Silly arguments being made by the right

Yet he testified under oath to congress that he did not at all experience any obstruction by Trump et al in his investigation. He emphasized that testimony by voluntarily repeating it after returning from a short recess.

 

Please feel free to prove that wildly erroneous assertion. Ordinarily, I'd find your belief to be incomprehensible. But then right wing media spends all its time trying to get its audience to believe lies so...............

Mueller: I did not clear Trump of obstruction of justice
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mueller-i-did-not-clear-trump-of-obstruction-of-justice


https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

 

WASHINGTON — Former Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller told lawmakers Wednesday he could not exonerate President Donald Trump of obstruction of justice and that the president’s claims that he had done so in his report are not correct.

 

Where do you get your information from?

 

Do you recall which lying conservative media source misinformed you? Perhaps it was more than one?

 

I did not say Mueller didn't scatter breadcrumbs all over the place trying to incentivize others to pick up the cudgel he could not wield. Those bread crumbs were not spread under oath. His testimony that he was not obstructed was under oath and is easily found on YouTube..

 

The ridiculous part was believing that there was collusion.

 

Weasel words anybody??? All breadcrumbs.

 

You Tube

 

Not if you know the facts. https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/guide-to-the-mueller-reports-findings-on-collusion/

 

Makes sense given your post's contention and then the post just above mine now.

 

Horseshit. Russian collision was a distant last place as a consideration of how to vote in 2020. TRaitot tRump sank his own ship. Impeached twice, divisive politics wire to wire, preoccupation with getting reelected, from the moment he was elected and, total ineptitude in handling the COVID pandemic made voters bone weary of his misadministration.

 

About sums that partisan B/S right up!

 

Now that is the very definition of a silly argument and utterly lacking in any real understanding of the matter it seems to address.

That is what's known as legal jargon and is largely meaningless and not much more than butt covering. It doesn't even contradict his sworn testimony before Congress.

 

And the Durham Report **** cans all of that crap.

 

It doesn’t.

 

Hahahahahahahaha, thanks for the laugh!!

 

We are back in crazy town: Mueller refuses to exonerate Trump (after all that effort, how could he?), and the left translates that into a guilty verdict by a disinterested jury.

This is the way "juries" reasoned in the French, Russian, Chinese, and Cambodian revolutions.

 

The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice.

B. Conduct regarding the Flynn investigation

Obstructive act (p. 43): Trump asked for Comey’s loyalty and pressured Comey to “let this go” regarding the FBI investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. “In analyzing whether these statements constitute an obstructive act, a threshold question is whether Comey’s account of the interaction is accurate, and, if so, whether the President’s statements had the tendency to impede the administration of justice by shutting down an inquiry that could result in a grand jury investigation and criminal charge.” “Substantial evidence corroborates Comey’s account.”






Mueller declares his Russia report did not exonerate Trump



“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller declared.


The 10 instances of possible obstruction in Mueller report

https://apnews.com/article/donald-t...orth-america-e0d125d737be4a21a81bec3d9f1dffd8

 

Mueller: I did not clear Trump of obstruction of justice

Former Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller told lawmakers Wednesday he could not exonerate President Donald Trump of obstruction of justice and that the president’s claims that he had done so in his report are not correct.

“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mueller-i-did-not-clear-trump-of-obstruction-of-justice

 

inadequate rebuttal; vacuous claims have no argumentative value.

 

May have?

 

All a trail of breadcrumbs. If you can't prove something imply and insinuate the hell out of it.

 

You do not seem to understand that prosecutors, special or not, never ever exonerate anybody for anything.