A Thought on the Mueller Report

I am not an attorney or Constitutional attorney. I would invite comments on my thoughts from those with more expertise in the matter than I.



Controversy - What did Mueller report as to Trump and any crimes. Seems it is accepted that "Collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 election by Trump/campaign did not occur.

It is also reported that DOJ policy is not to comment on individuals whose actions do not rise to the level of "indictable".

There is substantial opinion that a sitting POTUS may not be indicted for crimes. A POTUS may be impeached, tried in the Senate, and if convicted and removed from office, then indicted for crimes committed.
Mueller was restricted from indicting the POTUS - as I read the DOJ rules. Still, if Mueller and minions have evidence of indictable crimes committed by Trump, et al, is there not a responsibility to release that evidence to the House for evaluation for Impeachment and trial?
Mueller's mealy-mouthed report and responses, and modified by AG Barr, are interpreted by the Left as evidence of crimes, and on the Right as exoneration of Trump.
Yet Schiff and Nadler have been back-tracking on their "I have evidence warranting impeachment in my Hand", and on bringing impeachment action to the House for action - despite the clamoring of the far-Leftists in the House - now numbering about 4+ favoring immediate impeachment.
Do Schiff and Nadler now realize Mueller brought nothing to them warranting Impeachment- despite the fact that impeachment is a political act - and Trump could be impeached by the DPST House for "Breathing".
Perhaps Mueller's report is a complete nothing-burger for the Leftists and Impeachment enthusiasts. If there were evidence of impeachable crimes, would not Mueller and the DOJ been responsible to refer that information to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration? Yet, nothing has been forwarded that defines "high crimes / misdemeanors" by the DOJ. Yes, AG Barr is a Trump political appointee, but smart enough to know better than to try to cover=up evidence of impeachable crimes committed by Trump. If such crimes were committed and held in evidence by DOJ, I do not believe AG Barr could sit on such evidence.

Which leads me to believe Mueller deliberately submitted a wishy-washy report to be taken as to whatever viewpoint a reader wished - Right or Left.
Bottom Line - I do not believe Mueller has anything as to evidence of any crimes by Trump.


Open for informed discussion. Lexus Lover - I would entertain your thoughts.

What Mueller and his merry band of political hacks did is the best example why special prosecutors should be abolished.

the meuller report was the bomb. the presser was the fuse the lit the bomb.


its purpose is to create problems for Trump.

the meuller report was the bomb. the presser was the fuse the lit the bomb.


its purpose is to create problems for Trump. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

it will expose the Mueller sham for what it was .. a witch hunt. Mueller will not testify. he can't. he'll go to prison if he does. he'll take the 5th like the asshole he is.


and yet a handful of uber libs here quote footnotes from the report .. like that means anything?


Barr can and will use the full unredacted data against Mueller. it will show the true context and the lack of any substance to so-called obstruction.

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...&postcount=355

Barr: Has the Special Counsel reached a conclusion yet?

Mueller: Yes, Mr. Attorney General. After two years of investigation and carefully reviewing all of the evidence, we find the POTUS is - "NOT NOT GUILTY".

Barr: WTF???????

Barr: Has the Special Counsel reached a conclusion yet?

Mueller: Yes, Mr. Attorney General. After two years of investigation and carefully reviewing all of the evidence, we find the POTUS is - "NOT NOT GUILTY".

Barr: WTF??????? Originally Posted by lustylad

Is Mueller WTF?

They want to believe ,, just more obstruction