"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

hopperace

long forgotten host
Oct 20, 2006
5,075
109
✟125,971.00
Faith
Presbyterian
It does not change either my opinion nor understanding of the Mueller Report, or 'Russia Investigation' (as it was falsely touted to be), which unfortunately has been held up as some impartial standard of truth and justice.

There were 'reasons' there was a 'transition' from 'Independent Counsel' to 'Special Counsel', with 'special' indicating to me that the 2yr/2mil taxpayer time and money was never even intended to be fair, just, impartial, nor bipartisan. The activity & report was always meant to be a sidestep of investigating Russian interference by working in their favour toward dismantling the 'opposition' campaign of what became the Trump Administration and American presidency.

The Special Counsel was appointed on faulty and partisan propaganda of 'progressive' elements of the party which lost the previous election, in an attempt to debilitate America and smear the winning administration as 'illegitimate' and force a 'lame-duck' presidency, just as Congress has been for a few decades now. It never had any interest in justice or fairness and by definition was and continues to be prosecutorial and slanderously ruinous to the office of the presidency and the American jurisprudence regardless of any 'findings'. That's one key factor in why the Special Counsel's 'conclusions' were NOT go/no-go but muddy and accusatory without substantial substance, other than 'convictions' in areas outside its scope and call.

The Special Counsel and Mueller Report were meant to have every appearance of propriety, bipartisanship, and protecting of America's sovereignty over against Russian interference while actually being a "witch-hunt" of and by American 'witches', for American 'witches', and to insure plenty of blustering witchy activity under the guise of "freedom, justice, and the American way", which, btw, has always been somewhat-to-very witchy - just ask any Native American or American Southerner.
 
Upvote 0

FenderTL5

Κύριε, ἐλέησον.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2016
5,085
5,960
Nashville TN
✟634,456.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
so they did convict or charge him with something?
No, because he can not be indicted of the crimes he committed while he is still president. The only recourse for a sitting president who has committed those crimes is impeachment by the House/Senate.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
1) Does this statement from Mueller's press conference today change your understanding of the report?

2)If it does: How?
If it does not: Why not?


Personally, it doesn't change my understanding as this is what I have understood from the beginning.

I am in the same place i was before. He basically described what was in the report.

Personally, i would like to see him face questions, as barr did. Sort of like a trial, where both sides get to cross examine, not just one side.

I still liken this situation to bill clinton. The dems have enough information to impeach trump, but it likely fails in the senate, with no conviction.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FenderTL5
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What happened to "no collusion, no obstruction"?

No evidence of conspiracy, collusion is a meaningless term.

On obstruction, mueller didnt make a call either way so it is up to the dems to impeach, based on what they have. I think a good argument could be made that obstruction happened and likely, a decent defense of the same.
 
Upvote 0

childeye 2

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2018
4,972
2,886
66
Denver CO
✟203,538.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1) Does this statement from Mueller's press conference today change your understanding of the report?

2)If it does: How?
If it does not: Why not?


Personally, it doesn't change my understanding as this is what I have understood from the beginning.
It doesn't change my understanding of the report. But then I am one of those who actually read the report.

I must surmise that the only reason Mueller came out publicly, is because there yet remains a large segment of the population that has not read the report, and have taken William Barr's and President Trumps' mischaracterization and assessment of Mueller's report and simply believed that misrepresentation.

Hence here are five points that Mueller has laid bare in todays press conference, that William Barr and Donald Trump have tried to sweep under the rug.
1) Russia did indeed interfere in the election in a broad sweeping and underhanded manner to benefit Donald Trump.
2) There is undeniable evidence that Trump tried to obstruct and interfere with the outcome of the investigation. But as per DOJ guidelines, Mueller was not allowed to charge the President with any crime while he is in office.
3) It is up to congress to exercise the only constitutional remedy for charging a sitting President with a crime.
4) William Barr lied to congress and the American people when he testified under oath that Mueller's decision to not bring charges, was not based upon DOJ guidelines.
5)That Barr had no ethical business concluding that the President was innocent of obstruction of justice simply because there was no "collusion" proven in the report. Mueller clearly indicated that there was a serious crime being committed against the American people in the form of cheating to help Trump win. And Trump accepted that help and clearly tried to obstruct the investigation, because he didn't want the public to think he might not have won fairly. This is why he is still lying every single time he calls the investigation a hoax invented by the Democrats as an excuse for losing.

We have a sitting President who most likely is now compromised by what Putin might use against him, which is probably why he yet refuses to admit Russian interference and is now instructing Barr to use the DOJ to investigate the investigators as if there were no real crimes committed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,288
24,197
Baltimore
✟557,941.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
It does not change either my opinion nor understanding of the Mueller Report, or 'Russia Investigation' (as it was falsely touted to be), which unfortunately has been held up as some impartial standard of truth and justice.

There were 'reasons' there was a 'transition' from 'Independent Counsel' to 'Special Counsel', with 'special' indicating to me that the 2yr/2mil taxpayer time and money was never even intended to be fair, just, impartial, nor bipartisan. The activity & report was always meant to be a sidestep of investigating Russian interference by working in their favour toward dismantling the 'opposition' campaign of what became the Trump Administration and American presidency.

The Special Counsel was appointed on faulty and partisan propaganda of 'progressive' elements of the party which lost the previous election, in an attempt to debilitate America and smear the winning administration as 'illegitimate' and force a 'lame-duck' presidency, just as Congress has been for a few decades now. It never had any interest in justice or fairness and by definition was and continues to be prosecutorial and slanderously ruinous to the office of the presidency and the American jurisprudence regardless of any 'findings'. That's one key factor in why the Special Counsel's 'conclusions' were NOT go/no-go but muddy and accusatory without substantial substance, other than 'convictions' in areas outside its scope and call.

The Special Counsel and Mueller Report were meant to have every appearance of propriety, bipartisanship, and protecting of America's sovereignty over against Russian interference while actually being a "witch-hunt" of and by American 'witches', for American 'witches', and to insure plenty of blustering witchy activity under the guise of "freedom, justice, and the American way", which, btw, has always been somewhat-to-very witchy - just ask any Native American or American Southerner.

lolol

Your guy tried to obstruct justice multiple times; he directed his lawyer to commit campaign finance violations; and his campaign staff tried (but failed) to illegally acquire dirt on a political opponent from a foreign entity. Oh yeah, and his campaign manager has been doing all kinds of fraud and money laundering for years.

But the special counsel was totally just the result of a bunch of butthurt Democrats trying to get revenge for 2016.

What would it take for you all to see that maybe your guy is crooked?
 
Upvote 0

hopperace

long forgotten host
Oct 20, 2006
5,075
109
✟125,971.00
Faith
Presbyterian
lolol

Your guy tried to obstruct justice multiple times; he directed his lawyer to commit campaign finance violations; and his campaign staff tried (but failed) to illegally acquire dirt on a political opponent from a foreign entity. Oh yeah, and his campaign manager has been doing all kinds of fraud and money laundering for years.

But the special counsel was totally just the result of a bunch of butthurt Democrats trying to get revenge for 2016.

What would it take for you all to see that maybe your guy is crooked?
LOLOLOL, he's not my guy. I'm a life-long conservative Democrat. I'll admit I voted for him over "crooked Hilary" who should have already been locked up for worse crimes; but the choice wasn't based on Trump's character, nor the Republican party, who broke the Constitution to invade and pillage the South, killing over half a million Americans, nor the Democrat party's recent platform of killing over 47 million babies.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: whatbogsends
Upvote 0

hopperace

long forgotten host
Oct 20, 2006
5,075
109
✟125,971.00
Faith
Presbyterian
And it isn't so much (to some) that the president cannot be indicted, but under one interpretation of DOJ guidelines the he should not be indicted.
“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
“...criminal proceedings against a sitting President should be barred by the doctrine of separation of powers because such proceedings would unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the Presidency.”
IOW, the president should not but may be indicted, but were Trump indicted, he wouldn’t be able to execute the office of president to the best of his capacity for interference from other governmental powers. Thus, one form of a "constitutional crises". Though this has been the opposition party and other anti-Trumper's design since he won the Electoral College – to invalidate, frustrate, and negate the office of the American presidency, as a treasonous 'constitutional crises coup'.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,288
24,197
Baltimore
✟557,941.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
LOLOLOL, he's not my guy. I'm a life-long conservative Democrat. I'll admit I voted for him over "crooked Hilary" who should have already been locked up for worse crimes; but the choice wasn't based on Trump's character, nor the Republican party, who broke the Constitution to invade and pillage the South, killing over half a million Americans, nor the Democrat party's recent platform of killing over 47 million babies.

So.... You're a conservative confederate apologist who voted for Trump and spewed a bunch of falsehoods about Mueller and the Democrats.

That sounds like a quintessential TrumpFan to me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,675
3,188
✟167,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
That's the exact opposite of what Mueller said.

He contradicted his own report. He actually sounded scared, especially the way he ran off saying he wouldn't speak of it again. He looked like a scared little coward who was being threatened.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,288
24,197
Baltimore
✟557,941.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
He contradicted his own report. He actually sounded scared, especially the way he ran off saying he wouldn't speak of it again. He looked like a scared little coward who was being threatened.

Or, perhaps, unlike your fearless leader, he actually knows when it's appropriate to speak and when it's appropriate to keep one's mouth shut. I find it refreshing when people know how to stay in their lane.
 
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,675
3,188
✟167,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
1) Does this statement from Mueller's press conference today change your understanding of the report?

2)If it does: How?
If it does not: Why not?


Personally, it doesn't change my understanding as this is what I have understood from the beginning.

It doesn't change anything, other than giving those he's loyal to more ammunition to carry on the hoax in the face of treason investigations they are facing. All this will do is galvanize their brainwashed followers, but it doesn't actually prove anything, other than perhaps he considers his own report a lie at some levels, and if so, he'll be going to jail too.
 
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,675
3,188
✟167,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Or, perhaps, unlike your fearless leader, he actually knows when it's appropriate to speak and when it's appropriate to keep one's mouth shut. I find it refreshing when people know how to stay in their lane.

Like a good little puppet?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,536
6,064
64
✟337,216.00
Faith
Pentecostal
The opposite of "They found him to have committed no crime" is "They have not found him to have committed no crime."

And that's exactly what Mueller said.



He didn't say that he did commit a crime. He said that they weren't confident he didn't commit one, and since they wouldn't have been allowed to charge him anyways, it was improper to make allegations against him.
So that's the standard now? We are now investigating people and coming up with we are not confident they did not commit a crime? That's what are justice system has devolved into? Well I'm not confident you did not commit a crime either.

This is the most asinine thing I've ever heard. If you think he committed a crime say so and present the evidence of such. You may not be able to charge him with it, but present the crime you think he committed and the evidence for it.

This is such a namby pamby open ended statement that has no place in our justice system. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Which means Trump is completely innocent if any crime until they prove him guilty.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
with 'special' indicating to me that the 2yr/2mil taxpayer time and money

With asset seizure from criminals convicted by Mueller he made a profit. Surprising to me how often this needs to be repeated. Mueller's investigation didn't cost the tax payer a single cent.

The Special Counsel was appointed on faulty and partisan propaganda of 'progressive' elements of the party which lost the previous election

None of that is true. It's pure fiction. The special counsel was appointed by a republican, Rosenstien, appointed by a republican, Trump. And the person they appointed, Mueller, is a republican.

I mean seriously. It was only a couple of years ago. How can anyone possibly believe the fiction you are posting?

ETA: and what's with this "party that lost the previous election"? You writing a quiz? Does typing "Democratic Party" make you breakout in hives? Does not typing it make you think someone will accidentally think you are not hyperpartisan?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0