Matt, why won’t Mueller exonerate the President?
His job is to prosecute or not. He's a rat and he is going to muddy the water as much as possible to keep rabid dems such as yourself stirred up.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Matt, why won’t Mueller exonerate the President?
Matt, why won’t Mueller exonerate the President?
Presumption of innocence until otherwise convicted either by a court or Congress?
He answered this in the presser as well. He believes he has answered all of the questions within his report, and he believes testifying would turn in to a political spectacle, which it would.Why won't Mueller testify before Congress ?
He answered this in the presser as well. He believes he has answered all of the questions within his report, and he believes testifying would turn in to a political spectacle, which it would.
The fact is that too many Americans (such as yourself) are too lazy to read the report. They need to see the TV hearings to be informed on the subject.
That you are exactly wrong. The report didn't cover collusion and he didn't choose not to make a charge of obstruction. You are living in a bubble of ignorance.Mueller's conclusions: No collusion and he chose not to make a charge of obstruction. What more needs to be said ?
IMO, people should not comment on the results of the Mueller report if they haven't read it. I don't care if they are an average Joe like you and me or a member of congress. I may be stupid, but at least I've put in the effort to not be ignorant. I've read the report twice and I read Mueller's statement today.The level of ignorance from both sides is astounding.
Wasn’t his office there to investigate and gather evidence not to render a verdict? Then, present said evidence to Congress and let them decide. I didn’t think Mueller was where the buck stopped...Umm, exonerate means call him innocent..
Note that Mueller said he would have exonerated him if he could have. Now it's time for Congress to decide.
I agree with you 100%.Wasn’t his office there to investigate and gather evidence not to render a verdict? Then, present said evidence to Congress and let them decide. I didn’t think Mueller was where the buck stopped...
That's the pot calling the kettle blackThat’s quite a broad net you’re casting.
Oh look! Comments from the peanut gallery!That's the pot calling the kettle black
The Obama admin normalized abortion. It went from safe/rare under Clinton and Bush to what it is now.
“In 2001, 2002, and 2003, Obama opposed Illinois legislation that would have given legal protection to infants who survived abortion attempts. A 2002 federal version of the same legislation had passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate, with only 15 House members voting no. In 2003, only two years away from the Senate, Illinois state senator Obama stated plainly that he believed abortions should be legal in all situations, even late in a pregnancy—a position no other major presidential candidate had ever taken in their careers.”
How The Obama Presidency Normalized Abortion Extremism
The Obama administration did everything it could to transform abortion, a procedure that ends a life, into something to celebrate.thefederalist.com
That you are exactly wrong. The report didn't cover collusion and he didn't choose not to make a charge of obstruction. You are living in a bubble of ignorance.
IMO, people should not comment on the results of the Mueller report if they haven't read it. I don't care if they are an average Joe like you and me or a member of congress. I may be stupid, but at least I've put in the effort to not be ignorant. I've read the report twice and I read Mueller's statement today.
"And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing."
So, does that mean that a President could be informally accused of wrong-doing outside of the judicial process? Like, say, a damning report on obstruction that lays our evidence but doesn't make a formal legal conclusion or accusation of criminal wrongdoing? Why use" formally" instead of legally?
Is anyone aware of a formal process found in the Constitution to accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing? I'm only aware of one; that process is impeachment by Congress.
I'm not trying to shake anything off. What is your argument, ghost? That Trump is the boogie man of all politics because he's immoral? Or that his "Evangelical Christian" supporters are all hypocrites and....what? The reason for... what? His rise to the top? The reason he's president? All the world's ills? Look, no one was more angry than I was when Trump won the Republican nomination during the primaries. But he didn't get the majority of Evangelical support, ghost. He got the plurality. Do you understand the difference? During the general he gained more supporters, not due to people liking and approving of him, but because people could not stand Hillary Clinton. His winning said more about the Democrats and who they put up than it did about Trump. And the Democrat's reaction has been to shift more and more to the left. Again, if Trump wins, it will say a lot more about who the Democrats are and what their platform is than it will about Donald Trump. But my entire point was in direct response to the whole sky is falling mantra and our moral fabric is in tatters and it's all because of Trump. One man. And to that I say --- what rot! We're here because of where we've been. Try to shake that off.
Side note Evan, I thought you were Catholic?