THE MUELLER ROUT

[C-Mag]

Have you really not been paying attention to all the times Mueller clearly said it was not in his power to charge a sitting president, that was only for Congress?

That's convienent for Mueller. It was pretty convincingly proven in the hearings that Mueller went out of his way in violation of DOJ guidelines to state Trump was not exonerated. Mueller is clearly biased.

Irrelevant. Biased or not, he did not have the authority to charge Trump.

No, but he could have recommended charges and list crimes. Like Ken Starr did
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report

Starr's report specifically laid out crimes. If Mueller would have had evidence to clearly list crimes. He would have been believed and we would be on a different course. But Mueller did not find any chargeable crimes to recommend. It's important to note that this was an extremely extensive investigation.

Trump has been the most investigated POTUS in history. The FBI investigated him for 10 months, with no charges. The Special Counsel for 22 months with no charges. Now, Congress for 2 months. Mueller had 40 FBI agents. 19 lawyers and more electronic resources, recordings and records than any special investigation ever.

What do people think is there that is so bad if they haven't published it ? What's the crimes ?

[Montegriffo]

I won't be defending anyone who lied to a public inquiry.

You just defended Hillary.

No, I didn't.

You just think I did because you're not bothering to read what I said.

I compared the two reports and pointed out that no Republican considered the Benghazi inquiry a total exoneration of Hillary despite it ending in no successful prosecutions, unlike the Mueller report.

[brewster]

That's convienent for Mueller. It was pretty convincingly proven in the hearings that Mueller went out of his way in violation of DOJ guidelines to state Trump was not exonerated. Mueller is clearly biased.

Irrelevant. Biased or not, he did not have the authority to charge Trump.

No, but he could have recommended charges and list crimes. Like Ken Starr did
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report

Starr's report specifically laid out crimes. If Mueller would have had evidence to clearly list crimes.

There has been much political commentary to the effect that Starr dramatically overstepped and that Mueller was not going to do the same.

This is from a review of his book https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-rep ... s-contempt

In a remarkable passage, Starr shows how his approach to the impeachment issue was confused and likely to cause him no end of trouble. He relates how his team examined the authorities on impeachment and concluded that what constituted an impeachable offense was “ultimately a political judgment entrusted to the unfettered discretion of the House of Representatives.” In other words, he did not glean a concrete standard from all the research. He seems to have adopted Gerald Ford’s much-quoted and markedly simplistic assessment that “an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” But if there was no standard, then on what basis did Starr decide that Clinton had committed impeachable offenses? In evaluating evidence of impeachment, he would necessarily be trying to anticipate a political determination—an awkward position at best for an executive branch official discharging a prosecutorial function.

This is exactly the position Mueller kept himself out of.

[C-Mag]

I don't think so. Because Mueller went on with this bullshit, I cannot exonerate.

I still waiting on what Trump would be charged with and what is the evidence.

[PartyOf5]

I won't be defending anyone who lied to a public inquiry.

You just defended Hillary.

No, I didn't.

You just think I did because you're not bothering to read what I said.

I compared the two reports and pointed out that no Republican considered the Benghazi inquiry a total exoneration of Hillary despite it ending in no successful prosecutions, unlike the Mueller report.

Where are your facts to back up your claim about the costs of the investigations?

So now no prosecution = exoneration? Great, because Trump was not prosecuted, therefore he was exonerated.

[Speaker to Animals]

So Hillary was also not exonerated, right?

[brewster]

So Hillary was also not exonerated, right?

Yes. She was never charged with anything, so how could she be exonerated?

Exoneration Law and Legal Definition: Exoneration refers to a court order that discharges a person from liability. In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent.

OTOH OJ Simpson was exonerated, but pretty much everyone agrees he was guilty of a double murder. Law is funny, aint it?

[Speaker to Animals]

So Hillary was also not exonerated, right?

Yes. She was never charged with anything, so how could she be exonerated?

Exoneration Law and Legal Definition: Exoneration refers to a court order that discharges a person from liability. In criminal context the term exonerate refers to a state where a person convicted of a crime is later proved to be innocent.

OTOH OJ Simpson was exonerated, but pretty much everyone agrees he was guilty of a double murder. Law is funny, aint it?

But Trump was not charged with anything, and nobody presented any evidence to suggest that he should be charged with anything, and yet you don't extend your "exoneration" criteria to him??

[brewster]

But Trump was not charged with anything, and nobody presented any evidence to suggest that he should be charged with anything, and yet you don't extend your "exoneration" criteria to him??

As I said regarding Hillary, she was not legally exonerated either since she was never charged with anything. But your above statement is NOT true, Mueller presented evidence that the House chosen not to pursue to date. He did not recommend charges, since he viewed that as not within his means.

[C-Mag]

What are the crimes DJT was supposed to have committed ?