GOP lawmaker takes out textbook, tells Mueller he doesn't have 'power to exonerate'

Mueller did not have to "give a single example that met the criteria" for the OOJ charge to the public, so he did not.

What he did give was that Trump was not exonerated, and there was "no statute" to forge "Mueller from identifying and providing evidence for any crime the President committed."

If Mueller had done all that, the Republicans would be arguing Mueller did not have the power to do that.

 

There are no "pending charges" because no grand jury has issued a "true bill" of any charges pertaing to Trump. It's just reality, which shouldn't be difficult to absorb.

 

Mueller burst your bubble when Swalwell brought up the infamous "700 former prosecutor" letter, stating Mueller's report contained enough evidence to prove obstruction. Mueller told Swalwell that those FORMER prosecutors must be "looking at a different case" than the ones he outlined. Mueller had to tell the idiot TWICE. Far fewer times than you've been told ... but just as embarrassing. ::

 

Mueller made no charges had he found them they would have been referred to Congress and his office would still be waiting to prosecute them. Mueller is gone his office is closed.

Mueller Formally Closes Special Counsel’s Office, Ends Russia Probe, Resigns From DOJ
https://iotwreport.com/mueller-form...ls-office-ends-russia-probe-resigns-from-doj/

 

Actually had his office found crimes they would have specifcially listed the charges and the evidence to sustain a prosecution in his confidential report to the AG. They did not stating that they could not come to a determination and said they would leave it to the AG to make the final determination. The AG brought in the DAG and OLC and they all reviewed the evidence presented and determined no OOJ occurred.
The fact is these bias'd prosecutors wanted more than anything in the world to charge Trump with felonies for which he would be removed from office and then they would prosecute. And as hard as the tried they could not get there. So as one last vindictive act they threw in that last line that they could not prove him totally and completely innocent of something.

 

So we have a hysterical left wing lynch mob "FORGET THE LAW STRING HIM UP!!!"

 

He had no legal authority to "exonerate" it is not even a legal term. He brought no charges, end of story.

 

It was a general question that applies to ANY person serving as President. Obama could have been indicted for crimes after he left office not before.

 

Where is that in US Code?

 

As I said, #177, pending charges will be left to the next administration: there is no exoneration for Trump.

Prosecutors (#17 in the future may well agree with Swalwell and not Mueller.

The Trump defender, in #182, is caught in a dilemma: if Trump is exonerated of collusion then he is not exonerated of OOJ. Mueller had the legal right to do both.

Where is it in the US code that Mueller can or cannot exonerate, because he has done both.

 

Can you imagine if someone has spoken like this of Obama?

 

Actually the report does specifically list trump's actions that met the criteria for obstruction of justice. Meuller sure as hell didn't say it was up the AG to make the final determination.

Your explanation is facile but sophistic, since it ignores the fact that Meuller was operating under DOJ rules, and as you may be familiar, the DOJ's and OLC's long standing rule is that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

But in typical trumpian fashion, Trump didn't commit any crimes because the investigation that wasn't able to indict him from its very beginning didn't indict him. Another bigly trumpian win, that wasnt

 

You all did, did you not?

 

I see you didn't read the report itself, since that is a gross mischaracterization of what is in it.

And FYI, interpretation and extrapolation are part of the process of assessing the evidence. what you read was the summary of the tens of thousands of pages of testimony and documentation. The report is REPRESENTATIVE of the all that evidence of trump's crimes. Even Barr has said that the underlying evidence supports what's in the report.

And if you did read the report as you claim, there is a rather concise explanation on page 2 of what the report is all about.

seems you don't know what is in it, despite your claim of reading it. (BTW, I have).

 

Page 2 gives one a precis of what one needs to know.

If one's comments reveal that one has not a clue, then one has not read the report.

 

No new legal principle at all.
The unique situation where a subject of a criminal investigation is the sitting Presidentand he can't be indicted, required mueller to clarify that because there were no indictments for Trump, that does not mean he is exonerated.

That would have been prejudicial to any of the constitutional remedies available to congress. Didn't you now that?

But this isn't a case of the prosecutor not being able to find evidence to charge, he did and he stated he had uncovered SUBSTANTIAL evidence of trump wrong doing. He couldn't move towards and indictment because he was not empowered to do so by his employer and the legal regulations he operated under.

Yep a total schooling all right. Pathetically lame objection that would be dismissed in any court of law.

 

Yes TDS is alive and well and will never be bothered by any accurate assessment of the facts. You of course can't be bothered by posting specific information--in context--with links to credible sources that prove me wrong. But oh well. Do have a great afternoon.

 

Fallacy argument by Foxfyre above.

Let's see some credible evidence, please.

 

I won't stand for this slander!!!! How could swalwell be an idiot he knows how to change a diaper for heaven's sake!

 

Exactly, and without an indictable crime, Dirty Bob's report is a bunch garbage. So since Mueller was clearly not in charge, who was running the witch hunt?

 

If that were only true.

 

Weissmann would eat 'em for lunch and then spit out the pits.

 

Good smart prosecutors do not have to have to rig trials to win convictions. Crooked seldom = smart..

 

Smart is exactly what I mean.

 

He does? I am really REALLY impressed that Swalwell can change a diaper. I wouldn't have thought that. But maybe he doesn't do that well and that explains why he has so much **** to throw around?