Hillary Clinton helped him get elected. How many times do we need to go over this?

Mueller didn't do his job. It's over. Time to move on and enjoy the greatest economic times in the history of our country.

FYI, the economy grew at 3% in 2019 Q1. You mad?

Mad? Hey, I'm enjoying the show.

Donald is going to get to run against Hillary again? Is he going to be able to draw to an inside straight again? He sure seems afraid of Joe Biden.

Mueller did exactly what he was charged with. It's only people like you wishing for a whitewash. That's what Bill Barr is for.

He only needs to run on the strong economy. Pretty simple stuff. It's what most people care about.

---

How would the average American citizen like this said of him or her after a couple of years of 18 prosecutors scrutinizing his or her affairs?

After reviewing all the evidence, we don’t have enough evidence to say that John Doe robbed that store. But we can’t say definitively that he didn’t rob that store, so here’s a bunch of embarrassing revelations about him that we uncovered along the way. Have fun.

OR - we found plenty of sleazy behavior (read the report) but because the man happens to occupy the White House we can't charge him. 

You are such a great example of the tremendous amount of political hypocrisy around today. I'm sure you would apply the same standards to the Clinton Foundation or Uranium One or whatever Alex has you all charged up about. Pretty transparent.

---

Mad? Hey, I'm enjoying the show.

Donald is going to get to run against Hillary again? Is he going to be able to draw to an inside straight again? He sure seems afraid of Joe Biden.

Mueller did exactly what he was charged with. It's only people like you wishing for a whitewash. That's what Bill Barr is for.

He only needs to run on the strong economy. Pretty simple stuff. It's what most people care about.

You hope. You do realize don't you that there a voters who aren't angry middle-class white men or people who work in IT, don't you?

You can't seem to grasp that even with a good economy most people don't like him. He's just not a likable guy. I don't see that changing. Even Fox polls show that.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

How would the average American citizen like this said of him or her after a couple of years of 18 prosecutors scrutinizing his or her affairs?

After reviewing all the evidence, we don’t have enough evidence to say that John Doe robbed that store. But we can’t say definitively that he didn’t rob that store, so here’s a bunch of embarrassing revelations about him that we uncovered along the way. Have fun.

OR - we found plenty of sleazy behavior (read the report) but because the man happens to occupy the White House we can't charge him. 

You are such a great example of the tremendous amount of political hypocrisy around today. I'm sure you would apply the same standards to the Clinton Foundation or Uranium One or whatever Alex has you all charged up about. Pretty transparent.

---

He only needs to run on the strong economy. Pretty simple stuff. It's what most people care about.

You hope. You do realize don't you that there a voters who aren't angry middle-class white men or people who work in IT, don't you?

You can't seem to grasp that even with a good economy most people don't like him. He's just not a likable guy. I don't see that changing. Even Fox polls show that.

Opinions change when you are in the ballot box with nobody to judge you. 

BTW, if you are counting on a failed ex-VP, 2 time failed presidential candidate, career politician since the age of 29 who hasn't written a single piece of impactful legislation, who can't string together a coherent sentence and likes to touch little girls to take down Trump and a strong economy, you are going to be very disappointed.

---

After watching Mueller's statement yesterday and watching the MSM my thought is this.

In this country we are innocent until proven guilty.  It is the job of the DoJ in this case to determine if there was a crime and whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime.  The report states that there was no crime (specifically obstruction of justice and/or obstruction of the investigation for Russian collusion).  If the crime was not committed there can be no way to prove the guilt of the defendant for said crime.

Mueller's comment stated that they didn't see enough evidence to say that President Trump is innocent of a crime.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Mueller said Wednesday. “We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime.”

Mueller's comment goes against what the prosecution's job is.  It's not their job to prove a person's innocence, rather it's their job to prove a person's guilt.  Remember, this investigation was pretty specific regarding what it was about.  It was about collusion and obstruction of justice.  Neither was proven.  If he would have replaced the words "a crime" with "obstruction of justice" or "collusion" he would have also had to modify is statement to something like this.

“We have confidence that the president clearly did not commit collusion and/or obstruction of justice."

The twist in this is that it leaves open the possibility that perhaps the president did commit a crime, and it's not under his (Mueller's) authority to charge and/or bring an indictment for it.  That would be the job of Congress.  The ball is in Pelosi's and the rest of the democrats' court to impeach.  The problem for them is that they have nothing to impeach The President for.  Collusion and obstruction of justice is pretty much off the table.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

After watching Mueller's statement yesterday and watching the MSM my thought is this.

In this country we are innocent until proven guilty.  It is the job of the DoJ in this case to determine if there was a crime and whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime.  The report states that there was no crime (specifically obstruction of justice and/or obstruction of the investigation for Russian collusion).  If the crime was not committed there can be no way to prove the guilt of the defendant for said crime.

Mueller's comment stated that they didn't see enough evidence to say that President Trump is innocent of a crime.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Mueller said Wednesday. “We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime.”

Mueller's comment goes against what the prosecution's job is.  It's not their job to prove a person's innocence, rather it's their job to prove a person's guilt.  Remember, this investigation was pretty specific regarding what it was about.  It was about collusion and obstruction of justice.  Neither was proven.  If he would have replaced the words "a crime" with "obstruction of justice" or "collusion" he would have also had to modify is statement to something like this.

“We have confidence that the president clearly did not commit collusion and/or obstruction of justice."

The twist in this is that it leaves open the possibility that perhaps the president did commit a crime, and it's not under his (Mueller's) authority to charge and/or bring an indictment for it.  That would be the job of Congress.  The ball is in Pelosi's and the rest of the democrats' court to impeach.  The problem for them is that they have nothing to impeach The President for.  Collusion and obstruction of justice is pretty much off the table.

Presumption of Innocence? Never heard of it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

After watching Mueller's statement yesterday and watching the MSM my thought is this.

In this country we are innocent until proven guilty.  It is the job of the DoJ in this case to determine if there was a crime and whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime.  The report states that there was no crime (specifically obstruction of justice and/or obstruction of the investigation for Russian collusion).  If the crime was not committed there can be no way to prove the guilt of the defendant for said crime.

Mueller's comment stated that they didn't see enough evidence to say that President Trump is innocent of a crime.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Mueller said Wednesday. “We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime.”

Mueller's comment goes against what the prosecution's job is.  It's not their job to prove a person's innocence, rather it's their job to prove a person's guilt.  Remember, this investigation was pretty specific regarding what it was about.  It was about collusion and obstruction of justice.  Neither was proven.  If he would have replaced the words "a crime" with "obstruction of justice" or "collusion" he would have also had to modify is statement to something like this.

“We have confidence that the president clearly did not commit collusion and/or obstruction of justice."

The twist in this is that it leaves open the possibility that perhaps the president did commit a crime, and it's not under his (Mueller's) authority to charge and/or bring an indictment for it.  That would be the job of Congress.  The ball is in Pelosi's and the rest of the democrats' court to impeach.  The problem for them is that they have nothing to impeach The President for.  Collusion and obstruction of justice is pretty much off the table.

The writing has been on the wall for some time. The House wants this to drag out until election time. They need to stop all the talk and start the impeachment process (not sure what grounds but Schiff says he has stuff. LOL). Impeachment will stop at the Senate and we can all move along. Enough of this House of Representatives clown show.

---

All these people commenting on something they've not read. Not surprising.

It's called blind faith and it usually ends very badly.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/...78/photo/1

---

All these people commenting on something they've not read. Not surprising.

It's called blind faith and it usually ends very badly.

If you decide you want to read it, it's around post #28 or so. Send over your favorite Dem representative while you're at it!

---

https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/...78/photo/1

Misrepresenting the evidence found during the investigation using this fig leaf and innuendo of the olc opinion is just disgusting. 

This man put people in solitary confinement before trial and raided the office of the president's attorney.  He should have the common decency to look the American people in the eye and admit he got nothing.

---

https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/...78/photo/1

Misrepresenting the evidence found during the investigation using this fig leaf and innuendo of the olc opinion is just disgusting. 

This man put people in solitary confinement before trial and raided the office of the president's attorney.  He should have the common decency to look the American people in the eye and admit he got nothing.

Katie Pavlich? Really? Hahahahah. Why not just use Sarah Sanders. I think they get their pay from the same place.

Why do people use unaccomplished talking heads for their source for anything?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Misrepresenting the evidence found during the investigation using this fig leaf and innuendo of the olc opinion is just disgusting. 

This man put people in solitary confinement before trial and raided the office of the president's attorney.  He should have the common decency to look the American people in the eye and admit he got nothing.

Katie Pavlich? Really? Hahahahah. Why not just use Sarah Sanders. I think they get their pay from the same place.

Why do people use unaccomplished talking heads for their source for anything?

So you're saying that Pavlich isn't quoting Kupec and Carr accurately, or that Kupec and Carr are not trustworthy?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

After watching Mueller's statement yesterday and watching the MSM my thought is this.

In this country we are innocent until proven guilty.  It is the job of the DoJ in this case to determine if there was a crime and whether or not the defendant is guilty of the crime.  The report states that there was no crime (specifically obstruction of justice and/or obstruction of the investigation for Russian collusion).  If the crime was not committed there can be no way to prove the guilt of the defendant for said crime.

Mueller's comment stated that they didn't see enough evidence to say that President Trump is innocent of a crime.

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that,” Mueller said Wednesday. “We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime.”

Mueller's comment goes against what the prosecution's job is.  It's not their job to prove a person's innocence, rather it's their job to prove a person's guilt.  Remember, this investigation was pretty specific regarding what it was about.  It was about collusion and obstruction of justice.  Neither was proven.  If he would have replaced the words "a crime" with "obstruction of justice" or "collusion" he would have also had to modify is statement to something like this.

Putin's goal never was to elect Trump; all of the existing intelligence said that there was no chance Trump would be elected. Putin's goal was to sow discord across the US political spectrum. Mueller, in his statement, has given a huge boost to Putin's plan.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Misrepresenting the evidence found during the investigation using this fig leaf and innuendo of the olc opinion is just disgusting. 

This man put people in solitary confinement before trial and raided the office of the president's attorney.  He should have the common decency to look the American people in the eye and admit he got nothing.

Katie Pavlich? Really? Hahahahah. Why not just use Sarah Sanders. I think they get their pay from the same place.

Why do people use unaccomplished talking heads for their source for anything?

She is reporting facts. I am very curious who Adam2012 considers a reliable source of facts.

---

Misrepresenting the evidence found during the investigation using this fig leaf and innuendo of the olc opinion is just disgusting. 

This man put people in solitary confinement before trial and raided the office of the president's attorney.  He should have the common decency to look the American people in the eye and admit he got nothing.

Katie Pavlich? Really? Hahahahah. Why not just use Sarah Sanders. I think they get their pay from the same place.

Why do people use unaccomplished talking heads for their source for anything?

Want me to lead you to water even though you know you won't drink? Feel free to find another source. It's the context that matters.

---

The "content" is just another attempt to cover Donald's butt. It's what she does. Did you see her Twitter page - where she is standing in front of Air Force One. She's a propagandist (pretty much like Stroud) who is posting a DOJ opinion. I'm sure Barr will give her a pat on the head.

The Mueller Report gives ten examples of activities in which Congress may wish to investigate. That apparently scares Trumpettes to death.

If you want to get your "news" or opinion from someone who was hired for her looks, go for it. People ought to just read the Report and try figuring it out on there own. But we know that ain't gonna happen.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

If you want to get your "news" or opinion from someone who was hired for her looks, go for it. People ought to just read the Report and try figuring it out on there own. But we know that ain't gonna happen.

Did you read it?

---

If you want to get your "news" or opinion from someone who was hired for her looks, go for it. People ought to just read the Report and try figuring it out on there own. But we know that ain't gonna happen.

Did you read it?

Yep. Available in a bookstore (and I assume library) near you. Interesting stuff.

America deserves better.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Did you read it?

Yep. Available in a bookstore (and I assume library) near you. Interesting stuff.

America deserves better.

I agree, we do deserve better. Obama using the justice department as political weaponry is dangerous.

---

The "content" is just another attempt to cover Donald's butt. It's what she does. Did you see her Twitter page - where she is standing in front of Air Force One. She's a propagandist (pretty much like Stroud)  who is posting a DOJ opinion. I'm sure Barr will give her a pat on the head.

The Mueller Report gives ten examples of activities in which Congress may wish to investigate. That apparently scares Trumpettes to death.

If you want to get your "news" or opinion from someone who was hired for her looks, go for it. People ought to just read the Report and try figuring it out on there own. But we know that ain't gonna happen.

Don't try so hard to come off clueless. Mueller operated as an Independent Counsel for the DOJ. This means he had complete and lawful authority to conduct a criminal investigation and indict anyone that he believed broke the law, independent of what the acting or formal AG thought. An old DOJ opinion memorandum does not change the investigation outcome, regardless of what you believe. A determination could not be made based on evidence. Mueller could have submitted criminal referrals/charges to be used in a Constitutional impeachment process, but there was nothing to submit. FYI, Congress cannot investigate unless there is legislative reasoning or there is an active impeachment referral.

Mueller himself says...

- "there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."
- "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with [Russia’s] interference operation.” 

And, this was not Mueller's dog whistle call for impeachment. There are zero legal grounds! With that said, I fully support the House pressing forward with impeachment right now so that you and the other hangers-on can go back into hiding before the 2020 election. [BLEEP] or get off the pot. And you are right, America does deserve better from these newly elected and old head hacks in the House.

---