Mueller Investigation

Trump Says Mueller Report Found No Evidence of Obstruction of Justice. Robert Mueller Tells Congress Otherwise.

Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee this morning contradicted the president's oft-made claims that the special counsel's report cleared him of any wrongdoing.

|

President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that the report from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller into Russian election interference found no obstruction of justice on Trump's part. That's news to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

In a flurry of early morning tweets, the president laid into Mueller and his investigative team of "18 angry Democrats" for running a witch hunt that nevertheless found no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and no obstruction of justice by Trump personally.

"NO COLLUSION. NO OBSTRUCTION!" tweeted Trump.

The president is largely correct on the first point. Mueller's investigation did not find evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

However, in his much-anticipated testimony before the House Judiciary Committee this morning, Mueller implicitly contradicted the latter half of the president's tweet.

At the outset of today's hearing, Justice Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) read aloud a quote from Mueller's report in which he said:

"If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

"Does that say there was no obstruction?" asked Nadler, to which Mueller bluntly answered, "No."

In answer to a follow-up question from Nadler, Mueller again confirmed that his report did not totally exonerate Trump.

Indeed, Mueller's report found a number of acts on Trump's part that were "capable of exerting undue influence" over the investigation, including an ultimately ignored order given to White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller.

As Mueller stressed in his testimony, he is limited in how much he can affirmatively say about Trump's possible obstruction of justice.

"At the outset, we determined that when it came to the president's culpability, we needed to go forward after taking into account the [Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel] opinion that a sitting president can't be indicted," Mueller said.

Mueller's finding that Trump had not been found innocent of obstruction of justice was seized on by Republicans on the committee, who said this was a violation of the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.

"You wrote 180 pages about decisions that weren't reached, about potential crimes that weren't charged," said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R–Texas) to Mueller. "Donald Trump is not above the law. He's not. But he damn sure shouldn't be below the law."

NEXT: Cory Booker’s ‘Second Look’ Reforms Would Create More Chances To Reduce Federal Prison Sentences

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. WTF is this shit.

    1. It depends on what your definition of “is” is.

    2. Propaganda.

      reason staff loves the propaganda.

      1. I think Britschgi wrote most of this before Mueller testified.

    3. Love when mueller said it was special circumstances to require his investigation to exonerate someone. Mueller got told pretty badly.

      If this is the Reason take from the w hour boondoggle, reason has gone farther into authoritarianism than I thought.

      1. I read on the Internet that Mueller, Britschgi and the poster OG below have been involved in sex trafficking of minors.

        Definitive evidence cannot be found to prove their involvement. But neither can evidence be found to definitely prove that they have never been involved in sex trafficking of minors.

        Therefore Mueller, Britschgi and OG have not been exonerated of the crime of sex trafficking of minors.

        1. You’d make a great special prosecutor!

      2. “A liberal is intolerant of other views. He wants to control your thoughts and actions.”
        -Lyndon Baines Johnson

        “I’m a liberal.”
        -Matt “Welchie Boy” Welch

    4. Back to the Democratic, “Guilty unless proven innocent” stance, I guess.

      1. Nothing says libertarianism quite like…well, doing away with civil liberties in legal proceedings.

        I guess only illegals deserve presumption of innocence…

        1. I guess only illegals deserve presumption of innocence…

          Not true. Pedophiles and black drug dealers do as well. White drug dealers can eat federal lead and die. Mexican drug dealers is redundant, and we already know the Reason position on the holy messican.

          1. Mexicans are only holy if they are or aid illegal immigration.
            All those Mexicans who immigrated to the US legally and are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration are uneducated white supremacist bigots who shouldn’t have rights and definitely need to be unpersoned by Big Tech oligarchs.

    5. Mueller saying that he can’t positively exonerate Trump on obstruction is not remotely the same as saying he has positive evidence that trump committed obstruction.

    6. The most epic of straw graspings. After that shitshow it’s clear that not only did Mueller not write the report with his name on it but wasn’t even REMOTELY familiar with the particulars of the case. To wit, he didn’t even know what Fusion GPS was.

  2. “I cannot say what this person did is not a crime, but I cannot explain fully why I think what he did is a crime” is putting the insinuation in limbo.

    The body for indicting a sitting president is the House. The process is called impeachment. If the analogue of a Grand Jury refuses to consider the matter, that is the equivalent of an exoneration.

    1. Trump can be indicted when he leaves office and I fully expect that to happen.

      1. I fully expect that it won’t happen, because the only purpose of the legal attack on him is to hobble him as President, and ideally remove him, and at that point it would be a waste of time that risks his likely acquittal.

        1. It’s about the rule of law and establishing the precedent that future presidents should understand they are not above the law.

          1. OG
            July.24.2019 at 11:48 am
            “It’s about the rule of law and establishing the precedent that future presidents should understand they are not above the law.”

            Tell that to the hag, you pathetic PoS.

          2. “It’s about the rule of law”

            Then your first stop should be those FISA warrants.

            Oh never mind it’s about delgitimizing Trump, Shreek, and you’re trash.

            1. Fuck off, Shitlord.

              1. Pithy. But hardly a counterargument.

          3. It’s about the rule of law and establishing the precedent that future immigrants should understand they are not above the law.

          4. So the rule of law allows you to indict for obstruction based upon a few tweets and lawful personal decisions? Remember Mueller also said today that his case was never hindered by the Trump administration. So you will indict for obstruction of Justice in an investigation of a crime that never happened and so called obstruction never hindered or made the prosecutor feel hindered?

            1. What kind of 1984 shit is that?

              1. It’s Screech, he’s a pedophile, not a normal person.

                1. Fuck off, First of the Shitheads…

                  1. Your quoting straw men of your own creation.

                    1. Isn’t that the game we play here?

                    2. No, some us actually debate the actual points.

                    3. Wrong. That’s what used to happen here. Now, it’s strictly a cesspool of stupidity. Exhibit A; see below.

                    4. Start another sock you pedophilic piece of subhuman trash. I hope the parents of the next kid you fuck beat you to death with your disembodied flaccid cock.

                    5. Wow, that’s a pretty strong accusation you’re leveling against Soldiermedic76, Little Sht…ahem… Horatio. He seems okay to me.

                  2. I’ve honestly never seen you argue a position, mcgoo.
                    I take that back – one time, you did. Once.
                    Usually, as in 99%, you just bitch at the anti-progressives

          5. Bah, it’s about revenge. “It wuz HER TURN!!!”

          6. It’s about the rule of law and establishing the precedent that future presidents should understand they are not above the law.

            If that were the case, then 44* and Big Mike would be in ADX Florence for life; and Hillary! would be in Federal Medical Center, Carswell for life.

      2. Want to see a civil war?

        Try that.

        Was Hillary indicted in spite of rather clear evidence of her crimes?

        No?

        Try indicting Trump.

        Blood will flow.

        1. BENGHAZI!! PIZZAGATE! ARGLE BARGLE! URANIUM ONE!!

          1. Oh hey look, the pedophile Shreek dropped his blown OG sock and just decided to shit everywhere.

            1. Goddamnit, I thought I was on Bratfart but its just Reason H&R. It is tough to tell the comment boards apart until I see your faggoty ass.

                1. Yet he likes banging little boys.

                  1. Quit agreeing with yourself, Shithead/Tulpa. You fucking schitzoid.

                    1. It’s satisfying to see you broken

                    2. That’s because you lead a meaningless life.

          2. Great points don’t look stupid because you type them in all caps. You do.

            1. I am quoting wingnut America (Fox News, redneck AM radio, etc)

              1. No, you are arguing in bad faith. I noticed you called me a liar below (bullshit is implying I lied). I provided the exact quote, can you now admit I didn’t lie and apologize?

              2. Those backward simpletons in flyover country probably don’t even whack off to kiddie porn like urban sophisticates!

        2. All-talk, vanquished right-wing malcontents are among my favorite faux libertarians. Mostly because I enjoy watching them spend their entire lives obsequiously complying with rules established by their betters.

          Carry on, clingers. And open wider. More progress on the way.

          1. RUN FORCED FELLATIO.exe

          2. Progress is the government proving people, or requiring defendants, to prove their innocence rather then the idea of innocent until proven guilty?

            1. Because that seems fairly regressive to me.

          3. “‘I enjoy watching them spend their entire lives obsequiously complying with rules established by their betters.”‘

            Would that include laws regarding the handling of classified information?

          4. Your impotent rage is awesome. I wish I could be there when the aneurysm strikes.

      3. “Trump can be indicted when he leaves office and I fully expect that to happen.”

        I consider it almost 100% certain that you will jack it to child lorn by the end of the day Kiddie Raper.

    2. The body for indicting a sitting president is the House. The process is called impeachment.

      Yup.

  3. “Innocent” and “exonerated” are two different things. A person is innocent until they have been found guilty, but that doesn’t mean they’ve been exonerated. Exoneration implies a positive finding of no guilt, not the mere absence of proven guilt.

    1. are they not the same in the eyes of the law though

      1. Sure, in the sense that neither is a finding if guilt. But when a person has been exonerated, it implies that investigators have affirmatively ruled out the possibility that he committed a crime.

        “Innocent until proven guilty” of course leaves open the possibility that a person who is currently considered innocent may still be found guilty in the future.

        1. I’ll give you one: Duke lacrosse.

          Name ANY OTHER case where a defendant was “exonerated”.

            1. I was thinking the same thing, but how many of those were exonerated by the prosecutor?

              1. Prosecutors do sometimes decide to drop charges against defendants in light of new evidence, that’s a form of exoneration.

                1. But not charging them at all is not?

                  Interesting.

                  1. exactly

            2. I would be willing to bet that in some of those, the prosecutor still thinks the wrongfully convicted person is guilty.

              1. It is possible some are, but there was either evidence withheld or other prosecutorial misconduct. But under our juris prudents, they were released because we espouse the idea that it is better to let a guilty man go then to jail an innocent man. Even if it doesn’t always happen this way.

        2. No it doesn’t, there is this thing called double jeopardy. If you are found innocent you can’t be charged again for the same crime (in theory, unfortunately the government has worked around this and the USSC doesn’t seem to want to slap it down)

    2. They are parsing words here. The pertinent question should be were any of Trump’s actions indictable on the evidence gathered (whatever is the best way to phrase that). I do not believe anyone has made a case for that, just that something might be taken as illegal, but we have no means to test that.

      1. Mueller is simply saying that Congress should decide whether or not to make that case, using the findings presented in his report. He’s not making a case himself in either direction.

        1. He is trying his best to, it seems. It is like he is wanting to have Congress do what he knows he can’t.

          1. It’s bullshit that he would even need to “try” at that. He laid out 10 different instances of possible obstruction in his report. If Congress finds any of them credible – and the McGhan stuff, at the very least, is extremely credible – they have a constitutional duty to begin impeachment hearings. Mueller did everything he needed to do, handed it to them on a silver platter, and they’re just too weak-willed to grow a pair and do their jobs.

            1. The McGhan thing is not credible since Trump instructed them to lie to the media, but admitted in written testimony to the investigators it was a lie. As for firing Comey, it is within Trump’s purview as President and Mueller admitted a conflict of interest.
              From TheHill.com:Mueller responded that they were “business associates” who came up together in the Department of Justice before acknowledging they were friends.
              Also, Mueller admitted when questioned by Collins that his investigation was never hindered. That testimony is fairly conclusively exculpatory.

              1. The Washington Post also ran a story that Mueller would routinely drop everything when Comey called, including leaving his wife and kids during dinner.

                1. If I was a defense attorney, given these circumstances, I would thank my lucky stars. The case makes itself.

              2. I did make one mistake. McGhan and Trump discussed firing Mueller, which Trump has the authority to under the law. Mueller states rumors were that Trump instructed McGhan to fire Mueller, McGhan refused. Trump dropped the subject. So a private conversation between the President and his chief counsel that didn’t result in any action being taken is credible evidence of obstruction?

            2. “”Mueller did everything he needed to do, handed it to them on a silver platter, and they’re just too weak-willed to grow a pair and do their jobs.”‘

              Weak or forward looking? Bill Clinton was impeached, he wasn’t removed from office, and the dems got their asses handed to them in the next election.

              Impeachment is a political process with political consequences.

              1. And in that circumstance, the president was actually guilty of a crime instead of a made-up charge of “attempted obstruction”.

          2. He’s just trying to deal with the fact that the evidence isn’t there, while still trying to ensure democrats employ him in the future since the republicans won’t.

    3. From Black’s Law Dictionary:
      InnocentFree from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incrim- inatory circumstances, or of defects or objections.

      ExonerateTo lift, remove the stain of being called out for blame, liability, or punishment. It is more that just freeing an accused person of the responsibility for a criminal or otherwise illegal or wrongful act. It is publicly stating that this accused should never have been accused in the first place. Refer to acquit and exculpate.

    4. Prosecutors dont exonerate anybody dipshit.

      1. But facts can. And the facts here do not. The only reason Trump was not indicted for telling his associates to lie to the investigators is because the President cannot be indicted while in office.

        1. Basically you only get “exonerated” when the charge is such that it can be proven impossible for you to be guilty. For instance, you’re claimed to have murdered somebody on July 9th, 2018, and you prove that you were aboard an international flight at the time of the murder.

          For allegations such as this, exoneration is technically impossible, since the President could always have secretly obstructed justice in a way that the legal system just overlooked.

          1. That’s not true you are also exonerated when a jury of your peers finds you not guilty. OJ Simpson was exonerated. By not prosecuting they are effectively saying they can’t prove guilty beyond reasonable doubt, which is exonerating in our legal system.

            1. We have the two separate terms probably because a term was needed for those conviction or indicted but the system made a mistake and that person is “factually innocent”.

              This is different than a jury finding a person Not Guilty or the Presumption of Innocence that everyone in the USA gets.

              Either way, Trump did nothing wrong where he can be indicted. That should be good enough. If the House wants to impeach him for political reasons, then we can discuss that but Trump is Presumed Innocent of any criminal conduct after 2.5 years of every Lefty trying to find some criminal conduct.

          2. If an allegation was soley founded on an unsubstantiated belief that there existed “secret” evidence of obstruction then I would say that there is no basis to believe the allegation was true.

            1. Look at you still desperately peddling this shit Screech. Stop posting kiddie porn.

            2. Screech, disprove that you’ve ever raped children or produced child porn. If you can’t, you’re guilty.

          3. What if the only way to be exonerated is to prove that at no point during the early to mid 1980’s were you in the vicinity of Montgomery County, Maryland?

        2. Speaking of lying…

        3. Trump was not indicted for telling his associates to lie to the investigators is because the President cannot be indicted while in office.

          Trump told them to lie to the media, not investigators, which is not a crime since there is no law that say you can’t lie to the media and the media has no legal authority.

          1. Trump instructed a public official to create a fraudulent record. The official record would have been relied upon by the people investigating Trump. Trump understood this and it was precisely why he wanted the official to lie. Trump wouldn’t have bothered to make the request if there was no purpose to it.

            1. Screech, you’re a pedophile who posted kiddie porn links. No one csre what your sockpuppet ass thinks.

              1. Wow.

                Easy enough to tell when you’ve been hammered with facts you can’t dispute.

                LOL.

                1. And those are facts you can’t dispute, Shreek is running the OG sock, and got banned for being a pedophile.

                  And you, some rando sock of his popped up to defend him lolololol

                2. Trump admitted that he lied to the media in written testimony. These are the facts.
                  Also:
                  Collins: At any time during your investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?

                  Mueller: No

                3. ‘Mueller, who was appearing in his first of two congressional hearings, said first that he and Comey were “business associates” and then – after being pressed by Gohmert – added that he and the former FBI director were “friends.’
                  So he contradicted himself during sworn testimony.

                  1. Mueller responded that they were “business associates” who came up together in the Department of Justice before acknowledging they were friends.
                    Mueller was also reported to do anything for Comey, including leaving his family during dinner, in a Washington Post story.

            2. The record to show he lied to the media which is legal to do and when if asked by investigators yes i lied to the media what of it.

          2. Politicians and their subordinates routinely lie to the media. This isn’t anything new or unusual.

            In other news, guys lie when they pick up girls at bars too.

            1. Shut up, you redneck faggot.

              1. Watch your mouth you subhuman pedophile piece of shit.

        4. Collins: At any time during your investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?

          Mueller: No

          Seems pretty exculpatory to me. If I was a defense attorney, I would jump for joy that the investigator said this in sworn testimony, in a public forum.

        5. “”because the President cannot be indicted while in office.”‘

          Funny how all of a sudden some people are accepting this as fact.

  4. DEAR GOD. They’ve got him now

    1. *chuckle*

  5. If you can’t say a crime was committed then there was no crime to comment on in the first place.
    I can’t say he jaywalked but he is on the other side of the street.

    1. I can’t say Mueller rapes kids — but I didn’t see any kids near him at the hearing…

      1. That sounds fishy.

  6. After repeating the question multiple times, Mueller failed to provide a clear answer.

    “Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person is not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked.

    Mueller replied that he could not identify another person who was ever held to the same standard as Trump, but added that “this is a unique situation.”

    1. Yes this is a witch hunt

      Those pesky rules don’t apply

      1. Even worse than a political witch hunt.

        This was a bloodless coupt attempt and Mueller was part of it. Mueller and every Lefty conspiring just could not find any actual “crimes” that the public would accept.

        1. Trump is his own worst enemy. Had he gone about his business and let the investigation proceed I would have no basis to believe Trump was guilty of obstruction. Instead for whatever reason Trump believed that this investigation would uncover information that would be the end of his presidency so with that belief in mind Truml set about to interfere in the fact finding process. Because Trump is a public official his interference in the investigation is essentially intolerable. Trump is using state power in a corrupt attempt to protect his associates from legitimate inquiries. You fundamentally misunderstand what a witch hunt is. Trump occupies the most powerful political office in the country. The office makes him temporarily immune from prosecution. Trump gets to appoint his own partisans to run the FBI. There is no one with a more commanding or insulated position than a sitting president. That his own political appointee felt the need to appoint the special counsel is incredible.

          1. Especially not essentially

            1. Fuck off Screech, you got banned for posting kiddie porn, get the hint.

          2. Was Mueller hindered or not, according to his own testimony today? Are you stating that we must comply with the government or go to jail?

          3. Ummmm, he did go abou his business and let the investigation proceed. Mueller even testified as much

          4. “I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning,” Mueller said. “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”
            Mueller’s recently released clarification on his earlier testimony.

          5. “Trump occupies the most powerful political office in the country. The office makes him temporarily immune from prosecution. Trump gets to appoint his own partisans to run the FBI. There is no one with a more commanding or insulated position than a sitting president.”

            And this explains why you are so gung-ho about limiting executive power, right?

        2. After that showing it’s pretty obvious that Mueller was part of it in name only as a respected carcass to prop up in front of the cameras while HIllary’s lawyers and allies got on with attempting to construct the hatchet job. Which they failed miserably at.

    1. Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra?

      1. Pelosi, tears upon her face. Nadler with eyes wide!

        1. While a good episode the premise was rather unbelievable.

          1. While a good episode the premise was rather unbelievable.

            You think so? Look into Jante Law.

            1. An entire language of allegories seems detrimental to the creation of an advanced society, and how would it evolve?

              1. Technical manuals alone would be a nightmare to read.

  7. “Mueller’s finding that Trump had not been found innocent of obstruction of justice was seized on by Republicans on the committee, who said this was a violation of the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty”

    And they are correct.

    1. “I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning,” Mueller said. “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”
      So Mueller is still trying to have it both ways.

      1. “”we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”””

        This totally pisses on the notion that he concluded there was but was prevented because he can’t indict a sitting president.

        1. Remember: Mueller has repeatedly said both 1) that it was not possible for him to conclude whether or not Trump committed a crime because of the OLC opinion and 2) that had he concluded Trump did not commit a crime he would have done so.

  8. It seems pretty obvious that the president made efforts to stop or stymie the inquiry into his collusion with Russia. It also seems obvious that there was no such collusion with Russia in the first place. Can one be guilty of obstructing an investigation – politically motivated to hinder the operations of an administration – into crimes one knows did not occur? No doubt the answer is yes. So goes the machinations of federal prosecutors.

    1. Yeah, I can’t say I blame Trump for possibly thinking that the investigation wasn’t being done in good faith. After all, the feds are never arbitrarily punitive right?

    2. Right. Because when the feds accuse you you better lay still and let them fuck you and say thank you at the end.

    3. Trump was 100% correct that the government was spying on his campaign.

      Of course, he assumed the Mueller “investigation” was just another Deep State attempt to coup him.

      1. I have a feeling that when Barr presents evidence of de coral wrongdoing relating to all this that the democrats will insist on a different standard.

        But then, the only standard a democrat has is a double standard.

    4. “It seems pretty obvious that the president made efforts to stop or stymie the inquiry into his collusion with Russia.”

      One small issue: Trump was well within his power to shut the investigation down completely. To not allow any aides to talk to him. He did none of that.

      1. Even the stuff you mentioned would NOT have been obstruction of justice.

        A President would have to admit that they are trying to end any attempt to investigate criminal acts that he/she did. Even then, I just don’t think “obstruction of justice” is the correct constitutional path to get rid of a President.

        Impeachment and elections are the only real path to get rid of Presidents. Even the 25th Amendment is really only for incapacitated Presidents.

        1. Incorrect.

          People do not have to verbally announce to anyone, or Alexa, or their dog, that they are deliberately trying to commit a criminal act.

          Spare the internet your stupidity, please.

          1. Why are you running a brand new sock to peddle your stupid nonsense Shreek?

            It’s obvious this is you. Just stop with this sock, and your OG sock, and take your medicine you sad fucking pedo.

            1. I have no idea who you are, aside from someone who needs to suck-start a .45.

              Kindly get to it.

          2. Yet, that is what kept Hillary from getting indicted.

          3. The freaking point here, is that as Presidents are ENTITLED to end investigations, the effort to do so, even if established, doesn’t get you to “criminal act”. You have to prove they had a corrupt motive for doing so, which is really tough if there are any plausible non-corrupt motives available.

      2. And Mueller also said denied that his investigation was ever hindered. So basically obstruction for a crime that never happened and the obstruction never hindered the investigation. But the media is playing this up like Trump is done.

        1. Attempting to obstruct is enough and generally is how these cases play out. Mueller’s report says Trump told Manafort to not cooperate and Manafort told others that he believed Trump had his back and would use the power of the presidency to reward Manafort so long as he did not cooperate. That’s corruption and obstruction. Trump told Mcgahn to construct a fraudulent record and though Mcgahn refused to participate in the fraud Trump was fully committed to the scheme. Trump fired the FBI Director under false pretenses and believed the firing would end the investigation into his associates and himself. If you or I tried told a witness to not cooperate with an investigation we would be charged. If we told a witness to lie to an investigator we would be charged. You have the right to not cooperate but you don’t have the right to induce others to not cooperate.

          1. False pretenses, the associate AG recommended his firing under the same circumstances. The assistant AG was an Obama holdover. And Mueller testified that Trump never hindered their investigation. As to your other charges, he discussed them and they never happened. Spitballing ideas is not a crime.

          2. And you are okay with a prosecutor investigating the justifiability of the firing of his admitted close personal friend?

            1. Mueller responded that they were “business associates” who came up together in the Department of Justice before acknowledging they were friends.

              1. From TheHill.com

  9. >>>Mueller implicitly contradicted

    edge of my motherfucking seat.

  10. “Indeed, Mueller’s report found a number of acts on Trump’s part that were “capable of exerting undue influence” over the investigation”

    Which, legally, meets neither the definition of obstruction nor collusion.

    Jesus Fucking Christ what is the point of this steaming pile of hit piece?

    THAT is the best you have?

    1. Mueller flat out responded no when asked if his investigation was hindered. How does reason come up with this article?!?

        1. Isn’t it a little early in the day for you two to start sucking each other’s dick?

          1. No, but it is too early for you to be posting kiddie porn links and sockpuppeting to avoid the consequences of your pedo behavior.

          2. Kiddie Raper! Kill yourself.

          3. Jeff let you out to breath?

  11. anyone who thinks giving government or the federal agencies more power should be forced to watch this madness. these are the folks who some people want to put in charge of our healthcare, higher education, etc.

    Sheer lunacy

    1. Exactly! Well stated.

  12. Innocent until proven guilty. They didn’t prove it. He is innocent. On to the election .

    1. Orange man bad
      Nothing else matters

      1. Never cared for what they do
        Never cared for what they know

    2. The 2020 election is the problem.

      Lefties know that Trump will be re-elected.

      The coup failed, so there is great pressure on the Democrat House to impeach Trump in the hopes it hurts his re-election chances.

      What these dum-dum Lefties refuse to admit is that quite a few Americans still believe in the notion of presumption of innocence and might vote for Trump because they thought the impeachment was bogus. Add in Trump voters from 2016 and you have an even bigger re-election victory for Trump.

      With only Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton impeached in the House and acquitted in the Senate, neither ever survived politically from the process.

      Trump would be the first President to do so. This is one of the reasons Pelosi is unwilling to impeach Trump. It would backfire.

      1. Lefties know that Trump will be re-elected.

        He might be but your dumb fucking ass guaranteed a GOP House win in 2018. You don’t have any cred left.

        Like when John guaranteed a Romney win in 2012 you just suck GOP cock.

        1. At least you dumped your blown sock OG. Now stop posting kiddie porn links you sick pedo.

        2. Kiddie Raper, you suck the dicks of small boys. Can’t wait for you to go to prison for it. They take real good care of your kind there.

          1. It’s ‘rapist’ you fucking imbecile. Tulpa, straighten your sock out, ffs.

              1. Nice sock Shithead. You’re fooling exactly nobody.

        3. You predicted a Hillary Clinton landslide, so maybe you should slink away in shame and go whack off to kiddie porn before the FBI party van shows up.

          1. But did he cry when she lost?

  13. “You wrote 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged,” said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R–Texas) to Mueller. “Donald Trump is not above the law. He’s not. But he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law.”

    I guess Reason is pro witch hunt?
    WTF

    1. Democrats are freaking out on twitter. It is pretty funny. This did not go well for them.

      1. And Mueller looked like a bumbling fool unable to answer a direct question. The Republicans made him look like the deep state tool he is. And the most damning part, Mueller admitted Comey was a close, personal friend while he, Mueller, was investigating the obstruction charges and that Mueller was never hindered in his investigation.

    2. Why do you say Reason is pro witch hunt? Reason didn’t say any of this. It’s a quote from a Congressman.

      1. Because the quote captures the spirit of it. Christian is writing a story with the false premise that Mueller should have exonerated Trump, since he didn’t, Christian is presenting it like this is some smoking gun, despite this never being the standard. Prosecutors don’t investigate to exonerated but rather to determine if there is evidence of guilt. Mueller didn’t contradict Trump so much as try to parse his words so that he didn’t have to admit he didn’t have enough evidence to suggest charges.

      2. Collins: At any time during your investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?

        Mueller: No
        Why did Christian leave this quote out?

      3. Also, Mueller’s recently released clarification on his testimony:
        “I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning,” Mueller said. “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

  14. If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards however, we are unable to reach that judgment.

    In other words, they found no evidence Trump committed obstruction. They just didn’t find evidence he didn’t. How exactly would one find evidence that someone “didn’t commit obstruction”? You couldn’t. It is proving a negative. No matter what evidence you find or don’t find, there is always a possibility that you missed something. That there is evidence out there that shows obstruction.

    CHRISTIAN BRITSCHGI either has some kind of a learning disability that prevents him from understanding how logic and facts work or he is a lying piece of shit hack or both. This is fucking pathetic. Reason has apparently decided that its readers are as stupid as its staff appears to be. Sorry, but they are mistaken in that assessment.

    1. Judging by the content of your post, I would agree that at least some of the Reason audience are idiots.

      You’ll find an example of one in the mirror.

      1. Jesus Christ Shreek, you’re not even trying to hide that this is your sockpuppet. You’re flustered you sad fucking pedo.

      2. Go fuck yourself Shreek

    2. I think he’s just reporting on what Mueller said and wrote. Don’t shoot the messenger. Unless you’re saying you want Reason to tell you what to think.

      1. I don’t think so. He is endorsing Mueller’z view. Mueller didn’t say otherwise. The author is concluding he did because Trump cannot prove his innocence

      2. He left out the fact that Collins directly asked Mueller if his investigation was ever hindered and Mueller admitted it wasn’t. Leaving out this quote is fairly damning, isn’t it?

      3. In the very first part of the article Britschgi says that Trump has claimed that Mueller found no evidence of collusion, but that Mueller “thinks otherwise.” That statement from Britischgi means that Mueller found evidence of guilt. Britscghi then immediately goes on to say that the proof of “thinks otherwise” is that Mueller stated that there was no evidence of exoneration, which is clearly not the same thing. So Britscghi is clearly an idiot when it comes to logic. And you’re not so bright that you can’t see the incongruity in Britscghi’s thinking.

        1. Also “I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning,” Mueller said. “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

  15. I listened to quite a bit of the testimony this morning while driving, and I just had to feel bad for Mueller. Consistently pulled in opposite directions and constantly refusing to go beyond what’s stated in the report. What a mess.

    1. That’s your takeaway?

      1. It’s not much, I know.
        As much as partisans try to paint Mueller as a hero or a villain, He’s really just seems to be walking a tightrope. The republicans want him to say that Trump is not guilty. He did his best not to imply that.
        The Democrats wanted him to say Trump obstructed Justice or completed some impeachable offense. He avoided even the implication, when some questions were leading him in that direction. I’m not really sure why he took the angle he did, but he’s basically living in a no man’s land where no one’s happy with him.

        I do think some fair points were made about his neglect of the origins of the investigation, and that he really should have reached the conclusion that Trump was not guilty because of the presumption of innocence. If there’s any direction to err, it should be on that side, IMO.

  16. I mean the midget nut case Nadler is kinda funny

    Is this whole thing satire?

    1. Nadler assured us there was going to be a major bombshell. It didn’t happen.

  17. The only way to watch the Meuller testimony is to play this song along with it. Much, much better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OysEzsruFK4

    1. Fuck off SQRLSY/Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf

      1. Fuck off Shithead/lc/typing testicle.

        1. McJizz. I don’t use sock puppets. If you think I’m those other guys then you clearly have no ability to analyze writing styles. I am obviously not them. We just agree on most things. Just like you tend to agree with communist traitors on a host of subjects.

          1. We just agree on most things.

            All you Nazi types shit out of the same asshole.

            1. Nazi? Really? Asking for the presumption of innocent until proven guilty makes a person a Nazi? Hmmm, yes Hitler and Goering were so known for presumption of innocence of those they persecuted.

              1. Who gives a fuck about the circus? We’re playing the ‘who’s the sock’ and ‘kiddie raper’ game. It’s way much more fun….especially if you’ve taken a marijuana or two….like that guy on Tulpa’s favorite show, the ‘Big Bang THeory’. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha

                1. Considering the dishonesty of Sarah Palin’s Buttplug and his long history of personal attacks and the stupidity of his remark, he deserves the derision in my post. Especially after he accused me of lying down page and hasn’t apologized when I provided the exact quote.

                  1. Do you think I care? Not everything is about you.

                    1. You should kill yourself.

                    2. Okay. You show me how first, Shithead.

          2. So if your not a Tulpa sock, then you just follow him around for fun? Your like the asshole at the fight that waits until someone is down and then gives him a kick for fun. Pussy.

            1. The cuck squad seems very angry after the clown show this morning.

              1. Cuck squad. Good one. You’re the president of the Tawd Squad. So there.

                1. Delicious. Magnifique.

  18. “Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee this morning contradicted the president’s oft-made claims that the special counsel’s report cleared him of any wrongdoing.”

    Were charges brought?

    No?

    Then under OUR LEGAL SYSTEM, Trump was utterly exonerated.

    Jesus, Reason has gone down the shitter hard.

    1. Beyond that, what evidence is there that Trump is guilty of anything? None. But since Trump can’t prove a negative, he is guilty.

      Pathetic.

      1. Up there with ENB criticizing Trump for suing NY over their law about his tax records because he “has something to hide”. Fucking hell, THIS is libertarianism? I’m glad the movement is an impotent joke.

        1. Yeah, why can’t libertarians all join the GOP like you have?

          1. Shut up you weirdo. You were banned for posting instructions on how to access child porn on the dark web. No one cares what you think about anything. Go away.

          2. Why can’t you stop running shitty socks OG? Oh wait you’re a pedophile who has to hide your actual identity.

            1. That Justin Amash sucks! He is a commie!

              You Trump-tards are all just GOP hacks.

              1. And you’re a loser and a pedophile who think we can’t see his many sockpuppets.

                You got banned. Take the hint.

              2. Kiddie Raper, Trump is going to get re elected, and Barr will put your cheese pizza loving oaks in prison.

            2. Reason did post an article the other day giving tacit approval for pedophilia.
              https://reason.com/2019/07/22/be-who-you-are-love-who-you-want/

              1. Reason has been pro-pedo for a very long time, actually.

          3. Yes, libertarians deciding that bills of attainder are good and prosecutors abusing authority and then deciding that “innocent until proven guilty” is not quite good enough makes them a really, really good alternative.

            Vote Libertarian: Well, we still like weed and illegals.

      2. The author’s point stands. Mueller basically told Congress: “Trump committed obstruction (by the legal BS definition), but the DOJ wouldn’t have charged him for it, so I tossed the ball to you idiots. Now leave me alone.”

        This is what Mueller just told congress. Mueller disagreed with Trump on whether there was obstruction. Reason is just reporting here.

        1. Mueller also said Trump never hindered the investigation. And he didn’t say what you stated he stated their wasn’t enough evidence to exonorate not that a crime did or did not occur.

          1. Further, one of the alleged obstruction dealt with the firing of Comey, which Mueller admitted under sworn testimony is a close personal friend. This shows a conflict of interest and prosecutorial misconduct. Mueller cannot demonstrate impartiality when investigating the firing of, as he described him, a close personal friend. Mueller should have recused him, and his surbordinates from any investigation dealing with Coney’s firing as he had a demonstrated and admitted conflict of interest.

            1. He was also unaware of the conflicts of interest within his own staff. Weissman is going to be a nice tar baby for him.

        2. It wasn’t by the legal definition, it was by the novel definition Wasserman came up with. Hes kind of known for broad legal theories that lose 0-9 in the supreme court.

  19. “At any time during the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?” – Doug Collins.

    “No” -Mueller.

    Full stop, end of story.

    1. This. But I notice the media, even FNC, are soft peddling this line.

  20. The hearing(? interview? chat? spectacle?) absolutely convinced me that Mueller’s Investigation was woefully lacking. It seems exceedingly negligent that an investigation into foreign collusion and meddling in the 2016 election doesn’t even mention FusionGPS, let alone a more direct investigation or recommendation of charges to be brought against them.

    1. Doubly so given that the only foreigners clearly being paid to swing the election worked for Fusion GPS.

  21. Once you put all the grandstanding aside it’s clear that what happened was all just a bunch of grandstanding.

    Mueller was tasked with investigating Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election. The media, the Democrats, and (to a lesser extent) Mueller turned it into an investigation of whether Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 election. Most everybody knew no such thing happened. Trump certainly knew no such thing happened. Trump, knowing he didn’t conspire, threw a hissy-fit and threw down some light obstructions to Mueller’s attempts to gain information. Mueller ultimately got enough information to conclude that Trump never conspired with the Russians (as everyone had known all along.). Mueller also concluded that the DOJ would never go after Trump on obstruction charges, so he tossed the ball to Congress and set them up to pursue impeachment if they wanted to go for it. Now here we are with another election coming and everyone trying to decide whether it is important to punish someone for not cooperating with an investigation into a crime everyone knows never happened.

    1. I forgot to mention that Mueller did find out some Russians were trying to influence the election, but they had nothing to do with Trump. Mueller also managed to catch some Trump allies in lies as they tried to hide unrelated activities that were either illegal or, at least, unseemly.

      Really, in the end, everyone looks like an ass and most of the country just wants all this to go away so we can get back to yelling at each other over important things like tariffs and immigrants and whether everything in the world should be “free”.

    2. And Mueller admitted his investigation was never hindered. That seems fairly exculpatory to me. No underlying crime and no hindering. Please go forward with impeachment. This would be a bigger shit show then the perjury charges, which actually were documented, against Clinton.

      1. That’s the thing about obstruction. It’s designed to catch people even if their attempts to obstruct have no effect on the investigation. It’s designed to punish people for trying to protect themselves, their privacy or their associates. But it’s still a law, and one that gets used all the time on people with less power than the President.

        Impeachment would be a wonderful distraction. Almost as much fun as watching the Democrats ponder how they lost to Trump… again.

        1. And let’s not mention Mueller’s conflict of interest, investigating the firing of someone he admits is a close, personal friend. How that is not prosecutorial misconduct is beyond me.

        2. That’s the thing about obstruction. It’s designed to catch people even if their attempts to obstruct have no effect on the investigation. It’s designed to punish people for trying to protect themselves, their privacy or their associates.

          No. It’s not.

          It’s designed to catch people who are intimidating witnesses, who are suborning perjury, who are destroying evidence.

          There is REAL obstruction–and then there is this foul witch hunt that calls something ‘obstruction’ in the hopes of unseating Trump.

          1. “There is REAL obstruction–and then there is this foul witch hunt that calls something ‘obstruction’ in the hopes of unseating Trump.”

            And when the hag *still* isn’t POTUS, the Ds will continue to whine.

      2. And Mueller admitted his investigation was never hindered.

        Bullshit. The Dotard tried to get his personal attorney to fire Mueller to stop the investigation.

        You must listen to Far Rush (King of the Rednecks) for your news.

        1. “Bullshit. The Dotard tried to get his personal attorney to fire Mueller to stop the investigation.”
          Fail.
          Learn to read, not listen to the idiotic voices in your head:
          “And Mueller admitted his investigation was never hindered.”

          1. I hope the father of one of his victims catches him in the act and shoots Kiddie Raper in the balls.

        2. Collins: At any time during your investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?

          Mueller: No

          So how did I lie dipshit?

          1. From the transcript of today’s hearing BTW.

  22. Like the man said: “He didn’t steal any cattle, but he’s sure guilty of trying to avoid being hung.”

  23. I hope we get a “what should have happened at the Mueller testimony” video….make it happen Reason!

  24. After watching that trainwreck, this is your hot take?

    Holy crap!

    How long before the hearing did you write your conclusion? That was an unmitigated disaster. For Mueller. For the Democrats. For the Republicans. For American politics in general. It was like a room full of immoral and dishonest morons trying to prove that green is wet. It was embarrassing to watch.

    1. “That was an unmitigated disaster. For Mueller. For the Democrats. For the Republicans. For American politics in general.”

      This guy gets it.

      Tuned in for 5 minutes of it before I got bored of the same crap. We are about to have another election in a year and a half, nothing came from this farce, let it die.

      Watching the impotent congressmen on each side throw partisan crap at each other, talking past each other the whole time, seems to be a perfect representation of a standard day on this comment board though, so maybe they represent the public slobs better than we think.

      1. Amd Nadler chowing down on a five gallon tub of cookie dough in the background……….

      2. Have the wingnuts started calling all their opponents “child rapers” yet?

        Until then it is like a giant circle jerk.

        1. Can you make an actual point or just as hominem attacks?

          1. Oh that’s funny. Every redneck on this board calls others “child rapists” instead of making a point.

            1. Fuck off and die where you won’t stink up the place.

            2. Every redneck? Really?

            3. We only call you and your sockpuppets child rapers, because it’s a reasonable inference to make when somebody posts child porn.

  25. Hilarious how the nutcase party keeps trying to steer this to another one of their CTs – the “Steele Dossier”.

    1. Please, turd, fuck off and die someplace where we can’t smell you.

      1. SETH RICH! JADE HELM! BLOOP! DERP! TRUMP! BENGHAZZIIII!!!!

        1. Please, turd, fuck off and die someplace where we can’t smell you.

        2. YOU’RE ALL DELUSION CONSPIRACY THEORISTS! TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT AND PUTIN STOLE THE ELECTION! OH GOD! OH LAWD!! HILLARY IN A SCHOOL GIRL UNIFORM!!! I’M GONNA CUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

    2. That’s a really good point.

      Mueller was given the commission to investigate “Russian interference” in the election. And the major foundation for this investigation was the Steele Dossier.

      But the conclusion from investigating the dossier of negative information about one of the candidates in that election which came from Russian intelligence sources prepared by a former British intelligence agent was….. we need to investigate the guy being smeared by Russian agents?

      And then the other smoking gun was….. a meeting with a “Russian agent”… an attorney from Russia who worked for the same company that prepared the Dossier…. Hmm…

      So the conclusion was “we need to investigate the people who didn’t decide to work with the Russian dirt-peddlers”, not “we need to investigate the people who bit on the Russian disinformation campaign and spent millions of dollars obtaining and attempting to disseminate the Russian disinformation”.

      That’s… remarkable.

      And yet, somehow, Mueller and his team have managed to avoid remarking on this.

      1. Mueller testified today that he has no familiarity with the Steele dossier despite it composing the entirety of the “evidence” in his investigation.

    3. Would you prefer Mueller not explaining why he didn’t charge Mifsud with lying to the FBI — as he did, repeatedly?

      He was the only the alleged start of the entire BS process. Why did Mueller not indict HIM for lying to FBI agents?

  26. And your article directly contradicts the contradiction in Mueller’s actual report where he stated that collusion and conspiracy are synonymous. He’s trying to have his cake and eat it too. He knows that everyone asking him about collusion is really asking about conspiracy, which he investigated and effectively exonerated Trump on. What he won’t do is answer the dogwhistle meaning of collusion, which is wise because it’s an ever changing definition meant to suit political purposes. Some people think he’s trying to help Democrats, but he’s really just trying to protect his own ass.

  27. In other words, his testimony merely restated what was in his report.

    1. Right. But the Con Man is not in the hearing to lie about it.

      He was never exonerated.

      1. “Right. But the Con Man is not in the hearing to lie about it.”

        Translation from turd-speak: ‘Nowhere in the entire report was Trump found innocent!’
        Please, turd, fuck off and die someplace where we can’t smell you.

      2. Hey Weigel. Have you lost any weight yet, or are you still a pathetic, morbidly obese, Ron Jeremy – lookin’ loser?

      3. Is it the investigators job to look for evidence of innocence or look for evidence of guilt? Because, no evidence of innocence doesn’t seem to mesh with US juris prudents.

      4. “”He was never exonerated.””

        Impeach him and the Senate will.

  28. The only thing being accomplished here is the regurgitation of the same old talking points the Democrats have been harping on to no effect. Why do they believe that saying them all again is make any difference? Do they really think that *this time* the American people will rise up and demand that the “Orange Hitler” be jailed?

  29. How about instead of he-said/she-said, we just look at the damned report?!?!?

  30. I wonder what the Reason’s writers’ position would be if instead of a unlikable politician, it was some random person. Like a black kid doesn’t fully cooperate with the police trying to gather evidence on a bogus drug charge.

    1. It would depend a lot on which random person it was. Reason is fully bought in on the SJW persecution olympics. A saintly negro or messican? OUTRAGE. A shitlord whiteboi who likes pussy? Let him eat federal lead and bill his family for the bullet.

  31. Additionally, Mueller just issued a clarification, that he did not mean to imply, when asked by Rep. Lieu, that the only reason he didn’t indict was because the law forbidden him to indict a sitting President.
    “I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning,” Mueller said. “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who said and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime.”

  32. At this time, it’s looking like today was at best a draw for the Dems; possibly, even a loss. By declining to read parts of his report into the record, Mueller also (purposely or not) denied the Dems the video excerpts that they no doubt intended to use in their campaign ads. Finally, the whole thing has chased the “Squad” story out of the spotlight, although given Trump’s demonstrtaed political savvy, don’t be surprised if he gets that back into the spotlight again shortly.

  33. “Trump Says Mueller Report Found No Evidence of Obstruction of Justice. Robert Mueller Tells Congress Otherwise.”

    I call bullshit.
    I’ve been watching Mueller, and he comes across as senile as my 95 year old grandfather.
    Too much stuttering and too much “memory loss.”

  34. Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee this morning contradicted the president’s oft-made claims that the special counsel’s report cleared him of any wrongdoing.

    He was cleared because there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt. Does “innocent until proven guilty” mean anything to you?

    1. That is not what happened. That is a lie.

      Why do you people believe in so many lies?

      They found plenty of evidence of guilt for obstruction, but the guidelines, which exist uniquely for a president, say you can’t indict the president but you can gather evidence for future prosecution. That’s what they did, and any other human being would be in prison based on the evidence gathered.

      1. But that doesn’t prevent Mueller from forming an opinion that trump is guilty (See Ken Starr). The DOJ said Mueller could make a determination, but Mueller did not.

        Mueller said they didn’t get to the process of making a judgment of culpability. This is exact what the dems were expecting from day one. So it was a failure for the dems.

        Forget the lessons learned from the Clinton impeachment and go for it. It’s the quickest way to get the Rs the majority in both houses of Congress.

  35. What sixth grader wrote this hit piece. Incredible. Reason becomes more irrelevant by the day.

  36. If the prosecutor declines to use “evidence” against the defendant because he felt it wasn’t enough to convict or wasn’t proof enough to send a man to prison, can it still be considered as evidence? That’s what the headline of the article seems to suggest.

    In other words, if a prosecutor decides against filing criminal charges on a man accused of selling drugs due to lack of solid evidence, he can still blab about how “I still think he’s guilty because look at how he hung around with all these shifty individuals and dark corners”.

    Mueller said his investigation was never impeded. So…. what are we still talking about? A white house aide can’t actually fire anyone, Trump likely told some guy to make a recommendation to the DOJ and asked him not to tell the media that the order came from him. That didn’t involve any coercion and everyone already knew Trump wanted Mueller dismissed.

    We know that “No indictment due to DOJ recommendation” is bunk, right? Mueller himself clarified it BEFORE this hearing.

  37. Look, we all know what happened: Trump got angry at the witch hunt that he was subjected to and he tried to use executive powers to stop it.

    Is that “obstruction of justice”? Perhaps it is under the police-state definitions in use by the FBI these days, perhaps it is not. But the question is irrelevant. Morally, it shouldn’t be obstruction of justice. And legally, the president can’t be charged.

    So, the only question is whether Congress has any intention of going through with impeachment, and the answer is “no”. This whole thing is a charade, and Reason is right in the middle of it playing along, when Reason isn’t advocating stealing from American tax payers to subsidize all of South America and arguing against freedom of association.

  38. Thanks admin for giving such valuable information through your article . Your article is much more similar to https://www.solutions.bocsci.com/api-synthesis.htm word unscramble tool because it also provides a lot of knowledge of vocabulary new words with its meanings.

Please to post comments