The biggest piece of news that people seem to be ignoring... Is that Robert Mueller just declared that he will not be testifying before Congress, and that if he was subpoenaed he would defer 100% to what is already written in the report. pic.twitter.com/S0V6uZTmxH— C.H. Truth (@C_H_Truth) May 29, 2019
21 comments:
This is the bombshell.
The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.
That is unconstitutional.
=====
He would have indicated the President, but the Deputy of Justice prohibited him from indicting the President.
Nadler is starting now that they will have investigations.
The President and the Attorney General are lying.
This is nonsense while he technically cannot indict the president he can say there was evidence he committed a crime.
That's what Starr did when he said Bill Clinton committed perjury.
But Mueller didn't say Trump committed a crime or that he had evidence Trump committed a crime. He said couldn't make a determination. Why not?
The obvious answer is because Trump committed no crime nor is their any evidence a crime existed.
So Nadler wants a do-over, huh?
Because he apparently never actually read the report when it came out, and this is the first time he heard of any of this?
You claim to be a menstra.
He stated that although he would have indicted the President, but the policy forbid it.
It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.
That is unconstitutional.
=====
He would have indicated the President, but the Deputy of Justice prohibited him from indicting the President.
It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.
That is unconstitutional.
Roger - Nowhere does Mueller state that he would have indicted the President. That is simply a flat out lie.
He stated that although he would have indicted the President, but the policy forbid it.
No he didn't state anything of the kind. He stated "We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the 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 determination could have gone either way, Trump either committed or not committed a crime. Or even acknowledge a crime existed.
He did not do any of those thing citing "long-standing Department policy" which is absolute nonsense. He made and determination about collusion and Barr was certainly expecting him to make a determination about obstruction.
That he didn't told me he was unsure of his evidence but he hated him so much that he created this star chamber situation by turning juries-prudence on it's head.
It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.
Yes he did, if he could,he would have indicted the President.
Denying that he would have indicted him!
Yes he did, if he could,he would have indicted the President.
Denying that he would have indicted him!
WTF you are insane
objection of justice
Typical passive aggressive Mueller, though he did acknowledge that Barr has been honest and forthcoming. Dems won't like that.
Yes he did, if he could,he would have indicted the President.
That is your supposition. It is not fact.
You are batshit crazy.
Okay Roger...
Read the transcript and tell us where he said he would have indicted the President.
Roger's currency lies and teenage emotion.
"C.H. TruthMay 29, 2019 at 2:34 PM
Roger - Nowhere does Mueller state that he would have indicted the President. That is simply a flat out lie."
We can not , not prove Roger Beat his wife.
And we cannot prove Roger didn't beat his wife therefore we cannot exonerate him.
No can we make a determination on whether Roger beat his wife or not.
See how that works?
@seanmdav
I understand why Democrats don't want Mueller to testify and won't subpoena him. They don't want to expose him to tough questions from Republicans about his conduct and that of his staff. Senate Republicans should *immediately* subpoena Mueller to testify before Senate Judiciary.
Correctomundo
@larryelder
"...attempted to obstruct justice by facilitating a witness' plan to refuse to comply with a subpoena; attempted to obstruct justice by encouraging a witness to file an affidavit that the president knew would be false..."
--Ken Starr Report, 1998
But #Mueller's hands were tied?
Desperation
He stated "We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime."
Nor did they make a determination as to whether the President did not commit a crime.
*** BREAKING NEWS !!! ***
Nothing to report !!!
Obama may be guilty of obstruction
Or not
What STUPID "Logic"
sounds like a fake "pastor"
No one would like the criminal Standards Roger wants applied to Donald Trump to them.
MIA Joe White is rerunning the Hillary Campaign by going dark for 6 days.
"Logic"
Dumbass.
Post a Comment