Completely false, they did not even attempt to determine whether a crime was committed…
Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report 's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the
person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense ." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
But this is not what you said.
You said Mueller determined Trump was not guilty of any crime.
This is not what he determined at all.
Yup. Not gonna weasel out of that one.
Oh so clinton ran against tougher opponents because essentially there were only her and bernie? Come on dude. Stop the derangement syndrome for a moment and it will soon come across trump was tougher opponent than most had thought.
I think there is going to be. My opinion is though that it has to be new blood.
Mueller was charged to investigate any crimes arising out of his collusion investigation. You are saying he didn’t do that?
Well, if youre are correct, at least that problem was corrected by the DOJ which in fact found that there was no obstruction.
What else is there to glean?! no collusion and no obstruction of justice….period!!
This fool RINO can knock himself out trying to primary President Trump! 
The idiot doesn’t stand a chance.
And the HOR Democrat idiots can turn themselves inside out and upside down (and probably out of office) with impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, until they are blue in the face. I say go for it Dem fools!
I didn’t say anything about Hillary Clinton.
I said a fractured field allows a weaker candidate to rise.
Our electoral system doesn’t handle a large field very well.
This is basic stuff for anyone not mesmerized by the Trump Mythos.
This is not what Mueller said.
Damn, that’s a deep dive. Savage.
How does the DOJ make a determination of any crime against someone who can’t be indicted?
CONCLUSION
Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw
ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the
President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. 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.
Theres no weaseling. I conceded he was correct and only that it did not determine any crimes committed by trump.
Read the posts before making statements.
Lets try this a different way.
Hypothetically, if you were a person who was being investigated for a crime, and you happened to be the boss of the person who could fire the person investigating you. Lets say you ordered that person to do so.
Would one think that would fit the definition of obstruction of justice?
And a further question. If that person told you no i wont do that, and said person knew that you wouldnt do ■■■■ about it becauese the optics of which would be worse than the act itself, does that mean you still didnt give an unlawful order?
Thats where we are now and exactly what the Mueller report laid out.
I suppose at best you could say Trump didnt actually obstruct justice, he just did his best to try. But as we all well know intent to commit a crime is just as indictable as actually doing it. Id say the orange clown is lucky that the people around him actually dont do most of the stuff he tells them to do.
This dude has no chance of defeating Trump in the GOP Primary. The Republican Party is now the Party of Trump. Hence, one of the reasons why I am no longer a registered Republican.
That isnt what the report said, and yes it was weasling.
Look, Mueller was charged with finding conspiracies. When he found crimes, like perjury, he indicted or sent them out for others to indict.
Trump had not determination of having committed conspiracy.
In the obstruction Vol II section, Mueller said he found no obstruction but gratuitously threw in that he didn’t prove there wasn’t any (thus proving his own biases)
The DOJ went further and said they observed no obstruction flat out.
I know yu don’t ttrust the DOJ because they don’t tell you what you want to hear, but it is their job to make these determinations.
And, where Mueller did find crimes (Manafort, Russians, perjury) he obviously did not feel constrained by stating these were crimes.
You said had it been a smaller field trump would have lost.
Its not hard to acknowledge trump is hard to beat. I am not saying he is unbeatable. Who ever wants to try for the gop will have an uphill battle.
Democrats better start finding some heavy hitters because what they have now, dont stand a chance.
Fiine. I suppose you are somehow feeding your own ego this way.
Not my ego, has nothing to do with ego, its the facts.
Now are you going to answer the 2 questions posed?
The DOJ’s stance is that a president can’t be indicted. Mueller is very clear that he accepted that position and made no determination that the president did or did not obstruct. In fact, he went out of his way to make it clear that he was NOT saying the president did not obstruct. The DOJ’s opinion is meaningless if they can’t indict and it becomes a matter for the house to determine.
