Mueller Said He Didn't Clear Trump of Obstruction

[BreakingCane]

Another factless post by Bobbie Jo. Do you know the White House Counsel is not Trump's lawyer? That position is the lawyer for the Presidency not Trump's personal get me out of jail lawyer. Folks like @canerob who agreed with your post are ignorant of facts. In fact, we should all be leary of anything you post.

I liked his post. Since when does that mean I agree it is factual? Executive privilege is a real thing. Just ask Obama.

 

[bobbie jo]

Another factless post by Bobbie Jo. Do you know the White House Counsel is not Trump's lawyer? That position is the lawyer for the Presidency not Trump's personal get me out of jail lawyer. Folks like @canerob who agreed with your post are ignorant of facts. In fact, we should all be leary of anything you post.

The truth hurts. Ug du Trump is the President.

 

[grbcane]

Really? That's your evidence?

At least I have some.

Be patient IG and AG investigation on going. What did Obama know, and when did he know it?

 

[cems52]

At least I have some.

Be patient IG and AG investigation on going. What did Obama know, and when did he know it?

Lol....lol
Lol....lol
Lol....lol

 

[cems52]

The truth hurts. Ug du Trump is the President.

So you admit your post made no sense?

 

[cems52]

I liked his post. Since when does that mean I agree it is factual? Executive privilege is a real thing. Just ask Obama.

You're as clueless as @bobbie jo.

 

[GLFSTRM]

Lol....lol
Lol....lol
Lol....lol

6 LOLs, interesting...

 

[cems52]

6 LOLs, interesting...

Has my lawyer contacted you?

 

[BreakingCane]

You're as clueless as @bobbie jo.

Far from it. You were the one not realizing Mueller retracted his comment about not indicting a sitting President. Talk about clueless.

 

[cems52]

Far from it. You were the one not realizing Mueller retracted his comment about not indicting a sitting President. Talk about clueless.

You didn't know the WH Counsel is not Trump's personal get out of jail lawyer. You probably, like @bobbie jo, know nothing about how impeachment works. And by the way, read the Mueller report.

 

[BreakingCane]

You didn't know the WH Counsel is not Trump's personal get out of jail lawyer. You probably, like @bobbie jo, know nothing about how impeachment works. And by the way, read the Mueller report.

Where did I say I didn’t know? Why deflect? You are confused. You clearly don’t understand executive privilege

 

[cems52]

Where did I say I didn’t know? Why deflect? You are confused. You clearly don’t understand executive privilege

And we all know Trump knows nothing about executive privilege. Agree?

 

[BreakingCane]

And we all know Trump knows nothing about executive privilege. Agree?

Wow. You’ve fallen far and quickly. TDS alert!

 

[honeyiv]

Sorry Cemmy:

Special prosecutor either indicts or does not indict. Not his job to exonerate.


REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R-TX): Time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because I'll tell you why. It doesn't exist. The special counsel's job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It's not in any of the documents. It's not in your appointment order. It's not in the special counsel regulations. It's not in the OLC opinions. It's not in the justice manual, and it's not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution.







Nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully, respectfully, director, it was not the special counsel's job to conclusively Donald Trump's innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.

Now, director, the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can't find and you said doesn't exist anywhere in the department policies, and you used it to write a report. And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says that--as you read this morning, it authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the special counsel. That's the very first word of your report, right?

 

[grbcane]

Sorry Cemmy:

Special prosecutor either indicts or does not indict. Not his job to exonerate.


REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R-TX): Time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because I'll tell you why. It doesn't exist. The special counsel's job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It's not in any of the documents. It's not in your appointment order. It's not in the special counsel regulations. It's not in the OLC opinions. It's not in the justice manual, and it's not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution.







Nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully, respectfully, director, it was not the special counsel's job to conclusively Donald Trump's innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.

Now, director, the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can't find and you said doesn't exist anywhere in the department policies, and you used it to write a report. And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says that--as you read this morning, it authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the special counsel. That's the very first word of your report, right?

The Democrats thrive off the low information voter. They don’t understand the concept of guilty or not guilty.

 

[advarkas]

 

[CashvilleCane1]

Sorry Cemmy:

Special prosecutor either indicts or does not indict. Not his job to exonerate.


REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R-TX): Time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at you can't find it because I'll tell you why. It doesn't exist. The special counsel's job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It's not in any of the documents. It's not in your appointment order. It's not in the special counsel regulations. It's not in the OLC opinions. It's not in the justice manual, and it's not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution.







Nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully, respectfully, director, it was not the special counsel's job to conclusively Donald Trump's innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.

Now, director, the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can't find and you said doesn't exist anywhere in the department policies, and you used it to write a report. And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says that--as you read this morning, it authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the special counsel. That's the very first word of your report, right?

You’re asking hun to consider Due Process which he’s openly admitted he does not for Trump.

 

[cems52]

Which dumbass is opening up old threads?