Stefan MolyneuxVerified account

If I understand it correctly, however, and he was clear on this -- Mueller *cannot* indict a sitting president. It's simply not within his power. Impeachment and then indictment is up to congress. It's always been up to congress, and he deferred, as he should have, to them.

In a world where a ham sandwich can be indicted, they could not conspire *to* find a crime.

A slanted investigation couldn't find anything beyond a reasonable doubt or anything conclusive. If it were a murder trial, Trump would be free to go home.

Because this is not a rabbit to catch, but to chase it

Bad

A prosecutor BY DEFINITION cannot declare someone not-guilty or innocent...he charges or dismisses on bases of evidences, SO his declaration is political windbagging - meant to help #dems with their usual windmill attacks...pointless

Saving himself

Exactly!

Sorta like trying to disprove the 1st law of thermodynamics...can you ever?

Evidence of Trump's innocence has yet to be found by our philosopher kings. But I for one am certain that they'll search the forms tirelessly and inform us of it should they ever find it.

Mueller’s comments are the height of rhetoric and contradiction- all to fool the dumbed down public.

Mueller was never trying to disprove a conspiracy. He was trying to prove one. He couldn't. How do you disprove a conspiracy? Very difficult. If you think there is one, you will think that, even if you can't prove it.

I could not find that these people are not insufferable twits.

"We did not determine whether the president did commit a crime." Should be: We must assume the innocence of the president, as no evidence of a crime being committed is the only evidence possible for innocence as per basic logic.