Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Another investigation, can you explain where exactly this is happening?
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Sorry, but Trump is never going to face charges for this its over move on. Mueller has vindicated the main charge against him and the republicans and large part of the population in America will just ignore what the law says. Democrats are wasting their time on this and they should be spend more time on beating Trump in 2020.
MrFresh wrote: » Can you explain what you mean by the Russian Collusion hoax? Trump's own son admitted he met with the Russians to arrange for them to receive dirt on Clinton and tried to conceal it by saying it was in relation to adoptions. So Russian Collusion is not really in question is it?
TomOnBoard wrote: » Turner (R) did a good job of challenging Mueller''s use of the statement that he could not exonerate Trump of Obstruction. That's an issue that will be weaponised by those trying to undermine the report going forward.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Amazing the attitude on here to one of the only members of congress that is speaking about what is at the heart of the Russian Collusion hoax. If you are all so interested in justice, then why aren't you interested in the corrupt origins of the investigation? Mueller effectively plead the 5th today with his dozens of refusals to answer questions as he knows that his investigation was partisan in nature... at the very least. We're gonna be hearing a lot more about Joseph Mifsud that's for damn sure.https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1154033949867413504
duploelabs wrote: » Absolutely categorically wrong. Impeeding an investigation is obstruction of justice, irregardless if any crime was commited in the first place. Buck: "Could charge the president with a crime after he left office?" Mueller: "Yes." Buck: "You believe that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?" Mueller: "Yes."https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1154040136109215744
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » He said multiple times during the hearing he found no evidence Trump directed anyone in his campaign to talk to Russia. Mueller himself said there was no collusion. The report leaves ther door open for obstruction of justice. The problem for democrats is Mueller found no guiilty evidence, there lot of hearsay and speculation. There no way you can get Trump on obstruction of justice now when Mueller found no evidence he conspired in the first place. Trump saying it was witch hunt is confirmed by Mueller. It like convicting someone for a robbery and then finding out there no evidence he did it, but still convinced he did anyway and just ignore the rule of law you innocent till proven guilty.
batgoat wrote: » Can you point to where Mueller said there was no collusion? He explicitly said multiple times that it is not for him to determine.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » He didn't just not answer questions on Fusion GPS...... he acted as if he had never even heard of them :Phttps://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1154024015075299331 Look, I'm out until we hear from Barr (maybe even Durham) as almost none of you on here are interested in the truth, you all just want to see Trump taken down, anyway, anyhow. As Mueller said, his investigation was not hindered in anyway and his findings were that there was NO collusion...... so dems and liberals turn to obstruction of the investigation.... and investigation which found Trump not guilty of the allegations..... it's laughable. Durham's report can't come quick enough.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » As Mueller said, his investigation was not hindered in anyway and his findings were that there was NO collusion...... so dems and liberals turn to obstruction of the investigation.... and investigation which found Trump not guilty of the allegations..... it's laughable. Durham's report can't come quick enough.
Penn wrote: » Again, because Barr and the DOJ have started an investigation into that, Mueller can't speak on those issues because it could affect or make public info about that which could affect that investigation. The DOJ reiterated exactly that in a letter to Mueller a few days ago. What's ridiculous is the GOP constantly asking questions about it and giving out that Mueller couldn't answer questions on it when they knew the exact reason why.
Penn wrote: » ...can't answer questions on Fusion GPS because it's subject to an ongoing investigation?
Quin_Dub wrote: » The specific reason that he could not answer anything related to the Stelle Dossier or the FISA warrants is that they are subject to another investigation and he was explicity told that he couldn't answer , which the GOP knew ,but by asking the questions they get to play to the crowd about the "origins" of the investigation. And ironically , if he did give information or opinion on those issues he himself might be guilty of obstruction or attempting to pervert to course of justice!!
duploelabs wrote: » Oh you're back, the origins of the steele dossier was outside the remit of the inquiry and therefore wouldn't be answered by Mueller
