Was Mueller investigation stopped because of funding

1. 61

   dianetrotterposted 5 years ago

   I have heard that Barr told Mueller that unless he could indict the president, he cannot use funds to investigate.  That would be a reason for the abrupt closing of the investigation.  Can any president stop any investigation against himself if he believe the investigation is fake?  Is it true you can't indict a sitting president.  Why investigate Nixone, Clinton, Reagan or Bush? 
   
   I think I'm missing something.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Abrupt closing?  2 years of "investigating" and the end was "abrupt"? 
      
      What you "heard" sounds like just another lament from liberals that they didn't get what they wanted, the president in jail, and making excuses to try and show he should be there even if they can't find wrongdoing.  They'll make it up if necessary.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I suppose we are going to have to redefine abrupt, to suit the left.

         replyreport
      2. 61

         dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         In February I heard it would go through summer.

         replyreport
      3. 91

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Really, the poor little thing, a whole two year investigation that ends abruptly. The Republicans and first Robert Fiske and then Kenneth Starr kept the Whitewater investigation going for double that length of time. People did go to prison, including Susan McDougal who was courageous enough to not be coerced by "barbaric means" into testifying to a grand jury. Now Barr refuses to testify before Congress and Republican hearts bleed.
         
         "July 30, 1997. Susan McDougal, being detained for contempt of court, is moved into a federal detention facility after seven months in two Los Angeles jails, much of which she spent locked in a windowless cell 23 hours a day. The move comes a week after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit alleging that McDougal was being held, at Starr's request, in "barbaric" conditions in an attempt to coerce her to testify."
         
         Starr just wouldn't leave this poor woman alone. I don't believe that Susan knew enough to give information Starr was trying to obtain. She wasn't the brightest bulb in the lamp.
         
         "April 23, 1998. Susan McDougal, finally serving her two-year fraud sentence after completing her 18-month contempt of court sentence, refuses yet again to testify before Starr's Little Rock grand jury."
         
         Susan was indicted a third time, but I don't remember what became of that.
         
         Starr  said his office drafted an impeachment referral stemming from Whitewater in 1997, but decided not to send it because the evidence was insufficient. Anyway, since the Starr couldn't find evidence of wrongdoings on the Clintons, Bill was impeached over lying to congress over a little bj in his office.
         
         And Ole Grab 'em by the p***y Trump has been so mistreated. Poor baby.
         
         Remember 1994-1998 before you whine about long investigations.

         replyreport
         1. 91

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I didn't whine - you did.  That it ended abruptly.
            
            Which I don't understand - do you think it should have wound down slowly, firing agent after agent (maybe one per month) until Mueller was the only one left working?
            
            Not understanding, I think, just what you mean by "abrupt".

            replyreport
            1. 61

               dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               What I can't understand is the logic of investigating HRC in this.  Hopefully, when Mueller testifies, people can ask about what HRC did.

               replyreport
               1. 91

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  She committed a crime, but was never charged.  Her party, under her guidance, had far more contact with Russia than Trump ever did, and actually purchased Russian produced material about her opponent.
                  
                  And you don't understand why it should be investigated?  C'mon, Dianne!

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     What is the charge?  Not speaking as a defender but fascinated how right and left seem to not agree on anything.

                     replyreport
                     1. 91

                        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        "What is the charge?"
                        
                        "She committed a crime, but was never charged"

                        replyreport
                  2. 0

                     promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Really? Are you a lawyer or prosecutor that makes you qualified for such claims? What is your proof of a crime?

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        That's what is so perplexing..  He is 100% sure HRC committed a crime after she tested 11 hours.  Trump refuses to testify and he is 100% innocent?

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Exactly right, Diane. Double standards as usual.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              dianetrotterposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Former federal prosecutors: If Trump wasn't president, he would be guilty of obstruction
                              
                              https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 120139001/
                              
                              I guess it's fake news from all of the media covering it..

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 Right. It's fake news if mainstream media reports it.

                                 replyreport
               2. 91

                  MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Comey, not Mueller, is the one they need to ask over that.

                  replyreport
            2. 91

               MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I'm not the one who originally used the word "abrupt." I just repeated it. Diane used it and then you did. And I wasn't "whining," I was stating facts. But Trump supporters always resort to name calling when they can't stand the facts.

               replyreport