"Did you actually totally exonerate the President? No."

[Southern Chicken]

He didn't challenge it because he thought the OLC prevented it, and why would he challenge it anyway since that wasn't the scope of his investigation?

Your argument amounts to "well he didn't NOT do it".

And that's not an argument that has any standing.

It was the scope of the investigation, He was to provide provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel. HE DIDNT do that. Did he? The OLC doesn't prevent him from his legal function. If he felt that it would then he had the legal power to challenge the policy.

 

[LV426]

Anyone reading the entire link can tell that you are lying. RATCLIFF was responding to what another congressman said.

You're the one lying.

Yes, Ratcliffe did say that. RATCLIFFE did, not Mueller.

RATCLIFFE was the one who said he thought the President shouldn't be below the law, which is just another way of saying he thinks the President should be above the law.

How does Volume II put the President "below the law", anyway?

 

[LV426]

It was the scope of the investigation

He literally said it wasn't.

Literally.

The SC legislation literally says that too.

Mueller didn't charge Trump because Mueller thought that the OLC prevented that; it's what Mueller said when asked half a dozen times.

You are pretending that Ratcliffe saying he doesn't think the President should be below the law (whatever that means), is a re-stating of Mueller's position but it's not.

It's you revealing your hand and thinking that you believe the President is above the law.

So we have a disagreement on fundamentals of separation of powers; you believe, as Ratcliffe does, that the President should be above the law when it comes to charges of obstruciton.

That's what "the President should not be below the law when it comes to Volume II" fuckin' means, idiot.

Wow...no wonder you are a Trump supporter; you're a dumb fuckin' idiot.

 

[LV426]

The OLC doesnt prevent him from his legal function.

That is literally what he said it did.

If he felt that it would then he had the legal power to challenge the policy.

His SC mandate, laid out in the legislation, wasn't to determine if the OLC rule that a sitting President can be charged should be challenged.

His SC mandate was simply to investigate the attack.

Now, if you want to start a brand new Special Counsel that specifically looks at the question of whether or not a sitting President can be charged with a crime, I'm all for that.

Frankly, I think there should be a commission or counsel that investigates the question of whether or not a President can be charged. But that was not the scope and scale of what Mueller's investigation was. That legal question isn't what was being investigated. That legal question, if Mueller did challenge it, would need to be challenged by a lawsuit, and the SC didn't have that power or scope to challenge those policies.

You seem to be saying that by not challenging them, that it's a tacit admission that there was no crime the President committed. But we know that's not true because of the instances of obstruction laid out in Volume II.

You're arguing that what was laid out in Volume II actually exonerates Trump because no charges were brought for those actions; but again, the reason is because challenging the OLC guidelines wasn't what the SC was supposed to do.

Face it; you're just not smart enough to mount this defense.

 

[Southern Chicken]

He literally said it wasn't.

Literally.

The SC legislation literally says that too.

Mueller didn't charge Trump because Mueller thought that the OLC prevented that; it's what Mueller said when asked half a dozen times.

You are pretending that Ratcliffe saying he doesn't think the President should be below the law (whatever that means), is a re-stating of Mueller's position but it's not.

It's you revealing your hand and thinking that you believe the President is above the law.

So we have a disagreement on fundamentals of separation of powers; you believe, as Ratcliffe does, that the President should be above the law when it comes to charges of obstruciton.

That's what "the President should not be below the law when it comes to Volume II" fuckin' means, idiot.

Wow...no wonder you are a Trump supporter; you're a dumb fuckin' idiot.

There isn't a Supreme Court opinion or US Constitution that says a sitting president can't be indicted neither is there a law set against Mueller to challenge the OLC policy for criminal behavior conducted by a sitting president. If so provide the source. This is a wasted dialogue because you choose to LIE. Anyone that is reading the link know you're lying.

 

[Southern Chicken]

That is literally what he said it did.




His SC mandate, laid out in the legislation, wasn't to determine if the OLC rule that a sitting President can be charged should be challenged.

His SC mandate was simply to investigate the attack.

Now, if you want to start a brand new Special Counsel that specifically looks at the question of whether or not a sitting President can be charged with a crime, I'm all for that.

Frankly, I think there should be a commission or counsel that investigates the question of whether or not a President can be charged. But that was not the scope and scale of what Mueller's investigation was. That legal question isn't what was being investigated. That legal question, if Mueller did challenge it, would need to be challenged by a lawsuit, and the SC didn't have that power or scope to challenge those policies.

You seem to be saying that by not challenging them, that it's a tacit admission that there was no crime the President committed. But we know that's not true because of the instances of obstruction laid out in Volume II.

You're arguing that what was laid out in Volume II actually exonerates Trump because no charges were brought for those actions; but again, the reason is because challenging the OLC guidelines wasn't what the SC was supposed to do.

Face it; you're just not smart enough to mount this defense.

Another out right LIE. HIS mandate was to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel.

Again from the link of the ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT-



https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...rt-mueller-house-committee-testimony-n1033216

"And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says, as you read this morning, it "authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel." That's the very first word of your report, right?
MUELLER:

That's correct.
RATCLIFFE:

Here's the problem, Director: The special counsel didn't do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume 2, with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination. So respectfully, Director, you didn't follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, "Write a confidential report about decisions reached." Nowhere in here does it say, "Write a report about decisions that weren't reached." You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that weren't reached, about potential crimes that weren't charged or decided. And respectfully -- respectfully, by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra-prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren't charged"

 

[LV426]

There isn't a Supreme Court opinion that says a sitting president can't be indicted neither is there a law set against Mueller to challenge the OLC policy.

The scope of the SC wasn't to challenge the OLC guidelines, it was to investigate and uncover any wrongdoing, which was uncovered in both Volume I and Volume II.

You said yourself by quoting Ratcliffe that you don't think the President "should be below the law". What does that mean?

 

[Wolverine]

He didn't challenge it because he thought the OLC prevented it, and why would he challenge it anyway since that wasn't the scope of his investigation?

Your argument amounts to "well he didn't NOT do it".

And that's not an argument that has any standing.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, you are failing to watch where he clarified that wasn't the case, because you are to friggin coward to admit you put so much time, and effort into your false premise, suck it up buttercup you were wrong.

 

[LV426]

"authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel."

And the decision, as Mueller said in his report, was that he couldn't bring charges because of OLC guidelines.

You're saying he can challenge those guidelines, but what you're not understanding is that isn't what the SC mandate was.

The SC mandate wasn't to challenge OLC guidelines, it was to investigate the attack and the role Trum played in it.

By saying "he should not be below the law", you are saying that you think that Mueller thinks the President is above the law, but Mueller never said that, all he said was that he thought the OLC said he couldn't charge the President. So he didn't.

You are arguing that by not challenging that guideline, Mueller's report somehow clears the President of wrongdoing...but it doesn't, nor is that what Mueller said, nor is that what the SC legislation says.

So you're trying to set a new goalpost to explain away the criminality detailed in Volume II.

 

[reagansghost]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, you are failing to watch where he clarified that wasn't the case, because you are to friggin coward to admit you put so much time, and effort into your false premise, suck it up buttercup you were wrong.

Mueller said directly OLC policy prevented him from suggesting an indictment to Barr

is English your second language?

 

[LV426]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, you are failing to watch where he clarified that wasn't the case

I'm not failing to watch anything, you're making shit up.

 

[LV426]

Mueller said directly OLC policy prevented him from suggesting an indictment to Barr

is English your second language?

Their defense is a goalpost shift now...

They are saying that because Mueller didn't challenge the OLC guideline, that's Mueller saying he didn't think the President did anything wrong.

It's the entire basis of their "total exoneration" argument, and it's a weak legal one at that.

Maybe this is all settled by establishing a special counsel or commission to investigate whether the OLC guidelines are appropriate; but those can only be challenged by a lawsuit, since it's DOJ policy. The mandate of the SC wasn't to challenge that policy, it was to investigate the attacks.

So fine, so let's have legislation or a lawsuit that challenges the policy; will Conservatives agree to that? FUCK NO because that lawsuit would succeed and the OLC guidelines would be abolished.

 

[Wolverine]

Mueller said directly OLC policy prevented him from suggesting an indictment to Barr

is English your second language?

He clarified in the second hearing that was not the case, yours is a case of being a coward also, you are to afraid to admit you were wrong so you continue to be an absolute ass and plug your ears. Do me a favor get off da welfare and stop costing me money!

 

[Wolverine]

Their defense is a goalpost shift now...

They are saying that because Mueller didn't challenge the OLC guideline, that's Mueller saying he didn't think the President did anything wrong.

It's the entire basis of their "total exoneration" argument, and it's a weak legal one at that.

Maybe this is all settled by establishing a special counsel or commission to investigate whether the OLC guidelines are appropriate; but those can only be challenged by a lawsuit, since it's DOJ policy. The mandate of the SC wasn't to challenge that policy, it was to investigate the attacks.

So fine, so let's have legislation or a lawsuit that challenges the policy; will Conservatives agree to that? FUCK NO because that lawsuit would succeed and the OLC guidelines would be abolished.

Last Time, he said OLC did not prevent him form suggesting charges, now you can act like that isn't the case I really couldn't care less. Know this you are a coward, and a liar, and a despicable human being, with no morals what so ever and a danger to our republic, and given the chance I would kick your ass. You should be punt in shackles and made fun of by small children whose IQ is much higher !

 

[Southern Chicken]

Last Time, he said OLC did not prevent him form suggesting charges, now you can act like that isn't the case I really couldn't care less. Know this you are a coward, and a liar, and a despicable human being, with no morals what so ever and a danger to our republic, and given the chance I would kick your ass. You should be punt in shackles and made fun of by small children whose IQ is much higher !

Bingo!

 

[LV426]

Last Time, he said OLC did not prevent him form suggesting charges

NOTICE THE GOALPOST SHIFT.

Now it has become "suggesting charges".

Again, Mueller said that the OLC prevented him from charging a President. The only way he could would be if the OLC guidelines were challenged by a lawsuit, and that was not part of the SC purview or legislation.

So you seem to now be arguing that OLC guideline should be challenged.

Do you think that it should?

 

[LV426]

Last Time, he said OLC did not prevent him form suggesting charges

He did not say that.

He said the opposite of that.

 

[LV426]

Last Time, he said OLC did not prevent him form suggesting charges

Le sigh...

BUCK: Was there sufficient evidence to convict president of Drumpf or anyone else of obstruction of justice?
MUELLER: We did not make that calculation.
BUCK: Why not?
MUELLER: Because of the OLC opinion that states the president can't be charged with a crime.

 

[Southern Chicken]

You're the one lying.

Yes, Ratcliffe did say that. RATCLIFFE did, not Mueller.

RATCLIFFE was the one who said he thought the President shouldn't be below the law, which is just another way of saying he thinks the President should be above the law.

How does Volume II put the President "below the law", anyway?

Right here:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...rt-mueller-house-committee-testimony-n1033216

Now, in explaining the special counsel did not make what you called a traditional prosecution or declination decision, the report, on the bottom of page 2, Volume 2, reads as follows: "The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Now, I read that correctly?
MUELLER:

Yes.
RATCLIFFE:

All right. Now, your report -- and today, you said that at all times, the special counsel team operated under, was guided by and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?
MUELLER:

Can you repeat the last part of that question?
RATCLIFFE:

Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Can -- let me make it easier. Is...
MUELLER:

May -- can I -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
RATCLIFFE:

... can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated..."

And Here:

And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says, as you read this morning, it "authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel." That's the very first word of your report, right?
MUELLER:

That's correct.
RATCLIFFE:

Here's the problem, Director: The special counsel didn't do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume 2, with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination. So respectfully, Director, you didn't follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, "Write a confidential report about decisions reached." Nowhere in here does it say, "Write a report about decisions that weren't reached."

 

[LV426]

Right here:

1. This has nothing to do with what I asked. I asked how does Volume II put the President "below the law". You didn't say.

2. Instead, you repeated the argument that because Mueller didn't challenge the OLC guidelines, that means the actions Trump took laid out in Volume II aren't obstruction. And that is an "absence of proof is proof" argument which has absolutely no legal standing.