Mueller for Dummies: A Brief Summary

A valiant effort.

And, of course, you are correct.

That said, it is clear from this thread (and the several others on this topic) that the Pro-Trump RW has no idea what the Report said (nor do they understand it's conclusions).

 

What a lame response. He explains on the report he is not allowed to say that anything is illegal related to the President following OLC instructions. But it doesn't matter in this case. Even if Trump obstructed because he thought it was illegal, that's enough to prove obstruction. What do you mean "nothing was found"? They found everything that's on the report!

 

Still patiently waiting to hear when (D)'s will go look at the unredacted report. DiFi is on the gang of 8, and has a history of releasing transcripts without authorization. Barr's engaged in a cover up, Trump's guilty of obstruction, and the unredacted report proves ir right? WTF are (D)'s waiting for? Can't get Trump? What about a dirty AG? (D)'s referring Barr to the OIG? Mueller report for dummies ... yes it is. ::

 

Horsehockey. Ken Starr did easily. Mueller could easily claim what laws were broken whether he indicts or not. The OLC is about indictment, not about finding criminal conduct. He found nothing so...

 

This is why the left-wingers are pulling their hair out. They are still pissed that Bill Clinton committed actual crimes and was impeached for them. They are longing for the day that a Republican President can also be impeached. They are stuck on revenge.

 

You could post all 448 and you would still have zero evidence of collusion or obstruction.

 

Read the OP. Amazing how several of you on the right have jumped to respond to the OP without reading it. I guess they're the ones who... well... Just read the OP....

 

I've seen on this thread several instances in which they even act as if the Mueller Report hasn't come out. Not sure if they're just acting, or they are in denial or they actually don't know that it's out.

 

Yeah. Me too.

Thanks for playing.

 

Most likely, they read a one-sentence blurb on Breitbart (that said "no collusion, no obstruction") and they have adopted that as a mantra (without ever seeing the full report or understanding what is in it).

 

The report is well written, and very detailed. It found no conspiracy and no obstruction. No crimes committed by the President, hence why he made no recommendation. I don't know why anyone would need a version of it for dummies....it's not all that complex it's conclusion. Then again, someone who can't handle the truth, might need a Rachael Maddow spin to keep their hope alive

 

how did Clinton get impeached?

 

It is for the standard democrat voter.

 

Wrong!

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual§ 9-27.220 (201 (Justice Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast , a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought , affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator .​

 

[

So you are accusing republicans of not being patriotic just because they do not agree with you. I don't agree with most of what you say and I am very patriotic. I am more interested in what is good for the country rather than convicting one person.

 

Yeah I did. Since you wrote the OP, I'd think you could answer questions.

I'll ask it again in case you didn't understand what I wrote.

Why didn't Mueller charge anyone besides the POTUS of a conspiracy against the US to affect an election (aka "collusion")?

 

It's funny to watch the left. They got hit so hard they don't feel it yet. They will though.

 

Authorization expired.

 

No. I accused them of not being patriotic for not agreeing with their constitutional duty

 

No. You accused us of not being patriotic because we do not agree with your definition of our constitutional duty.

 

You did read it? Well, the answer to your question is on the OP.

Maybe you didn't understand it?

 

So.. it's true! You actually did read the OP and didn't understand it!

Please note that it's titled "For Dummies". To dumb it down further, a professional title in abnormal psychology would be required. Which I do not hold.

 

We are dealing with deranged Trump haters, suffering under the affliction of Trump derangement syndrome. They will create their own alternate reality, rage against Trump for it, act like fools. Nov 2020 will see them go into conniptions, of the tenth order of magnitude, when Trump is reelected. The irony - it will be the insanity exhibited by the dems that will propel Trump's reelection.

 

Who is "us"? I'm talking about Republican legislators. Their constitutional and patriotic duty is to impeach a President when there is evidence of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. And there certainly is in this case. All over Mueller's report. He may or may not be guilty. That's what impeachment procedures are for. There is certainly very credible strong evidence that he is guilty. And yet, Republicans in Congress still downplay that evidence. Clearly signaling that they would protect him. That's unpatriotic.

Now.... having said that, it is the patriotic duty of all Americans to analyze and objectively discuss the information that has been made public. I don't know if you have done that. This thread is my contribution to make that easier.

 

No you're not. You're dealing with sane Trump haters. "Deranged" Trump haters are the ones who hate him, but still support him. And those who support him but don't hate him are just "deranged"... period. I mean... what would you call somebody who doesn't hate a guy who puts out a policy to separate children from their parents as a way to "punish" the parents and with no plans whatsoever to ever unite them again. . Can you remember a leader in history who has enacted any similar policy and would be called "sane". Or whose supporters were not, even if only temporarily, deranged (or psychos, if you prefer the word)?