Fox News says Mueller report did NOT clear Trump

Jarod said:
To get to the truth, if he had decided Swampy was innocent, he could have said so, could not do so the other way around.

He determined that would be up to Congress to do something about, as he could not indict.
Click to expand...

Complete nonsense. His job isn't too prove innocence you idiot. How the hell are you a lawyer? His job is to see if the EVIDENCE is strong enough to bring charges.

Again, he absolutely, 100%, could have concluded indictment was warranted. The DoJ then would have waited until Trump was out of office to do so. Basic law you moron.

There is nothing that said Mueller couldn't reach conclusions.
 
Superfreak said:
Complete nonsense. His job isn't too prove innocence you idiot. How the hell are you a lawyer? His job is to see if the EVIDENCE is strong enough to bring charges.

Again, he absolutely, 100%, could have concluded indictment was warranted. The DoJ then would have waited until Trump was out of office to do so. Basic law you moron.

There is nothing that said Mueller couldn't reach conclusions.
Click to expand...

Sure not, liar.

“So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”

He reached 10 conclusions

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION”


A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen
 
domer76 said:
He reached 10 conclusions

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION”


A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
Click to expand...
how is that obstruction of justice, other than in lala land
B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
Click to expand...
which conduct is that nutjob?
C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
Click to expand...
we're only three in and you've claimed twice that a reaction is obstruction, and you wonder why we all think you're a triggered cupcake?
D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
Click to expand...
last I checked trump can fire anyone he wants to first of all, and secondly I think Comey's incompetence is beyond being able to dispute, no?

E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
Click to expand...
but he didn't huh nutbags, he could have right, but didn't.. I'm trying to follow your triggered babble I really am
F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
Click to expand...
that's just a lie, he said repeatedly he wanted it to finish because he did nothing wrong, but pointing out what a waste of time and resource it was... RIGHT AGAIN wasn't he tiny?
H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
Click to expand...
What ?^^^^
I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
Click to expand...
why would he deny he tried to do something that he could have done anytime he wanted to, ina n instant, that ^^^makes about as much sense as paying for your education did to your parents probably
J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
Click to expand...
^^^ what? did you take your meds? they're in a cup at the desk
K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen
Click to expand...
what doe's that even mean?

you have too much time on your hands, ever think about knitting flower boy?
Click to expand...
 
Getin the ring said:
domer76 said:
He reached 10 conclusions

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION”



how is that obstruction of justice, other than in lala land

which conduct is that nutjob?

we're only three in and you've claimed twice that a reaction is obstruction, and you wonder why we all think you're a triggered cupcake?

last I checked trump can fire anyone he wants to first of all, and secondly I think Comey's incompetence is beyond being able to dispute, no?


but he didn't huh nutbags, he could have right, but didn't.. I'm trying to follow your triggered babble I really am

that's just a lie, he said repeatedly he wanted it to finish because he did nothing wrong, but pointing out what a waste of time and resource it was... RIGHT AGAIN wasn't he tiny?

What ?^^^^

why would he deny he tried to do something that he could have done anytime he wanted to, ina n instant, that ^^^makes about as much sense as paying for your education did to your parents probably

^^^ what? did you take your meds? they're in a cup at the desk

what doe's that even mean?

you have too much time on your hands, ever think about knitting flower boy?
Click to expand...

Read Volume II the report, lazy assed moron. It’s all there.
Click to expand...
 
Superfreak said:
Complete nonsense. His job isn't too prove innocence you idiot. How the hell are you a lawyer? His job is to see if the EVIDENCE is strong enough to bring charges.

Again, he absolutely, 100%, could have concluded indictment was warranted. The DoJ then would have waited until Trump was out of office to do so. Basic law you moron.

There is nothing that said Mueller couldn't reach conclusions.
Click to expand...
LMAO. And indictment is warranted in a case where the individual is above the law? That's funny.
 
Hello Southern Chicken,

Southern Chicken said:
A prosecutor either finds enough evidence to charge someone or he doesn’t. He doesn't make a list for the house to go after someone.

He knows that if he doesn't make a conclusion about on whether to charge or not it is left up to the Atty. General to make a conclusion.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Mueller indeed left it up to the house to proceed with charges if they deem fit. He did so create a list of possible infractions. He stated that he is prevented from bringing an indictment against a sitting president.

The AG is likewise unable to indict the president. That task is left up to the house.
 
PoliTalker said:
That is not DOJ policy. He said that was his own personal feelings.
Click to expand...

But that’s kind of it lol.

It’s a policy and it’s open to interpretation. The reason presidents should be immune from indictment is because state Attorneys General could file bogus indictments against a president for partisan reasons. So rather than opening that Pandoras Box it was decided presidents should be immune from indictments—while serving. Makes perfect sense and it’s a good rule.

Sadly, presidents aren’t immune from partisan Witch Hunts.

At any rate, note that says *nothing* about presidents being immune from criminal conclusions or determinations that arise out of investigations. A conclusion is not an indictment. Mullet is totally on his own with that one. There is NO reason Mullet couldn’t have concluded Trump’s actions were worthy of indictment and then *plainly stated* it as such.

But he left us this Mumbo-jumbo about Trump being not not guilty of obstruction. I challenge anyone to cite another single instance where a federal prosecutor ended with such an absurd proclamation. And along with it, the so-called ten instances of obstruction which are actually ten potential instances of obstruction.

It’s very easy to get the idea it was done in order to give House Democrats something to work with. In fact, that’s the most plausible explanation for the contortions.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Southern Chicken,



I disagree.

Mueller indeed left it up to the house to proceed with charges if they deem fit. He did so create a list of possible infractions. He stated that he is prevented from bringing an indictment against a sitting president.

The AG is likewise unable to indict the president. That task is left up to the house.
Click to expand...

Hello politalker.

The special counsel sends the report to the AG not to congress. The AG explains it to congress.

For your review please read this thoroughly or this is a wasted exercise

https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/attorney-generals-special-counsel-regulations/
 
Darth Omar said:
But that’s kind of it lol.

It’s a policy and it’s open to interpretation. The reason presidents should be immune from indictment is because state Attorneys General could file bogus indictments against a president for partisan reasons. So rather than opening that Pandoras Box it was decided presidents should be immune from indictments—while serving. Makes perfect sense and it’s a good rule.

Sadly, presidents aren’t immune from partisan Witch Hunts.

At any rate, note that says *nothing* about presidents being immune from criminal conclusions or determinations that arise out of investigations. A conclusion is not an indictment. Mullet is totally on his own with that one. There is NO reason Mullet couldn’t have concluded Trump’s actions were worthy of indictment and then *plainly stated* it as such.

But he left us this Mumbo-jumbo about Trump being not not guilty of obstruction. I challenge anyone to cite another single instance where a federal prosecutor ended with such an absurd proclamation. And along with it, the so-called ten instances of obstruction which are actually ten potential instances of obstruction.

It’s very easy to get the idea it was done in order to give House Democrats something to work with. In fact, that’s the most plausible explanation for the contortions.
Click to expand...

see my link
 
PoliTalker said:
That is not DOJ policy. He said that was his own personal feelings.
Click to expand...

"The Attorney General has full control over the assignment to a special counsel of additional jurisdiction (section 600.4(b)) that is “necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light” during a special counsel’s investigation. A special counsel is to consult with the Attorney General, who will then “determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.”
 
Superfreak said:
How many times will the idiots spit out this stupidity?

'We didn't prove 100% he was innocent, so please keep speculating. We didn't have enough evidence to indict, but hey... Guilty until proven innocent!'
Click to expand...

They had plenty to indict and would have if they could have.
 
Superfreak said:
Wrong. First, that is a DOJ guideline. Second, Mueller was still able to recommend indictment... it simply would have been delayed until Trump was out of office under the guideline.

So you are incorrect. Mueller could have reached the conclusion if he felt he had the evidence.
Click to expand...

He has the evidence and gave it to congress, it's their responsibility.
 
Earl said:
In America, no collusion and insufficient evidence to pursue obstruction means that, in the eyes of the law, you are innocent.
Click to expand...

why do you keep saying there was insufficient evidence? They did not conclude that, not by a longshot.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Southern Chicken,



I disagree.

Mueller indeed left it up to the house to proceed with charges if they deem fit. He did so create a list of possible infractions. He stated that he is prevented from bringing an indictment against a sitting president.

The AG is likewise unable to indict the president. That task is left up to the house.
Click to expand...

The Attorney General’s regulations provide for reports from a special counsel to the Attorney General, and for reports from the Attorney General to Congress. For the former, there are to be annual (section 600.8(a)(2)) and closing (section 600.8(c)) reports by special counsel to the Attorney General.
 
Legion said:
Indeed.

Until now, I don't recall reading of any prosecutor ever stating that although a person under investigation was not being indicted, they aren't being cleared.
Click to expand...

Thats because this was the president and he can't indict him, if he could have he would have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top