueller walked this back at the end of the testimony and said they did not make any determination of guilt, directly referencing Lieu, and making this whole argument pointless. 


Yes, that part was conveniently left out of any “mainstream” reporting.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know that's not right :

"He clarified that his office had not made a determination as to when Trump had committed a crime, because of internal Department of Justice guidance that states a sitting president couldn't be indicted."

He clarified his mistake in the afternoon session - you have either not seen that or are deliberately ignoring it by quoting the EARLIER mistake. 


Where would he see it?
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

If it happened pre election, then it definitely happened under Obama's watch.  

 

What a wonderful piece of logic. Similarly, if president Trump obstructed justice, we can safely assume it was post-election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Do you live in the same world as others, or have difficulty with comprehension........

 

"The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" Lieu asked, referring to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

 

"That is correct," Mueller said.

Not sure what world you inhabit but surely you slept through Mueller's complete rebuttal in a written statement he read after lunch, while you dozed....

 

2 hours ago, rabas said:

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.”

 

It seems someone talked to him during the lunch break, would love to know who.

 

Edited by rabas
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

"I can't speak to that," "I'm not going to get into that," and "It is beyond my purview."

 

Nothing new to see here...if you are in the impeachment camp, you have no new maLast I knew, there were still 19 terial...there was no evidence of "Trump" collusion with Russia...and not enough evidence to indict on obstruction.

 

This should be the final Democratic theatrical fiasco concerning the Trump campaign and Russia...and actually start to bring about much needed legislation to move the country forward.

 

Those involved in using false information in an attempt to overthrow an elected President should be very afraid...it will soon be your turn to be arrested!   👍

Last I knew, there were 29 ongoing Trump related investigations ~I think one has been dismissed. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/13/us/politics/trump-investigations.html

 

 

Edited by Redline
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Thainesss said:

 

The would have had more support BEFORE this testimony rather than after that train wreck. 

 

What an embarrassing mis-calculation by Nadler, but Thanks Dems. I seriously doubt we will be hearing anything serious about Impeachment unless its from "The Squad". 

So, you think only 4 people are for impeachment~who told you that Trump?

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

How convenient that you left this out.

 

It was former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team who asked the Justice Department to send Mueller a letter telling him to keep his upcoming testimony to House lawmakers "within the boundaries" of the public version of his Russia probe report.

I guess he did not want to be caught between a rock and a hard place. Anyway, whoever asked for this letter, it became the DOJ official position He was not allowed to go beyond what was written in the report.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

 

Inflammatory posts and replies have been removed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, candide said:

I guess he did not want to be caught between a rock and a hard place. Anyway, whoever asked for this letter, it became the DOJ official position He was not allowed to go beyond what was written in the report.

 

At his own request for crying out loud. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...