Posted on 07/25/2019 9:25:08 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
House Democrats’ official campaign arm spread misinformation in a fundraising blast about former special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony Wednesday.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) falsely claimed that Mueller testified that he would charge President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice if he weren’t president.
During his morning testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Mueller appeared to agree with Democratic California Rep. Ted Lieu, who asserted that Mueller’s office didn’t charge Trump with obstruction because of Department of Justice policies against indicting sitting presidents.
But Mueller corrected the record when he began his afternoon testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee — well before the DCCC’s misleading email blast.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
The problem is that Mueller didn't know WTH he was talking about. He later said that testimony was incorrect, but his explanation "That is not the correct way to say it," is a very strange way of saying that he got the answer totally wrong.
Even the sockpuppet media now admits that his testimony was a disaster. Except Maddow, who ignored all of Mueller's screwups and focused on a Q&A with Schiff, where Mueller didn't go off the dem script, and testified that Trump committed crimes.
Question to MuleFace…..”IF the OLC did NOT exist, just WHAT would you have charged President Trump with, DETAILS, PLEASE”?!
I find annoying is the media acting like Mueller’s word is the voice of the almighty, and once it is spoken we dare not question it. Like when Mueller said President Trump can be indicted for Obstruction once he leaves office. That is simply HIS OPINION, he is no longer the Special Counsel and not even an employee of the Justice Department, his opinion has no more sway that mine does. But the media runs with it like it was a Supreme Court ruling....
The words, “would” and “could” have two completely different meanings. Looks like Democrats are once again guilty of lying to their constituents. And once again, those constituents will fall for it hook, line and sinker.
Imagine 2020 when Trump is reelected, the House is a republican majority (sans Ryan, Amash, and the like), and the Senate is held.
Which Mueller would you ask? The one who testified that OLC policy kept him from indicting, or the one who testified that they just did not indict, or the one who testified that Trump had definitely committed crimes?
This was the spin they had ready from before the hearing began. Mueller didn’t help them much.
Some of them can see that Mueller’s stock has crashed.
Words do mean things. The Dems are hopelessly led around by Marxist wordsmiths.
To,Two,To..There,Their, They're... Socialism, Marxism, Democracy, Freedom, Slavery... Capitalism, Free Enterprise...and on and on and on.
<img src="https://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/dccc-mueller-email.jpg" width=90%>
Thanks. If the mods have nothing better to do, they could make that change. If FR allowed posters to edit, I could do that.
Rep. John Ratcliffe went to the heart of an assumption made by Mueller and House Democrats DJT's "obstruction." Ratcliffe wonders where Mueller found in his job description that requiring positive exoneration of DJT from charges of committing crimes.
RRatcliffe asks Mueller to cite an example where the DOJ "determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined"
Mueller reploed: I cannot, but this is a unique situation
CBS News (@CBSNews) July 24, 2019
Ratcliffe slams Mueller for writing "about decisions that weren't reached" on obstruction of justice: "I agree with the Chairman … when he said Donald Trump is not above the law, he's not. But he damn sure shouldn't be below the law"
https://t.co/jFAp2RJoaI pic.twitter.com/UCs0PUtXrH
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) July 24, 2019
RATCLIFFE: Prosecutors are not there to prove innocence. Unless they find probable cause that a crime has been committed, they are supposed to close the file and not comment on the degree of exoneration they have determined. In fact, it might be accurate to say that prosecutors aren’t in the exoneration business at all, unless it’s to eliminate a suspect in a case in order to prosecute another suspect.
.......a special counsel is guided under a statute that requires a report on any prosecution or declination decisions. William Barr chose to release the report with all of this detail on the declination decisions involving obstruction.......but Mueller (or somebody) wrote it as if Trump had to be proven totally innocent.
As Ratcliffe points out, half of the report relates to non-decisions, which is entirely outside the purview of the statute. “You wrote 180 pages,” Ratcliffe points out, “on DJT's pirported activities ....then claimed decisions could not be reached.” --snip---
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.