This is false and a distraction. Meanwhile this next hearing, they just listed and confirmed by Mueller many many instances where Trump, familiy and associates lied mislead the public about dealings with Russia. You are still not concerned because you think two other government officials got away with something but have no evidence. You my friend are broken.

Edited: 07/24/2019 at 10:23 AM by HAPDigital

You have obviously never worked in a Secure environment!! (NDA)

-------------------------
Romans 8;18-32 John 3;16-18

You obviously do not know me. And you obviously do not study history based on facts. This thread is about Trump, not Clinton nor Obama and or the crimes they did not commit during a time when GOP held both House and Senate. You are now admitting you don't care Trump committed crimes.

Edited: 07/24/2019 at 10:28 AM by HAPDigital

They just confirmed their was collusion.

AP FACT CHECK on Mueller

-------------------------
GOP:

Gaslight
Obstruct
Project

All the facts in the world wont change their minds. It is apparent tpap and the like just chime in once in a while to throw out unfounded insults and accusations of failure because the reality that Trump and his crew are criminals is being laid out clearly in front of us.

You struck out again, Hap. What is the next failure on your agenda?

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

LOL you keep stating this similar statement with no facts backing it. Whereas every post I made here has facts supporting it. How does one pass the bar in Clownsville, a coupon from a sugary cereal box?

Thank you for getting back to me on that so quickly. I would note, however, that my question on your next failure was rhetorical.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

And you continue to not post any facts, evidence or history to back your claims that I failed in understanding what was said in the hearings and or what is in the Mueller report. Please show where in the report or a clip of Mueller stating there is no evidence of obstruction in his report or that he didn't indict because the OLC decision says he can't. I guess your clown degree does not allow for such things like citing sources or displaying facts to back your statements.

"If Trump was not president he could be indicted." Mueller: TRUE

"The report did not conclude he did not obstruct justice?" Mueller: No "Did it exonerate Trump on obstruction?" Mueller: No

"Would I be indicted if I did the things that Trump did as far as obstruction?" Mueller: Yes.

Various ways all the same conclusion. A normal person would be indicted.

We now know Trump is a criminal. The real question is what will Senate do to protect our election from the Russians again? Chances are nothing as they are their biggest asset in holding the WH.

Wrong!

(oh...and I thought you had me on ignore.....LIAR! oh wait....that what you do! FOOL!)

"I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "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." Mueller

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Edited: 07/24/2019 at 12:42 PM by Fish Killer

So crap might understand;

---

"I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "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."

---

Mueller made it clear that he did not intend to support Lieu's implication that Mueller would have indicted Trump if not for the OLC opinion. That would have meant that Mueller determined that Trump committed a crime, but could not do anything about it. What Mueller meant was that the OLC opinion kept him from even deciding if an indictment would be warranted in the first place.

-------------------------
Romans 8;18-32 John 3;16-18

Poor, old Hap. He is wrong about everything. No crime, no impeachment, no Trump is going down. Now in Hap's defense, all progs are wrong about everything. So he is not alone.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Wrong about what? 4 other instances Mueller stated what "Trimp" did was an indictable offense. The problem is the OLC determination which did not allow Mueller to make a decision or determination. But the bulk of the hearing he stated anyone else would be indicted. Are you that dumb? Really? You did not watch the hearings, and this is a fact. Criticizing something you did not watch, talk about wallowing in ignorance....

Edited: 07/24/2019 at 12:58 PM by HAPDigital

Yo....SHITFORBRAINS!

CAN YOU READ?!?!?!

"I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said. "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."

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Mueller did not say that Trump committed an indictable offense. But I have learned that no fact will get through to you. Enjoy your fantasy world and we'll enjoy making fun of you.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

You apparently did not watch the hearing in full. He stated various times they would have arrested anyone else that did these same actions. He cannot indict nor can he make the decision to indicting a president as per the Lieu comment walk back. You are arguing something you did not watch. It is apparent. You continue to wallow in your ignorance as you state it.



Edited: 07/24/2019 at 01:52 PM by HAPDigital

So KKKrankit can understand....



Many many other instances that this was presented that was not walked back. There was something specific about the wording of the response to Lieu. However, every other angle that was asked was not walked back. We have a criminal in the WH because if you and I did these same things he would have indicted. This was discussed multiple times over and over. However, you did not watch the hearings. You just waited for your favorite news outlet to post something that you liked and went with it. Everything posted here was as I heard it during the 2 hearings. He didn't determine there was a crime because he is not allowed to because a sitting president. However, if anyone else did what trump did, indictment...

Edited: 07/24/2019 at 12:55 PM by HAPDigital