CNN say Mueller can charge president but didn't
- Thread starter viruscore1
- Start date
A) Mr. Mueller, do you think you uncovered sufficient evidence to file sustainable charges against President Trump? Yes.
Then why didn't you?
B) Mr. Mueller, do you think you uncovered sufficient evidence to file sustainable charges against President Trump? No.
That concludes this witness' testimony.
Oh? Did Mueller testitfy before Congress already? I must have missed it. I'll wait for the repeat.
Trying to prepare you for the resulting fizzle that is coming, suit yourself.
CNN after production meeting hearing of no collusion.
The following is a hypothetical opening statement by the prosecution if Russia Collusion charges were tried before a jury:
Prosecutor: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence will show beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald J. Trump, against the peace and dignity of Hillary Clinton and Rachel Maddow did possibly collude with Russia to win the 2016 Presidential election. Furthermore, we will present undeniable evidence the Trump organization may have attempted to obstruct the Russia Collusion Investigation.
Expect to hear the other side talk about facts, motivations, and conspiracies. But at the end of the day, Hillary Clinton and Rachel Maddow were denied a Hillary Clinton Presidency by Donald J. Trump. To that end, I will request you, the jury, to return a verdict of “guilty”.
Judge: Defense?
Defense: “Motion to dismiss”.
Judge: Although the prosecutors opening statement was one of the most pathetic ever, it is not considered evidence”. “Motion denied”. “I must warn the prosecution and defence about attempting to turn my courtroom into a circus”. “Contempt charges will be readily handed out”.
So before lunchtime, this trial of the century was delayed due to both the prosecutor and defense attorneys being remanded for contempt.
Prosecutor: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence will show beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald J. Trump, against the peace and dignity of Hillary Clinton and Rachel Maddow did possibly collude with Russia to win the 2016 Presidential election. Furthermore, we will present undeniable evidence the Trump organization may have attempted to obstruct the Russia Collusion Investigation.
Expect to hear the other side talk about facts, motivations, and conspiracies. But at the end of the day, Hillary Clinton and Rachel Maddow were denied a Hillary Clinton Presidency by Donald J. Trump. To that end, I will request you, the jury, to return a verdict of “guilty”.
Judge: Defense?
Defense: “Motion to dismiss”.
Judge: Although the prosecutors opening statement was one of the most pathetic ever, it is not considered evidence”. “Motion denied”. “I must warn the prosecution and defence about attempting to turn my courtroom into a circus”. “Contempt charges will be readily handed out”.
So before lunchtime, this trial of the century was delayed due to both the prosecutor and defense attorneys being remanded for contempt.
Perhaps. He certainly left a lot on the table with his deference and using OLC as an out.
I do find it interesting though that there is a glaring difference in the way his team approached the conspiracy side and the obstruction side. They wrote the conspiracy report as though they had the ability to indict but not the obstruction side.
I’m am starting to think Mueller got little weak in the knees.
As to babbling on about whining crybaby antics, SeTh RiCh, UrAnIuM, DeEp StAtE cAbAl....
Weak in the knees? LOL. No, he gave the left all he could considering he had nothing of substance to work with. You got an investigation that went on through the 2018 election giving dems the House, and a report laced with ambiguity so you can have something to pontificate about through 2020.
Yeh, well, as I said many times long ago when you and your ilk went through this phase of continually posting pictures of Mueller in his Marine uniform, we will see if that is enough in the end -it has not been for many/most of his other big cases.