Here, how about this link.......the real Robert Mueller. Starting to sound like "Volume 2" might be good for placing in your bathroom?.

"Strip away all the tortured legalese and intellectual incoherence, it all boiled down to one thing - Mueller saying, "I can't prove he did it, but he did it." He talked about "another process," and with that weak, pathetic attempt to hide the explosive nature of what he was really saying, Mueller called on Congress to impeach the president.
What Mueller did at his press conference wasn't justice. It wasn't the rule of law. It was a smear -- false statement designed to cause material harm to President Trump, delivered with malice ... President Trump should sue Robert Mueller for libel."
Next: Let's open a corruption investigation into the business dealings of Mueller and Comey in their swampy trips around the revolving door. Let's investigate those Lockheed Martin contracts. Let's investigate those client relationships at Mueller's swamp law firm where he had a conflict of interest.
https://www.foxnews.com/...ulous-never-trumpers

How would you know anything about the validity of an FoxNews opinion piece on Volume 2 of Mueller's report when you admit you haven't read it?

Kay you should stop caring about what he says. At the end of the day based on his data he said that Bill Clinton was the best president in recent history. He should have voted for Clinton’s second term, gore, Obama for his first term. He also should have been eager for another Clinton economy.

All while siding against 1000 federal prosecutors.

Impeachment deconfliction (while not yet resolution) provided by:

An opinion column in today's paper by the Executive Editor of the Washington Post, Fred Hiatt, is commended.
For sure it is way too early for the paper to come out with an endorsement editorial either way on impeachment. That Hiatt published his opinion as a column is informative. After making argument against impeachment on 3 articles, Hiatt closes with:

" Trump is taking his contempt of congress to new levels now by refusing to acknowledge any legitimate congressional oversight role. His recalcitrance is being challenged in court: if he loses and still refuses to cooperate, impeachment might well be the only response left to congress, and the right one.
In the meantime, Congress is duty bound to continue investigating the president's misdeeds and abuses of power. If consolidating that effort in one impeachment inquiry would make it more coherent, and would strengthen the house's standing in court, it should do so. Maybe a persuasive case for impeachment will take shape. None of these are easy calls.
But Trump should not be impeached for inclinations, no matter how vile, that were not acted upon. He should not impeached out of frustration with the pusillanimous failure of Republicans in the House and Senate to stand up for congressional prerogative and constitutional norms.
And Congress should think very hard before impeaching Trump for the high crime of being who we knew he was before we elected him."

Well said Fred! And in pink, here I thought my newspaper was some liberal, pro communist,left leaning, biased, fake news rag.

Well, what he actually said was, there is too much here to exonerate the President, but, not enough to conclude he committed a crime.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

All I know is that Mueller's wedding vows must have been a hoot.

That is not what mueller said. Either in his written report or his spoken press conference.

Saying the current regulations do not allow us to prosecute the president for a crime, so we did not even consider it, is not analogous at all to not conclude there was a crime.

actually, he said what you said w/regard to section 2. about section 1 he said what JSA said he said, and i took JSA's quote to be specific to section 1.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Correct.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Gphins original comments were about volume 2 and there being nothing in the entire report. Specifically “So sit there and talk about Volume 2 til you are blue in the face. The fact remains NOTHING....NADA.....so run to your afe space......snowflake......and good luck.

Responding to that and saying “mueller said there wasn’t enough for a crime” takes a leap to apply in only to vol. one.

Either way. Agree with that being what mueller said for volume 1. Which leads to muellers silence regarding vol 2 to carry weight.

i started a new thread this morning with a recitation of what's in mueller's report. the one area of daylight between JSA and me - if i recall his views correctly, and i may misremember - is that JSA may view POTUS's ability to hire/fire an executive branch employee as absolute. mueller opines on this in his report, and i display several passages from the report in my post showing mueller's view. this may be moot. even the president's own atty's, while arguing his absolute article II powers, concede that he can't suborn perjury, and that's one of the strongest obstruction counts. mcgahn is, i suspect, the most important individual determining whether the president will not only remain in office, but out of jail.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"Barr said Mueller examined 10 episodes that could have amounted to obstruction, but that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein ultimately determined the facts failed to amount to evidence of a crime. "

It wasn't Muellers job to provide an exoneration of Trump......his job was to determine if he committed a crime......as all the Democrats and liberal news pundits have been saying he did for the past two years. Nothing there......never was. So now what.....it wasn't proven that there is no there there so something has to be there and we need to impeach to find it...... talk about desperation. Now even his boss has come out and said he "disagrees with Muellers obstruction theories". The neverTrumpers will try to keep this alive for as long as they can.......I mean "did you read the report"? Hey, find a candidate who can do a better job and get him out. Until then, enjoy the ride and find something else to fix......like the streets of LA.......right, Kay and your buddy patentattorney?


Can't wait for the upcoming Barr investigation.......now there we will see some there there.




https://www.politico.com/...-obstruction-1280892

Maybe you can set gphin straight. He still seems confused.

“his job was to determine if he committed a crime...”

Mueller specifically said this was not his job because of current regulations. He further said if he could trump didn’t commit a crime he would say so.

i know why you post to him. but you'd be better off if you didn't.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I know what he said.......and everyone knows what this "investigation" was all about. Continue to play games if you want.

Where is that guy, anyway? How come that investigation is so slow to get started?

Could it be that Barr is off on a boondoggle trip at taxpayer expense, avoiding the heat and humidity of Washington?

https://dailycaller.com/...03/bill-barr-alaska/