Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Director Mueller Speaks in Public for the First Time...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post

    I did read Volume II. I see discussion of it but I don't see action. What are you seeing that shows that Trump obstructed?
    If you actually did take a look at the report, there are ten instances listed regarding obstruction of justice. And Mueller did not clear the president of obstruction.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

      Case closed, they had nothing and still don't. Move on and get a life.
      You didn't read the report now did you? And I doubt that you heard Mueller yesterday.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

        That doesn't make him guilty.
        That doesn't clear him of the charge either.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Massena View Post

          If you actually did take a look at the report, there are ten instances listed regarding obstruction of justice. And Mueller did not clear the president of obstruction.
          Again, I did read the report, I see talk about obstruction but no action by Trump that he obstructed........can you show where Trump actually obstructed?
          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

          Comment


          • #50
            Wow, Alan Dershowtiz ( a dem) said the same thing I did about Mueller.

            Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias.


            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

            Comment


            • #51
              There is a little mistake in the OP : 'Director "Mueller is in reality the chief prosecutor of DS, IOW : the US Freisler,or Vychinski, and for some unknown reasons ,the OP forgot to mention this . Maybe he was convinced that everybody knew it, and he wanted to save time .
              It is the same when one is talking about Hillary : everyone knows she is a crook, thus why repeat it everytime one mentions her ?

              Comment


              • #52
                How was the Steele dossier not collusion with Russians by the Clinton campaign. How was Comey's speech clearing Clinton not obstruction.

                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Anthrax View Post

                  The problem is that you can't determine guilt or innocence without a trial to bring out the actual facts, and you can't have a trial without charges. Since the DOJ won't file charges based on long standing policy, we're stuck in a catch 22.

                  According to the report, there is enough evidence that if he were a normal person he would have been charged with an obstruction charge.

                  It never ceases to amaze me why Trump deemed it necessary to interfere with the investigation. He was innocent of conspiracy, or at least they couldn't find enough evidence. If he had just sucked it up, and let the investigation run it's course, we'd be done by now, and the Republicans could have tweaked their nose, and called out everyone. Instead, Trump tried to obstruct the investigation at every turn. It makes no sense.

                  There is no proof at all that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation, which was illegal : the Mueller investigation is the equivalent of someone being judged for murder and the jury being relatives of the victim .
                  The majority of the Mueller team were Democrats and one worked for the Clinton Foundation .
                  One can not work for Clinton and investigate Trump .!!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Anthrax View Post

                    The problem is that you can't determine guilt or innocence without a trial to bring out the actual facts, and you can't have a trial without charges. Since the DOJ won't file charges based on long standing policy, we're stuck in a catch 22.

                    According to the report, there is enough evidence that if he were a normal person he would have been charged with an obstruction charge.

                    It never ceases to amaze me why Trump deemed it necessary to interfere with the investigation. He was innocent of conspiracy, or at least they couldn't find enough evidence. If he had just sucked it up, and let the investigation run it's course, we'd be done by now, and the Republicans could have tweaked their nose, and called out everyone. Instead, Trump tried to obstruct the investigation at every turn. It makes no sense.

                    There is no proof at all that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation, which was illegal : the Mueller investigation is the equivalent of someone being judged for murder and the jury being relatives of the victim .
                    The majority of the Mueller team were Democrats (13 on 17 ) and one worked for the Clinton Foundation .
                    One can not work for Clinton and investigate Trump .!!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                      In the US system, is a defendant "innocent until proven guilty," or is a defendant "not guilty until proven guilty"? In Scotland a jury can come back with a verdict of "not proven": insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict and any subsequent sentence, but the jury thinks the defendant guilty anyway. If the special counsel cannot recommend charges be filed due to insufficient evidence, then isn't that the end of his story? In the US, isn't "not guilty" the same as "innocent"?
                      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Salinator View Post
                        Mueller is just twisting himself into a pretzel trying his best to avoid saying he can't find anything to charge Trump with, and thus INNOCENT. There is no way he can prove a negative anyway and he damn knows it.
                        Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                          He's republican
                          He's a RINO then.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            The FBI kept four innocent people in prison for years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger and Mueller was in charge of that. That is the kind of man Mueller is. He is not a good guy and he had no reason to make this statement other than to abuse the power of his office as he has throughout his career. Like most swamp creatures he has no respect for the constitution or the rights of individuals. Mueller's loyalty is to the bureaucracies that he confuses with loyalty to the Nation. All the conservatives that say Mueller is a good guy are simply deluded about how corrupt the government is and always has been.
                            This profile would fit a couple of our TDS posters here.
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by TactiKill J. View Post

                              Not everyone has strings attached to them. I also don't feel that there should be two teams in America, there should only be one. You do what's in your county's best interest, even if that's to the detriment of your own party.
                              The reason there are two plus "teams" in the USA is because there are that many and more definitions of "do what's in your county's best interest". We saw the two major variations in the 2016 election in form of "Make America Great Again" versus "beat down the Deplorables".

                              So far, only "Russian influence in 2016" I've seen is they MIGHT have had a role in exposing email from the DNC/HRC restating evidence they are the slime and scum most Americans already knew them to be. No evidence of any ballots being altered or any vote tallies changed. IF Russian "influence/interference" swayed any meaningful number of USA voters to not vote for Hillary, it was far less than what resulted from usual campaign adverts and efforts with domestic origin and source.

                              We saw two years of wasted effort and millions of taxpayer dollar$ squandered in a kangaroo court form "investigation" which only produced procedural and perriferial "convictions", none of which directly relate to or prove "Russian interference" or "Trump campaign collusions with the Russians".

                              Your "one team" idea is what they had in USSR, and have in Cuba, Venezuela, and People's Republic and Workers Paradise of China. We've seen how well that works for a nation and it's citizens.
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                                Wow, Alan Dershowtiz ( a dem) said the same thing I did about Mueller.

                                Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias.

                                Dershowitz is a Democrat in name . He defended OJ, heís a successful big time lawyer but also massively pro Israel. Like some other democrats heís a Democrat in name Imo. One cannot defend the Governments of countries like Israel or Saudi Arabia and claim to be standing for democratic values. Donít take any of my points the wrong way Iím just pointing out that some modern Democrats are standing for the wrong things. Turn to other Democrats if you want to hear out those whom properly follow the democratic ways.
                                Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                                Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                                George S Patton

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X