# Mueller Public Statement



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

This is a good thing he is doing a press conference today.

A few things will hopefully come to light.

1. Did Barr make the correct summary by what Mueller did. Even though he has some what already said this. But it will be his own words out of his mouth saying yes or no if the summary was correct.

2. it could give us a time table if he will testify or if he will not testify for the committee.

3. It is good he isn't taking questions because it would get politicized by whom ever is asking the questions be it Fox or CNN.

This is a good thing for our nation. It will hopefully put this whole thing to bed finally or it will show we need to dive a little deeper. Mueller never politicized this investigation... others did around him. Both attacking Trump and Trump himself calling it a "witch hunt". But it came to an end and we now will hear directly from the mouth of who was the head of it. Like I said this should either put it to bed or if Mueller thinks more digging is needed. (but why would he have stopped if he thought more was needed..... :bop: ) Anyways... hopefully this will move us all forward and we can move this country along.

Edit:

But sadly no matter what he says... it will be used as a Political Stunt by either party. Which is very very sad. If he comes out and say put this thing to bed. Trump should gracefully say something along the lines of...."he verified his report and now lets move this great nation forward and get things done together."..... but we know that wont happen... uke: :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

Here is his statement... it is about 3 mins long.

So he basically said exactly what Barr said. No collusion and not enough evidence for obstruction. Plus added in the fact that the Constitution cant charge a sitting president. This is nothing new what so ever from what Barr said.

Now I do like the fact that Mueller stated that we needed the investigation to preserve evidence while it is fresh in peoples minds. This is good and will mean that the report could be used after Trump is out of office to go after him. It also shows that if the House wants to go after Impeachment they could have a just cause. But it also shows is there enough evidence to charge him with Impeachment? That is the elephant in the room so to speak. Because it didn't say he was free and clear but it also didn't say we could charge him (but cant).

So my take on the statement is this:
1. Mueller said exactly what Barr said.
2. Mueller said Trump did shady things but wasn't enough to charge him or clear him.
3. There is a future civil case if the USA wants to bring one up against a president or when he is out of office a former president.
4. Mueller said that there is other tools to "charge" him... IMPEACHMENT... But again we know how impeachment goes look at Clinton when he was brought up on articles of Impeachment.

So take that for what it is worth.

Also like I mentioned..... Trump came out ASAP and tweeted about it. Saying "not enough evidence to charge".... so again politicalized the whole thing.... now CNN, MSNBC, and any Dem's who hate trump turn to get into the press. :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I watched Mueller give his statement. For 35 million he didn't have squat. Not enough evidence, but he didn't take questions. Does not enough evidence mean no evidence? In any event it means no court would convict. It means a grand jury would not indict. Will the Democrat house violate the innocent until proven guilty of the American legal system AGAIN?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman...

You are correct that a "CRIMINAL" court wouldn't convict them without enough evidence. Civil court is different. Look at the OJ trial. Criminal court he got off... civil court his estate is still paying on it.

I think the Dem controlled house has a big question to ask themselves.... do they try to impeach. Mueller's report and statement basically said other "options" for a sitting president. Now they just have to do there work and see if there is enough evidence for impeachment. That is why I bring up Clinton and his impeachment fiasco. There was evidence he lied but the articles of impeachment never followed thru and got voted down by one chamber of congress or what ever. But the Republicans brought up impeachment proceedings.... and then lost in the next election year (I believe). So that is what needs to be weighed in on.

I think Mueller is saying to the Dem's..... "[email protected]#T or get off the pot". So either end the stuff or bring up impeachment. That is why I think Pelosi came out and said that she thinks Trump wants them to bring up Impeachment..... because he thinks he will win that battle and the Dem's will lose it come election time.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP

Just like I stated.... People running for president nomination from the Dem's jumped on this saying "impeachment".... Nadler did the same. The House member Collins, Sarah Sanders, and Trump campaign officals&#8230; said the opposite... LOL

So let the circus continue. :eyeroll:

Here is the only thing they can go after him on.... Obstruction. They cant go after him for Russia. Because Mueller said he found nothing done by the president in the Russia probe. He did say he is not "free and clear" or to use media terms "exonerated" on the obstruction stuff. Which again I bring up former president Bill Clinton impeachment stuff. Ken Starr found 13 counts against President Clinton.....then we saw what happened there.

So it is a slippery slope if they want to pursue impeachment with out having both chambers majority. Since we know or it has been the custom as of lately only voting on party lines... which is BS.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

If people don't know what I am talking about with Clinton....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachme ... ll_Clinton

Good info and shows what could be coming down the pipe for Trump.

Who says History doesn't repeats itself....
1. Dem's complained during Starr's investigation that it cost too much 70 mil.... 
- I complained it was costing too much.... among other republicans... LOL
2. Obstruction Charges and Perjury charges only thing found
- Obstruction charges only thing found
3. House majority is opposite political party of the president and brought up charges in a "lame duck" year
- We will see if they bring up charges


----------

