GOP lawmaker takes out textbook, tells Mueller he doesn't have 'power to exonerate'

I knew this would be the talking point from the right. His point was that not "exonerating" him meant that he would have charged him if he could.....but you knew that

I love how Barr set the rules that Mueller could not talk about anything but what was in the report, and the right is somehow claiming "victory" that no new information was garnered by the democrats. Its freaking laughable.

 

I approve of your plan very much. Please make it happen (again).

 

Muller dosn't have the power to charge or anything like that.

 

It would be fun to watch Weissmann under cross examination.
But that would be wrong - right?

"The integrity of the "investigation" and of the "investigators" must be a paramount priority in our criminal justice system at all times," said David Schoen, a civil rights and defense attorney, who has been outspoken on the special counsel investigation. "Certainly this fundamental guiding principle must be followed when it comes to an investigation of the duly elected President of the United States. The outcome potentially affects every one of us in very real terms...There were many alternatives to Mr. Mueller and his team and all of their very troubling baggage."

"(Mueller and Weissmann) were both connected to two of the biggest scandals in FBI history," Schoen added. "

https://www.sott.net/article/380917-Skeletons-in-the-closet-Mueller-Weissmann-the-FBI-and-the-Mob

 

Sticking with that much-debunked talking point, I see.

 

Nice Dodge. The issue wasn't whether Mueller had the 'power' to exonerate (only a Jury of ones peers can find you guilty or innocent), but whether, in his opinion, the evidenced suggested a total exoneration for Trump. He stated no.

Now, other Prosecutors could find differently after viewing the evidence, but Mueller did not believe that the evidence would completely exonerate Trump.

This isn't about the ability, but about his opinion as a Prosecutor, based on the facts that he has seen the full scope of.

 

How was it "debunked". If anything Mueller confirmed it yesterday by saying when he leaves office he could be charged

 

The real question is, When did you know this? Yesterday, a week after the investigation began, a month, when exactly?

 

HRC will be exonerated right after a three year witch hunt Led by Former United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Joe diGenova, working with a fully funded team of similar objective seekers of truth and justice, fails to find a single crime to charge her with.

 

Mueller Told Us He Was NOT Saying That Trump Would Be Charged If He Was Not President
"Special counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found obstruction," Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "He said that in the future, the facts of the case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case."
https://www.dailywire.com/news/46641/barr-bombshell-mueller-told-us-he-was-not-saying-ryan-saavedra

 

Well, that certainly contradicts a lot of Fake News and wishful thinking on this thread.

 

These guys are hanging on to a string.

 

According to the House democrats " no one is above the law." A fact Mueller acknowledged was that a sitting president could be indicted for obstruction once he leaves office. What he failed to mention is that there is a statute of limitations. Once trump is reelected dems are SOL with that scheme.

The same unfortunately is true of Andrew Weismann's prosecutorial misconduct regarding the demise of Enron and Arthur Anderson. It's not too late however for the OIG to make recommendations to the DOJ or for an Upper House Senator to subpoena him, before he cuts a book deal.

 

Post #2.

Charged for what crime?

Mueller didn't indict a single american for a conspiracy to work with Russians.

Obama will be charged for this fake ass witch hunt well before Trump is at risk.

 

Mueller can't even prove Russia was the hacker, or that any other american, was involved in a plot to affect the election.

Not a single charge.

The best the "party of science" can come up with is obstructing a case where not a single crime for the purpose of the investigation was discovered.

This "we're not sure he didn't commit a crime, even though the entire weight of the US government and multiple foreign governments couldn't find any evidence of a crime" is laughable horse ****.

 

As soon as the question was asked yesterday. But you knew that

 

You are honest. No I didn't know.

 

Mueller does have power to exonerate.

End of story.

 

Nope.

If you believe so post the proof of it. We all know you won't but...

 

Cite the portion of united states law that holds such to be the case.

 

Strawman. Nothing of what you stated has anything to do with what I was speaking about.

Also, multiple charges were laid against multiples associates and members (or former) members of Trumps Campaign and Administration. (Not a criminal but #1 with criminals?)

Finally, it was "We have evidence of multiple instances of Obstruction, but no smoking gun. Also, we can't indict the investigated so we pass this along to Congress to determine from there".

 

It has everything to do with it.

You suggested "the evidence Mueller had" was not enough to "exonerate" Trump.

Except that's exactly what not having the evidence to charge a single person with is.

Three plus years of, quite frankly, illegal surveillance and an aching desire to take down the POTUS, spear headed by people who hate his guts, led by men with zero scruples like Weismann.....and they still came up with NOTHING.

That's EXACTLY what exoneration looks like.

 

And after that charade with Mueller, Option A is dead.

 

No, exoneration means that the evidence never suggested you were guilty in the first place.

Exoneration means you never did anything wrong in the first place.

So, in a 0-10 scenario of 0 meaning there is zero evidence to even suggest Trump did anything wrong, and 10 is Trump standing over the body with a gun, Mueller seems to put it somewhere between the two. Where, none of us know. But it's not 0.

And if your POTUS, it should never go above Zero. I accept that Trump won't be charged or Indicted while he still sits in the chair, but he is not innocent IMO. Also, you keep using the word 'nothing'. I don't think it means, what you think it means.