https://www.canuckscorner.com/forums/
Those are valid questions and raises even more questions about how powerful the office of the president really isn’t.
Irrelevant conjecture designed to avoid the the uncomfortable.Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:21 am"And could you make that charge stick?"
"No."
Obstruction of justice?
Obstruction of a witch-hunt?
But this time, in the end, it's the witch-hunters who'll burn...
Oh come on, my name isn’t Mitch Mc Connell
Wrong.
Nadler repeats faulty claim, corrected by Mueller, about why Trump was not indicted
During a Democratic press conference about Mueller’s testimony, Nadler, a New York Democrat, claimed Mueller said the only reason Trump wasn’t indicted for obstruction of justice was because of a Justice Department opinion prohibiting charging a sitting president with a crime. He cited Mueller’s response to a question from House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif.
“He told us in a remarkable exchange with Mr. Lieu that but for the Department of Justice policy prohibiting [him] from doing so, he would have indicted President Trump,” Nadler said. “Indeed it is clear that any other citizen of this country who has behaved as this president has would have been charged with multiple crimes.”
But on Wednesday, Mueller himself went out of his way to clarify that he didn’t intend to suggest that.
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller told the House Intelligence Committee, after testimony before the Judiciary Committee earlier Wednesday. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
Supreme Court paves way for Trump administration to use military funds for border wall
The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on Friday in lifting a freeze backed by a lower court that had halted plans to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds for border wall construction.
Well actually all the legal experts and every other sane person in world knows you are wrong. But I do really enjoy your trumpness comments when you cannot handle the truth.Strangelove wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:07 pmWrong.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nadler ... t-indicted
Nadler repeats faulty claim, corrected by Mueller, about why Trump was not indicted
During a Democratic press conference about Mueller’s testimony, Nadler, a New York Democrat, claimed Mueller said the only reason Trump wasn’t indicted for obstruction of justice was because of a Justice Department opinion prohibiting charging a sitting president with a crime. He cited Mueller’s response to a question from House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif.
“He told us in a remarkable exchange with Mr. Lieu that but for the Department of Justice policy prohibiting [him] from doing so, he would have indicted President Trump,” Nadler said. “Indeed it is clear that any other citizen of this country who has behaved as this president has would have been charged with multiple crimes.”
But on Wednesday, Mueller himself went out of his way to clarify that he didn’t intend to suggest that.
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller told the House Intelligence Committee, after testimony before the Judiciary Committee earlier Wednesday. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
Strangelove wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:07 pmWrong.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nadler ... t-indicted
Nadler repeats faulty claim,
But on Wednesday, Mueller himself went out of his way to clarify that he didn’t intend to suggest that.
“I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller told the House Intelligence Committee, after testimony before the Judiciary Committee earlier Wednesday. "I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”
I will see your "WRONG" and raise you one "BULLSHIT" Ummmm.ukcanuck wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:08 pm
Fact: Under oath, Mueller answered "CORRECT" to the following question “The reason that you did not indict the president is because of the OLC opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?” This Testimony is on record and a primary source.
WOW, UR REALLY OUT THERE SOMEWHERE CIRCLING URANUSukcanuck wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:08 pm NOT FACT: "Nadler repeats faulty claim, But on Wednesday, Mueller himself went out of his way to clarify that he didn’t intend to suggest that." this is the OPINION of Alex Pappas | Fox News
This is putting words in Mueller's mouth and not even supported by a link or source. in fact it appears to be not Mueller's words at all but rather Attorney General Bill Barr's “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 opinion, he would have found obstruction.”
Clearly, Fox Trump News is spinning the results of Mueller's testimony and the investigation as they have from day one.
Strangelove wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:07 pm
Those ARE (?!?!?) Mueller's words and there ARE plenty of "links and sources"...
"In his appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Lieu asked him, “I’d like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?”"Robert Mueller provides 'correction' to testimony about not charging Trump" https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... ging-trump
The White House painted Mueller’s testimony.
Additionally, Trump has said the Mueller inquiry resulted in the president’s “complete and total exoneration. But Meuller testified:"But hours later at the outset of the second hearing, Mueller corrected himself.
“As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller said."
Seems pretty clear, Mueller wanted to clarify that although he could not exonerate the cunt he couldn't indict the cunt anyway because that was not in the scope of his mission“Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” Nadler asked Mueller during the first hearing.
“No,” Mueller replied.
"Did Mueller change his statement that Trump could be indicted after he leaves office?" https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mueller-co ... ng-office/
"I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, you didn't charge the President because of the OLC opinion. "As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to answer questions."Mueller corrects an exchange from the first hearinghttps://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... b4f149af88
If it was anyone but you I would be surprised you resorted to name calling when you cannot win an argument. I guess it is true when they say people are gullible, right buddy?Strangelove wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:37 pm
If it was anyone else but you Reef I'd be shocked at the amount of sheer stupidity contained in one post.
How can I be wrong, I just quoted what Robert Mueller himself said about "The Mueller Report".
Lmao, if there was ever someone who needed "the truth to set one free" it's a goosestepping goober such as yourself.
WAKE UP, I'm trying to help you and others like you... don't bite the hand that feeds you!
Hate the guy all you like, but NEVER let people brainwash you...
