Questions for Mueller

They indicted Donald Trump in "part 1"? What's "part 1"?

 

If you're going to worry, you should worry about both. Mueller is a career politician and servant of the status quo, Donald is a loose cannon with a thick skull.

 

Nadless Nadler failed big time. The truth seeped out and squashed his lies.

 

I would like to ask Mueller why he didn't interview Julian Assange, and why he didn't interview Bill Binney, regarding the DNC material.

 

So does that mean you are unable to make the point yourself?

Ok...

 

Nowhere does it say the Special Counsel is to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence, or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It's not in the appointment order. It's not in the special counsel regulations. It's not in the OLC opinions. It's not in the Justice Manual. And it's not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

Nowhere do those words appear together because it was not the special counsel's job to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence or to exonerate him - because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.

Tell me why you disagree.

 

I worry about Trump because he's the President. Why should I worry about anybody else? Who cares what Mueller represents? They're both Republicans anyway.

 

1- He didn't exonerate him
2- I should care that what he is not supposed to do what he didn't do because.... Why exactly should I give a sh... uhm... care?

So what? What the hell does that have to do with this thread?

I don't agree or disagree. I just don't care.... Because it has nothing to do with this thread. Unless you can give me a reason to care. But please start by explaining what the hell that has to do with any of my points.

I care in the sense that it proves to you that Trump lied when he said that Mueller exonerated him. But that should worry you more than me. And it has nothing to do with this thread.

 

What lies?

 

You believe the fact Mueller did not exonerate Trump is significant.
I just told you why it isn't.

 

And yet that is exactly what Barr said he thought Mueller should have done.

 

All fruit from a poison tree...

Weissman knew that he couldn't make a recommendation because the DC Grand Jury was tainted. That is why he moved the Manifort case to Northern Virginia.

You can't claim a crime when prosecutors acted illegally.

Trump is totally exonerated.

 

It is outside of jurisprudence...

Only really STUPID people use, "did not exonerate," as a talking point.

 

You say that like it means something, or somehow negates the validity of what I said.

 

Never mind the fact Trump - like everyone else - is innocent until proven otherwise; absent that proof, the default state is "exonerated".

 

Even assuming that the fruit was tainted the evidence in no way exonerates Trump. But would enjoying hearing your explanation of why Manifort was sharing polling data with the Russians.