Message Board Archives

Let’s see what he says.

State what you think Mueller will say.

Will it be pro-Trump (i.e. take the air out of the Impeachment balloon) or pro-Impeachment ( i.e. give more impetus to the Impeachment drive)?

In reply to Casper

How about telling the truth of the matter?

In reply to Casper

Mueller is a skunt. he should have recommended either indictment or impeachment for obstruction of justice.

he bottled it mate just like Comey- pack of American jokers

In reply to Casper

This could be explosive either way ----but could it be sterile, neutered? Interesting development - Does AG Barr still have his hands on the scale --- he is still Mueller’s boss

Interesting

In reply to Casper

Yep. What's more after he speaks he can no longer deny the House request for him to show up at their hearing

Put it to rest once and for all.

Probably be more vague, ambiguous legalese open to interpretation.

In reply to Runs

I totally agreed bare BS

I wouldn't expect much from Mueller but at least glad that he is showing a pulse. I suspect it will be wrapped in Lawyer speak and leave you wondering why he bothered.

I wonder if its the republican Amash town hall meeting yesterday that raised him from the dead. Either way lets see what he says.

In reply to Runs

After reading the Guardian about his statement I am even more convinced that he wont say anything of significance. He is only making the statement to avoid testifying in public. Let see. Really hope I am wrong though...cuz it said that its the statement that he drafted 3 indictments then trash them, that is resulting in this statement. Which could mean that the Whitehouse could find it more favorable and he gave them the heads up.

Democrats on bended knees for something, anything bad to happen to Trump. Some even want a financial collapse

A statement of about 8 minutes expected. Let's hope it is not fluff or a waste of airtime, but something concrete.

In reply to nitro

In reply to Casper

Are you hoping dat the soap opera created by de Bernie or bust crew will end so quickly? What woud Vix say? 6 mo years?

In reply to Casper

You do not need all of 8 minutes to say NO COLLUSION, NO CRIME HENCE NO OBSTRUCTION!

He had already sent out his huge report. Read and comprehend without your biased mindset!

In reply to nitro

Calm down bro
What is the hissyfit all about

In reply to Casper

Mueller will most likely pull a powen and sit on the fence!

From the horse's mouth - the President obstructed justice, if he had not done so, I wouldv'e have said so.

In reply to Runs

 The written work "speaks for itself."

More winning..

Mueller seh only the fact that the idiot is the sitting pruhzedent prevented him from being charged with obstruction

#murca

Casper will be reporting on the Impeachment Train. It is just warming up.

In reply to Casper

In reply to nitro

If you read ir, it is damning

In reply to Casper

Nothing new was said that was not already known.

In reply to VIX

For once you are correct
Could not charge him as per US Constitition BUT could not exonerate him. Ball tossed to Congress and or until he leaves office to then be indicted. Clearly he obstructed justice which is a crime.

Guy is telling Congress to do it’s ^%{{} job.

In reply to YoungWarrior

That is IT right there

In reply to Runs

Where is the LT (Lying Tweet)?

Soon coming. Probably waiting for how FauxNew tell him to construct it.

In reply to Runs

So he did commit a crime but cannot be indicted.

In reply to YoungWarrior

yes, ...and only Congress can indict him. Over to Democrats; on to Impeachment.

In reply to YoungWarrior

Its now up to Congress to do its job - Mueller has spoken - there is underlyng evidence, but it was not his call for the charging of the IDIOT. The justice dept does have the evidence to CONVICT Dump when he leaves Office!!! OR Congress can do it ASAP.

"We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime," he said.

Cannot be charged for obstruction when there was no crime.

In reply to Casper

In reply to nitro

In reply to black

Mueller OPENED the door even CLEARER to CONGRESS to do your JOBS .... impeach the asshole.

Or ... in a few years the DOJ can do it.

In reply to nitro

This is what the orange clown just wrote:

In reply to YoungWarrior

Well he is up the creek without a paddle, spin as he likes.

In reply to sudden

In reply to sudden

Because he does not want to influence the people who are to make that decision.

SC could have said, we did not find any collusion and we could not conclude or charge with obstruction, however AG Barr and Deputy AG Rosenstein concluded that he did not and we accept that. So in all intents and purposes this is over.

That he did not say so, IS PROFOUND.

In reply to black

In reply to black

clearly that is not what he said.

he said in plain words - if it was any other person but a sitting president he would have been indicted. if there was no evidence so to do i would have said so clearly. but there is a longstanding policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted but that does not affect impeachment which is our way of removing a sitting president for high crimes and misdemeanours

In reply to birdseye

In reply to black

Justin Amash is the voice of truth for the GOP, speaks truth to power, do not bother what the rest says.

In reply to Runs

It's not just Amash, all the Repubs know Trump obstructed justice but he (Amash) is the only one brave enough to speak out.

In reply to black

The Dems have to uphold the Constitution as this batch of GOP obviously will not.

"...there were multiple, systemic efforts to interfere in our election. And that allegation deserves the attention of every American."

In reply to Runs

Impeach him and forget about what the Senate is going to do. That is their job.

In reply to black

Yes, of course it is. Will a Prosecutor refuse to bring the case to trial because he thinks the jury will acquit?

Such thinking is insane.

Judge Napolitano of Faux News says

Judge Nap - “Effectively what Bob Mueller said is we had evidence that he committed a crime but we couldn't charge him because he's the president of United States -- This is even stronger than the language in his report” Judge Napolitano said.

“I think basically he’s saying the president can't be indicted otherwise we would have indicted him and we're not going to charge him with a crime because there's no forum in which for him… to refute the charges. But we could not say that he didn't commit a crime. Fill in the blank because we believe he did.”

I cant tell which is the bigger wuss. Mueller or the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi. Democrats have all that they need to impeach, kick out, kick to the curb the president, further bolstered by Mueller statement today. To do nothing just for political expediency is an even bigger crime. But in a sense when Mueller sees what Barr and Trump doing with the Intelligence and law Enforcement agencies he aught to be a bit more forthcoming. For the country in which he lives and whose global reputation and leadership going down the drain and the general lawlessness of the administration, it aught to give him greater pause- as choosing not to say more, for whatever reason, put his country at greater risk.

And I not sure what can be done about William Barr. I am not sure if they have a special Jail for him. I am not sure if he can be sanctioned or punished for the lies and misdirection that he has perpetuated on the American people. But he can not go unscathed and this is the second time in his career that he has done it and I hope it has finally caught up with him.

In reply to Runs

Booker is calling on Congress to begin immediate impeachment proceedings.

I like Nancy but she is wrong on this.

In reply to Casper

In reply to Star

In reply to carl0002

Barr has lied and covered up, he needs to go, unfit for the office himself.

Here is Mueller .. and some reactions from his statement ---

What they are saying: Washington reacts to Mueller’s statement

In reply to Runs

Mueller smashed down the lies - great press briefing with very short notice.

In reply to Chrissy

not a man moved

In reply to Runs

He caught them completely off guard - Barr is in Alaska

In reply to Chrissy

He said nothing more than what was written in the report.

In reply to Chrissy

Yep, heard that, imagine if this was him before the release of the report. Few people have read it even now.

In reply to np

Link not working

Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel's Office.
The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel's Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.
I'll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office's written work speak for itself.
Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.
As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.
The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.
And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.
These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.
The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.
That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.
Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.
The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.
The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to 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 is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
The Department's written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.
We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by Department regulations.
The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.
At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General's good faith in that decision.
I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.
There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.
The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.
In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.
So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.
It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.
Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel's Office, were of the highest integrity.
I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.
Thank you.

Mueller is chicken.

Him wait until neither Spanky nor Barr at home to make his 'disclosures'. What him 'fraid of?

In reply to black

In reply to Chrissy

Thanks Sis ... I fixed it —- missed a bracket —

This guy will break it down for those who don't get it..