"Speculation " Mueller testifies and says yes

Can you give me the page number and paragraph where Mueller said “if not for DOJ guidlines I would have indicted”?

Bet you won’t find it.

This thread (and your the op) is based on nothing other than speculation about what would happen if Mueller goes before congress and says that sentence. My post is speculation on what the rabid left will do if he says just the opposite.

We both have speculations.

It said NO COLLUSION NO OBSTRUCTION. He even put hearts for dots on the 'I’s. I thought adding MAGA to the end of the report was also a nice touch. He truly believes in Trump and his agenda and didn’t want to stand in the way of that.

1 Like

I can do you one better and point you to a whole a section on why they did not indict. But you knew that, didn’t you?

“he would not have” Meaning Negative, he would not indict the president…
“except for the DOJ Rule against” meaning Negative Rule…meaning you can’t indict a sitting president.

Statement means he would have indicted him? Is that what you mean to say?
(double negative)

Based on what?

Who cares what a bunch of Democrats want? My assertion is that the GOP controlled House would have opened an investigation if president Clinton fired Comey.

I know what my thread is about…I dont need you to explain it to me…and seriously what is it with your group of people constantly telling me how I feel…what I said what I’m thinking?

Like where do any of you get off?

Go look yourself

Irrelevant! The Russian collusion investigation was a fraud thanks to the fact the phony Russian dossier was used to sPy on Trump.

No. Not in report. Barr met with Mueller who said he would not have done so. No need to argue for long, this will be made even more clear when Mueller testifies.

That spiel doesn’t play any longer. Yes, he discussed the legal issue but nowhere did he say that he would have indicted except for the DOJ policy not to indict a President.

Or in your words: If you had read the report you would know that.

Uh oh.

What you can do is show a part in the report where it discusses the principle of not indicting a sitting President. What you cannot do is point to a place where it says “But for the DOJ policy of indicting a sitting President, I would have indicted Trump”.

I guess if Mueller testifies we will get to know more about what he told ■■■■■■■ and known liar Billie Barr.

Jinx :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

The left position seems to be that Mueller would not say that Trump was guilty of obstruction because, since there would not be a trial, Trump wouldn’t have a chance to try to clear his name.
So Mueller just made it very clear that Trump was guilty of obstruction and then didn’t provide a chance for him to clear his name.

Nor should he. The decision was made not to indict. What is left is opposition research paid for by the taxpayer. At least the DNC paid for their dossier themselves.

We’re going to need a lot of gallows to deal with the criminals from this regime. It will be a dark time, but a very, very necessary time. Justice will be served.

It’s in the report…stop wasting my time

Worse than birthers are kooky people.

Nice try, but just like trying to tell your parents they “never told you you could not steal from a specific store, only in general”, that ■■■■ is not gonna fly with me either.