109

No he listed 10 instances of POSSIBLE. He could have clearly said: Here are the times he did.

110

Yes. The fact that there aren’t any co-conspirators indicted indicates there was no obstruction, because he says they could not reach a conclusion one way or the other.

111

And he made it clear that is why they made no determination one way or the other.

112

Trump is no criminal! The liberals and their affiliated media claim he would be, but that means nothing.

Mueller had the job to investigate, come to a conclusion and make a recommendation for the Congrees. He didnt come to a conclusion, but makes indirectly nevertheless a recommendation. Thats the injustice sysetm you have in USA, controlled by unelected people (“deep state”)

113

Solid job cutting out the rest of my post where I mentioned that. Trump and Sarah Sanders would be proud.

114

It’s hard to prove someone is a criminal when you legally can’t accuse them of committing a crime.

115

No, Mueller also said if he thought Trump did not attempt to obstruct that he (Mueller) would have said so.

116

Its not for Trump lovers.

117

Probably not the best idea to have the executive branch investigate itself.

1 Like
118

If you indict co-conspirators, you’re also concluding Trump obstructed justice. You can’t be a co-conspirator and not have a central conspirator. Mueller has said he could not charge Trump. If someone co-conspired with Trump, he would have to charge Trump too.

This is not a new argument. Mueller covered this in the original report.

1 Like
119

But if thats the case, then Mueller couldnt tell anything, even if he had founded collusion, conspiracy and so on, so his investiagtion make from beginning no sense

Fact is, he found no collusion, but invent now anything about obstruction of justice. You cant talk about any obstruction of justice so far that investigation shouldnt have been in place, taking in consideration how it started, based on phony material, and the investigators team was totally biased and partisan

120

The, “We couldn’t exonerate him” line falls on its face in light of the “one way or another” line. They couldn’t exonerate because they would not determine he was either guilty or innocent of obstruction. It’s basically Mueller and his gaggle of dem lawyers weaseling out. It gives dem pols a little fodder too, so all is well. At the end of the day, ya got nuttin.

121

Mueller: 'If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so’

122

He was also investigating Russian involvement in interfering. It’s definitely a problem when you ask a man to investigate someone who legally can’t be charged with a crime while in office.

123

The socialists and their deep state trying to distract from their crimes and the investigations coming - thats only hot air

124

What about Trump haters? If they have an ironclad, rock solid case for impeachment, why have they not done it? They have had the report for two months. If they do not have a rock solid case they risk running a kangaroo court. Which should it be?

125

Nope, he would be listed as unindected co-conspiracer number 1 just like in the inductment of cohen. You know at the direction of individual number 1 he did this. Well if he did it and is guilty, wouldn’t the person who directed him be guilty?

Goes to prove the co-conspirators could be inducted.

126

He will do everything to make his report relevant even though none of it is thanks to the fact the Steele dossier used was never verified and the image data from Crowdstrike was never verified!

127

I sometimes hate this new forum. That was someone’s reply to my comment yet it attributed it to me.

128

He said that he was not able to say that Trump had not committed any crimes. What he said was that a sitting President cannot be charged.