BREAKING: Robert Mueller is speaking right now, for the first time since the report was released

As it develops, you may want to examine the schism that is already developing between former government 'intelligence' agency biggies who have begun throwing each other under the proverbial bus. It began in earnest recently with Lisa Page, who's decided to "play ball" in order to keep her own ass out of prison. Let's see if by the end of this year you find the "premise retarded on its face" when the collaborators are being grilled under oath. It has already begun! Wake up and see it for yourself....

Understand: what the anti-Trump forces did was far, FAR worse than the old 'Watergate scandals'. And it's ALL going to come out....

 

From your link:

 

An interesting post which immediately made me think of Barack Obama! But, aside from leveraging /reverse-discrimination' dynamics to get himself into cushy government (teacher) jobs, Barack Obama never really did ANYTHING, and probably never made a dime that wasn't connected to being on a government payroll.

He was most notably a "constitutional law professor" who proudly ignored constitutional descriptions of Executive Branch functions and instead ruled the country with "a pen and a phone" as often as he liked, through presidential decrees, executive 'actions', and other autocratic mechanisms....

 

Not even close.

"Worse than Watergate"? Your partisan hyperbole is truly comical.

One might say that:

Compared to Watergate, the things that the RW Tinfoil Hat Crowd is throwing a fit about could be described as "Much Ado About Nothing".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare

Carry on.

 

Maybe, but he won't die a hated divisive failure, so he's got that going for him...

 

And yet you cheer the current bloated orange ass hat doing the exact same thing when he promised you all he would be draining the swamp. Trump is King of the swamp and you worship him. LOL

 

When you’ve got a job that forbids you from facing criminal charges. Extra scrutiny is a very reasonable requirement. Why are presidents audited every year?

 

You said, "He could have indicted Trump but he lacked the evidence to do so. This was confirmed by the DOJ official who appointed Mueller and oversaw his investigation - Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein."

So again, there is no proof that Rosenstein ever argued that Mueller could have indicted Trump, but for a lack of evidence.

 

Wrong again. It is Steele’s product and Steele wasn’t hired until Hillary took over. Even Steele in legal proceedings could not vouch for it but it hat could be because he didn’t actually write it.

 

What's your point?

 

Gotta disagree with you there, Walt.... What Trump and his never ending series of 'acting' cabinet department heads has done is actually way worse than the normal swamp status quo.

I LONG for the Bush/Obama swamp times....

Who ya got in the Cup?? I cannot root for ANYTHING northeast of NYC, so I'm a Blues guy for the duration... Great win last night... I think it will go the full 7...

 

I can appreciate the logic and thoughtfulness that you took with this post. Of course, I, along with ~700 former federal prosecutors disagree, because the fact that the order was never carried out is only relevant in the realm where actual obstruction is an element of the crime. It is not.

As for intent, yes, it was evaluated on multiple occasions and, of course, would need to be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction. The fact that Trump lied about trying to fire Mueller helps to establish his intent, the fact that Trump made up an extremely weak excuse for firing Mueller helps to establish his intent, and the fact that Trump ordered others to lie about him trying to fire Mueller helps to establish his intent. Are those pieces of evidence (in addition to many others that a prosecutor would likely to present to the jury) sufficient to prove intent in this particular instance? Perhaps. Are they pieces of evidence that are sufficient justification to indict the man for obstruction of justice? Yes, at least according to those former federal prosecutors that I linked previously.

Although, in fairness to them, they are likely to note one or several of the ~10 other instances where Trump also obstructed justice as reasonable grounds for indictment.

 

Do you still believe that actual obstruction is a required element of the crime?

 

I will certainly be paying attention.
Still, you haven't even tried to answer the question of motive, and who is masterminding this ridiculousness idea of a "deep state" conspiracy. Why would they even risk getting exposed to impeach one of the most ineffective presidents in history?

 

I hope a long-winded, verbose, nebulous, professorial type never gets elected again.

 

Fox's legal expert's judicial acumen does not allow him to kowtow to the fake, hyper-partisan line of Trumpery that he is expected to follow.

​

 

Duh, they believed Hillary would win so nothing would ever be exposed which made them sloppy. The insurance program was for the off chance Trump actually won. Now they are starting to point fingers at each other. CYA time.

 

You must have missed the part about the DOJ policy that you can't indict a sitting President. That is why he did not present an opinion.
He did however present evidence in the form of the entire section two of his report.
He was trying to tamp down the hubbub of why he didn't indict Trump for obstruction. He did state simply that while there may have been conspiracy, he could not prove it. Nothing else to say.

 

they were removed from the team to protect the appearance of bias, they did not do anything wrong other then saying campaign style chat during a heated election, Trump was chanting "lock her up" he hates liberals and he is starting an investigation against people that supported Hillary

 

It was a Fusion GPS product, and it was oppo research. Holy hell, how deep to you trump apologists think this conspiracy goes. How as anyone so gullible?

 

no he could not, he made that clear, he said there were political processes (impeachment) to handle this, not indictment, he said what he said, you can disagree, but not change what he said

 

Yea...that's why Trump ordered McGahn to get Rosenstein to fire Mueller.

He did not ask McGahn to ask Rosenstein to review Mueller for potential conflicts (which was your allegation) because that was something which had already been done.

 

The statement you made:
BTW, it's a bald faced lie to claim that it's against DoJ policy to indict a sitting prez.
Mueller purposely is misleading the knuckle draggers.
Is wrong.

 

not hardly, any more then Trump is criminally responsible for every terrorist attack