Mueller report

floridays

Well-Known Member
Yes. Let’s keep walking. Your turn. The IG report certainly didn’t call the Mueller investigation a witch hunt, did it? Nor did the Mueller report “totally exonerate” the president, did it?
No the Ig report didn't call the investigation a witch hunt.

It did however mention problems with it.

It may just be me, but within the limited boundaries of the IG, I view his work as a pulling guard in football, we'll call him Jerry Kramer. He cleared a path for a back, we'll call him Jim Taylor, to take the ball to the end zone. Each player has their mission. It's my hope the ball isn't laid on the ground. Our Republic requires this if we will remain free people.

In finding no crime(s) the Mueller report did exactly exonerate President Trump.

There was no there there.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
No the Ig report didn't call the investigation a witch hunt.

It did however mention problems with it.

It may just be me, but within the limited boundaries of the IG, I view his work as a pulling guard in football, we'll call him Jerry Kramer. He cleared a path for a back, we'll call him Jim Taylor, to take the ball to the end zone. Each player has their mission. It's my hope the ball isn't laid on the ground. Our Republic requires this if we will remain free people.

In finding no crime(s) the Mueller report did exactly exonerate President Trump.

There was no there there.
Incorrect. Mueller did not say there was no crime. What he referenced was that a sitting president could not be indicted.

That is not exoneration.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
It is sensationalism. Just like George Pop’s trial was sensationalism.
Why? Because the swamp takes care of it’s own.
I wasn't aware of a trial. I was under the impression George Papadopoulos offered a guilty plea.
I stand to be corrected however.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
Incorrect. Mueller did not say there was no crime. What he referenced was that a sitting president could not be indicted.

That is not exoneration.
In offering no crime, which was his task, the exact reason for the investigation, by definition it is an exoneration.

Legally he could have defined any crime committed but decline to indict per DOJ policy or opinion.

In that instance a defined crime could (would) have led to an impeachment process which may have had a snowballs chance in Montana of getting a conviction in the Senate.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Incorrect. Mueller did not say there was no crime. What he referenced was that a sitting president could not be indicted.

That is not exoneration.
The Mueller investigation was bogus. Run by a bunch of Democrat partisans headed by uber partisan Andrew Weissmann. With the whole investigation predicated on the veracity of the Steele dossier, which was also bogus. Give it up already, the country needs to move past it. Which it will when those responsible are put behind bars.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
The Mueller investigation was bogus. Run by a bunch of Democrat partisans headed by uber partisan Andrew Weissmann. With the whole investigation predicated on the veracity of the Steele dossier, which was also bogus. Give it up already, the country needs to move past it. Which it will when those responsible are put behind bars.
Well, contrary to what you want to believe, the IG report that you put so much faith in didn’t tech that conclusion.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
The Mueller investigation was bogus. Run by a bunch of Democrat partisans headed by uber partisan Andrew Weissmann. With the whole investigation predicated on the veracity of the Steele dossier, which was also bogus. Give it up already, the country needs to move past it. Which it will when those responsible are put behind bars.
Slow down Van, I'm trying to break him, or at least think he came about the facts on his own.
We don't have to waterboard anymore, even the most ignorant can see the truth now.

A hard lesson I'll still trying to learn is it's not required to humiliate your enemy. If you give them enough rope they will humiliate themselves.
 

Old Man Jingles

Rat out of a cage
A friend of the swamp gets ... wait for it ... wait for it ...
Mark Tolson, a former FBI analyst, illegally accessed the emails of right wing activist Jack Burkman in order to protect Mueller. He admitted to doing so in federal court last week. He will serve seven days behind bars and has been ordered to pay a $500 fine.

Such a swampy move!!!

SMH

"I did what I did to try to protect Director Mueller, who can protect himself," Tolson told U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema.

"This is actually a very serious offense," Brinkema said. "You're lucky. Your wife is lucky.
The government could have prosecuted her as well."

"You can't just rummage through other people's accounts," Brinkema added. "You had to have known better."

He's lucky because he is part of the DEEP STATE!!!
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
In offering no crime, which was his task, the exact reason for the investigation, by definition it is an exoneration.

Legally he could have defined any crime committed but decline to indict per DOJ policy or opinion.

In that instance a defined crime could (would) have led to an impeachment process which may have had a snowballs chance in Montana of getting a conviction in the Senate.
Mueller says Trump was not exonerated; Trump declares victory
Mueller disagrees with your assessment.
 

Old Man Jingles

Rat out of a cage
Mueller is drooling!

Mueller drooling.jpg


.
.
 
Last edited:
Top