4
4
0
Quoted from the article, pay attention to the wording!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the question of whether Trump committed obstruction of justice, the Mueller report itself states: “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Regarding Democrat suggestions that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation, Mueller was asked by Rep. Doug Collins, “At any time … was your investigation curtailed or stopped?” Mueller answered, flatly, “no.”
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) wanted to make hay anyway, because it’s all Democrats have: “Did you actually ‘totally exonerate’ the president?”
“No,” Mueller responded, adding: “The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.”
Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) correctly noted, “It was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence.” Ratcliffe also thundered, “Donald Trump is not above the law, but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law.”
In other words, they saw nothing that would be an indictable offense. And of course he did not “exonerate” the president because that was not his task. The “exoneration” question, which assumes “guilty until proven innocent,” is just a Democrat play on words to imply there must be something else to keep their impeachment circus circulating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the question of whether Trump committed obstruction of justice, the Mueller report itself states: “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Regarding Democrat suggestions that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation, Mueller was asked by Rep. Doug Collins, “At any time … was your investigation curtailed or stopped?” Mueller answered, flatly, “no.”
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) wanted to make hay anyway, because it’s all Democrats have: “Did you actually ‘totally exonerate’ the president?”
“No,” Mueller responded, adding: “The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.”
Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) correctly noted, “It was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence.” Ratcliffe also thundered, “Donald Trump is not above the law, but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law.”
In other words, they saw nothing that would be an indictable offense. And of course he did not “exonerate” the president because that was not his task. The “exoneration” question, which assumes “guilty until proven innocent,” is just a Democrat play on words to imply there must be something else to keep their impeachment circus circulating.
Executive Summary: Mueller's Capstone Testimony
Posted from patriotpost.usPosted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
Law
Office of the President (POTUS) Law
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 3
4
4
0
Severe cases of TDS are so sad to see played out in the news and on Social Media, normally I would say let them keep this up well into 2020 to seal their fate but this is tax payers money they are burning by the pile to accomplish nothing but make themselves look like fools. And as for Mueller it looks like he didn't even read the report he supposedly wrote which makes this more suspect.
(4)
(0)
1SG Dennis Hicks
https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocratsLogic/videos/ [login to see] 48251/
Media Cringes As Mueller Stumbles Through Testimony – Misses Questions Completely
"As they were using him for clarity, he would just ... fog it up."Media members struggle to quantify former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's...
(1)
(0)
LTC David Brown
I watched the hearing also, I don’t think Mueller could convince the Republicans he was Robert Mueller because that was out of his purview, even while wearing a name tag. It was a sad spectacle!
(2)
(0)
CDR Dan Cunningham
It was also quite obvious that Robert Mueller didn't read the report he signed. Given his abysmal performance at the hearing, it's doubtful he could have understood it anyway.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
And yet, in Vol. II, are ten examples of Obstruction of Justice, clearly laid out for all to see. Instead of Rep. Ratcliffe, perhaps you should look at the exchange between Rep. Burk (also a Republican) and Mueller.
Q: Could you charge the President with a crime after he left office?
Mueller: Yes.
Q: You believe that he committed. . .you could charge the President of the United States with Obstruction of Justice after he left office?
Mueller: Yes.
Q: Could you charge the President with a crime after he left office?
Mueller: Yes.
Q: You believe that he committed. . .you could charge the President of the United States with Obstruction of Justice after he left office?
Mueller: Yes.
(1)
(0)
MSG Frank Kapaun
Gregory, I disagree, The Donald is equal parts asshole and grade a son in f a bitch. But, as I found out during the times I was a 1SG, Assholes and Grade A son of a bitches get things done. Politics and diplomacy do not abide by Marquis of Queensbury rules. The Donald is doing ok in my book. I didn’t vote for him either and wouldn’t trust him with my money or my wife. But he’s the asshole/grade a son of a bitch this country needs. Just my dos centavos.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
"you could charge the President of the United States with Obstruction of Justice after he left office?" - absolutely the truth straight up. Yes. Not only yes, but hell yes! In fact we can have the lawyers lined up 2,000 deep all frothing at the mouth to charge him.
But the question then becomes: can you prove it - beyond a shadow of doubt? Is there enough evidence to convict? Hell! Is there enough evidence to charge him?
The question was NEVER is there a lack of evidence to exonerate. This country does not start at guilty and leave it to you to prove your innocence. But you, right now, are that lawyer frothing at the mouth to take a shot. So, charge him. Go for it!
If Clinton can get off with his dick in an interns mouth, and nearly 3 years of investigation did not find enough dirt on Trump to charge him, what are the odds of him EVER being charged, let alone found guilty? And did you know that this was the first time in US history a prosecutor ended with "and we don't have enough to exonerate him". Why is that?
I voted for both them Sons of Bitches. I was sorely disappointed the first time around. The 2nd time around? I'll let you know next term. This term I saw enough to vote for him again.
But the question then becomes: can you prove it - beyond a shadow of doubt? Is there enough evidence to convict? Hell! Is there enough evidence to charge him?
The question was NEVER is there a lack of evidence to exonerate. This country does not start at guilty and leave it to you to prove your innocence. But you, right now, are that lawyer frothing at the mouth to take a shot. So, charge him. Go for it!
If Clinton can get off with his dick in an interns mouth, and nearly 3 years of investigation did not find enough dirt on Trump to charge him, what are the odds of him EVER being charged, let alone found guilty? And did you know that this was the first time in US history a prosecutor ended with "and we don't have enough to exonerate him". Why is that?
I voted for both them Sons of Bitches. I was sorely disappointed the first time around. The 2nd time around? I'll let you know next term. This term I saw enough to vote for him again.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google