login
Mueller talks
-
No new posts
 2019-05-29 12:26 PM |
Champion  10157    Alabama |  Subject: Mueller talksFirst off, I told my wife that Mueller was going to be speaking at 11 ET. Her reply, “Who is that?” I think she is representative of 95.3% of Americans. I watched and was not impressed. Mueller said he was not able to indict a sitting president. So WTH was the point of investigating Trump for conspiracy since the same thing could be said about conspiracy as he said about obstruction. My conclusion is he “attempted” onstruction but no justice was obstructed. Mueller was not fired and finished his job. Regardless of the legal definition of obstruction, I think to the average person, obstruction would be a tough sell in the absence of an underlying crime. |
| 2019-05-29 12:39 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Mueller talks Let the Liberals discuss and gnash their teeth among themselves.....they haven't gotten anything right yet. Whatever comes from this will be worth the price of admission. LOL Edited by Left Brain 2019-05-29 12:40 PM |
| 2019-05-30 5:59 AM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: Mueller talks Originally posted by Rogillio First off, I told my wife that Mueller was going to be speaking at 11 ET. Her reply, “Who is that?” I think she is representative of 95.3% of Americans. I watched and was not impressed. Mueller said he was not able to indict a sitting president. So WTH was the point of investigating Trump for conspiracy since the same thing could be said about conspiracy as he said about obstruction. My conclusion is he “attempted” onstruction but no justice was obstructed. Mueller was not fired and finished his job. Regardless of the legal definition of obstruction, I think to the average person, obstruction would be a tough sell in the absence of an underlying crime. To your bolded comment, I think Mueller answered that : "it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion said that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing." To that second part I think he meant your congress. Too bad it's so broken. Edited by marcag 2019-05-30 6:01 AM |
| 2019-05-30 6:54 AM in reply to: marcag |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Mueller talks ~yawn~ |
| 2019-06-05 5:51 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Master 2447 White Oak, Texas | Subject: RE: Mueller talks 0 for 4 I guess they will try impeachment next lol Orange man Bad is the battle cry! |
| 2019-06-05 9:34 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Mueller talks They will.....they are THAT caught up in TDS. They have NOTHING else except, as you said, Orange man bad. LMAO It's been hysterically funny to watch the lib media's portrayal of the President's visit to England with the British coverage as a backdrop. The Left is truly deranged by Trump's Presidency. I can't wait to watch the 2nd term. In other news....playing Tag made slow kids feel like an "it".....Tag man bad!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Edited by Left Brain 2019-06-05 9:37 PM |
| 2019-06-06 8:47 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Mueller talks He’s lowered taxes, unemployment and trying to keep the economy booming. Yet he’s gotta go because some vague notion of russiastormycollusionobstruction. |
|
|
|
| |||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK