Mueller to speak about his Report @ 11:00 ET Today (ethics, amendment, constitutional)

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by dashrendar4454

And he said if he had committed a crime he would have said so

So there is no crime and there is no exoneration required

Please, quote the part (in the obstruction transcript) where he says that....

He said he would not even think of a case because he can't indict anyway.
"if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

"A 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."

He says the very opposite of what you claim.....NOT AN OPTION WE WOULD CONSIDER...

------------
He then seems to say that Congress or someone else should do the job.....

" the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing."

[V8 Vega]

Originally Posted by dashrendar4454

The great news is now Dems will spend 100% of their time chasing this “obstruction” dragon. A nice way to keep them occupied

Good while their fooling around with this they won't be raising taxes

[James Bond 007]

Originally Posted by dashrendar4454

He was not charged because they found no evidence that would lead to a criminal charge

It's nothing short of unbelievable how daft some people can be.

He was not charged with a crime because Mueller was not allowed to charge him with a crime.

That's it. It had nothing to do with the evidence. Zero, zilch, nada.

[shiftymh]

If he had evidence that he did commit a crime he would have also said so.

[Cruithne]

Originally Posted by BentBow

Mueller’s only reference to Michael Cohen & Prague is a single sentence. Page gets a couple of paragraphs.
Both subjected to Collusion smears nonstop for 2 yrs The formulation Mueller uses is essentially “we couldn’t prove this crime in court” NOT “they didn’t commit a crime”

We all sat and watched that statement.


You can try to convince yourself that Mueller said 'we couldn’t prove this crime in court'. You can tell it to yourself a million times over. It will never make it true.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

Just a statement......

Not because he's afraid of answering questions from the Democrats.......

But because he doesn't want to answer questions from Republicans.

How can you know that?

Originally Posted by saltine

Yup

How can you know that?

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by shiftymh

If he had evidence that he did commit a crime he would have also said so.

That's not what he said.

[Cruithne]

Originally Posted by shiftymh

If he had evidence that he did commit a crime he would have also said so.

Nope. Once again.


"If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."




You people need to stop lying to yourselves.

[Elliott_CA]

Originally Posted by itshim

Mueller made it clear that there is a presumption of innocence until someone is guilty. He could not find a crime committed by the President, so by default this favors Trump.

That's not what he said about Part 2, obstruction of justice, where strong evidence is provided that Trump committed crimes of obstruction. Mueller said DOJ policy prevented them from indicting Trump.


Mueller made it very clear Trump obstructed justice but left it to Congress to put Trump on an impeachment trial.

[craigiri]

Originally Posted by shiftymh

If he had evidence that he did commit a crime he would have also said so.

Mincing words....the full report contains many instances that others would consider being "the possibility" of a crime.

A lot of his statement explains that he is just a employee of the DOJ and is limited in his scope.