Do You Expect Mueller [the person] To Say Something Different Than The Mueller Report?

@AbbySvenz Yes we did.
I read my copy without malice.

Yeah sure 🙄@Budwick

@Stereoguy [quote]Otherwise he would have been cha[r]ged a long time ago.[/quote] Lmao someone quite literally didn’t get the memo.

@Stereoguy This is one area where the dumdums continue to refuse to admit the truth. Recall when mueller gave that press conference and he intimated the president was not charged with obstruction because of doj rules. But then 3 people who were in that meeting with mueller and barr backed up barr and said mueller told them in that meeting that there was not enough evidence to charge and mueller was forced to issue a joint statement clearing that up. But the dumards keep trying to claim that he was not charged because of doj rules.
In typical fashion when the facts don't support what the dumtards want they just ignore the facts.

Yet in his testimony today he very directly told Nadler that yes it was because of the DOJ restrictions. @katielass

@monte3 How about the fact that there is no underlying crime.
How does one obstruct investigation of something that never happened?

@Budwick Ask Martha Stewart.

@Stereoguy [quote]he would have been changed a long time ago[/quote]
You're seriously going to ignore the whole "did not charge because of policy to not indict a sitting president" aspect? Okay, then. Good luck with that.

@RodionRomanovitch The facts surrounding the case against Stewart led to prosecutors to focus on the series of lies Stewart told to cover the facts surrounding her trade.

In Trumps case, there was no underlying crime at all.
I'm sure you are blind to the difference.

@Budwick And you are wilfully blind to the fact that there need not be an actual underlying crime for one to be convicted of obstruction of justice.

Maybe you could invent another quote to support your assertion ?

@RodionRomanovitch
Seriously?

You are suggesting that I could get you prosecuted for obstructing and investigation of a crime that never happened?

Please, give me an outline as to how that would be done - I'll call my lawyers this afternoon.

@Budwick https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

@Budwick Obstructing the investigation is a crime.

If the investigation were allowed to continue and there was no crime, it would have been fine. Why impede the investigation into a non-crime?

Difficulty level: you need to acknowledge that, according to the law of the USA, obstructing an investigation is a crime, period.

And *poof*, the conservacuck disappears when it can't figure out how to prove that a crime is not really a crime.

@daisymay [quote]If the investigation were allowed to continue and there was no crime, it would have been fine.[/quote]

Great! No disagreement. Mueller ended his investigation.
No one told him to stop.

@Budwick Oh, did you miss the part? It must be getting harder and harder to stand in that tiny corner in which you find yourself painted.

[quote]Robert Mueller confirmed that President Trump asked staff to falsify records relevant to the investigation[/quote]

That's obstruction of justice. That's a crime.

Isn’t the point that there was an underlying crime, obstruction, but DOJ rules precluded indictment. But I really thought we already knew that, the report was to answer impeach or not, rather than indict.@Budwick

@monte3 They've hung their hats on the "total exoneration" rack already, so today is a particularly bad day for them. Now they have to spend energy coming up with bullshit to deflect from the fact that their cult leader is a criminal.

@daisymay Well that's interesting - what page of the report is that on?

@monte3 If there was no collusion - there was no crime, and no obstruction.

@Budwick You keep dancing around the fact that obstructing the investigation into whether a crim was committed is a crime itself.

There is nothing you can say that changes that. Trumpty-Dumpty obstructed an investigation, that is a crime. Own it. Admit that you don't care and gladly support a criminal.

@daisymay What crime did Trump allegedly commit that he allegedly obstructed on? [TIP - the only one that counts is collusion - that's what Mueller and his posse were sent out to investigate]
Oh, and Mueller has already said there was no collusion.

@Budwick [quote]What crime did Trump allegedly commit that he allegedly obstructed on?[/quote]

Let me explain it in words even a conservative can understand.

An investigation is the act of finding out if a crime has been committed. When completed, the investigation will reveal that there was or was not a crime committed.

Obstructing any investigation is a crime. Full stop, no exceptions.

Do you understand now, or do you wish to keep appearing the fool on this topic?

@Budwick It’s cute to watch you soi boi republicans pretending not to understand that the only reason Trump wasn’t charged with obstruction was his status as a sitting president.

The “you can’t obstruct if the crime being investigated didn’t happen” angle is especially fresh.