Nolte's take... pretty damn funny.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/25/nolte-robert-mueller-isnt-senile-he-was-a-dirty-cop-forced-to-take-the-witness-stand/

Robert Mueller Isn’t Senile; He Was a Dirty Cop Forced to Take the Witness Stand

They told us Robert Mueller was Captain America: Crusader for Truth, and instead we got George Costanza and all the inept deception, sweaty stalling, and blundering dishonesty that comes with him.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s bumbling, stumbling, grumbling, tumbling, crumbling testimony Wednesday before the U.S House of Representatives was not only karma on steroids, it once again proved just how  brilliant the American Constitution is.

You see, the sublime spectacle of watching Robert Mueller’s reputation go up in flames, flames ignited by his own corrupt report and fueled by three years of the establishment media’s hoax machinery, would not have been possible without the Separation of Powers, without the ability of one branch of government to hold the other in check,

Did you see what happened yesterday… Captain America is a partisan monster, a Resistance Vengeance Machine whose precious purview included nothing that matters — Christopher Steele: Not in my purview, bro. The FISA warrants to spy on a sitting president: Not on my purview, bro. Russia’s role in the Steele Dossier: You are totally harshing my purview, bro. Hillary Clinton and the DNC’s role in the Steele dossier: Why are you all up in my purview, bro?  The Obama administration’s unprecedented unmasking of Trump officials: Purview, bro. The FBI spying on a presidential campaign: Watch me purview, bro. James Comey’s leaks: I hardly know the man. Fusion GPS: What is this Fusion GPS you speak of?

Oh, but what is in Walter Mitty’s purview?

Paul Manafort’s taxes.

[Etc.]

A senator did bring that up to Mueller.  In all his years of investigating, he has never mentioned exoneration in any of his reports. So why now?  Another senator brought a few thick books with him about the judicial system, law, and constitution and no where does it say a special consul has the power to exonerate anyone.

HPD's job isn't to prove innocents or guilt.  It's to gather evidence.  And in some cases, they even detain you while they collect said evidence.  Regarding your example, would HPD ever make a statement  that the X is innocent or exonerated?  Or will HPD just say "there's no evidence that supports X stole the car".

The problem with the investigation is it started off wrong.  Seems their starting point was Trump is certainly guilty and we have to find the evidence.  Instead of investigating Russian collusion with Trump as a possible suspect and working up the case to find out the truth.

They had a hard time finding evidence of Trump's guilt and when they couldn't find it, they kept digging for it and it's why the case took so long. At some point they must've realized that they weren't going to find anything but didn't want to be wrong, felt the pressure, and needed to justify all the time and money spent on the case so they kept digging hoping for a miracle.

Notice that in my comment I said a police investigation could find you innocent, I didn't mention a jury.

Yes it is not of the same legal status as a juries decision but it is possible the an investigation could be said to prove someone innocent under certain situations.

Normally I would agree about Mueller's statements but this isn't just anyone, this is the president who sits beyond the reach of the federal justice system. It is a unique situation with a unique dynamic. To say its not fair because Trump was never charged is misleading because Mueller didn't have the ability to charge Trump. He was between a rock and a hard place and I think he did the best thing he could. Present the findings and let congress do their thing and voters do their thing.

Any prosecutors on 2A?

Mueller had the ability to state whether the President committed a crime.  Mueller never said that.  He signed a report his staff wrote that smeared Trump by listing things he did that they decided isn't criminal.

Mueller was a figurehead.  His anti-Trump/Pro-Hillary staff of 14 Democrat lawyers did all the work and drafted the report.  Vol 2 was their consolation prize to the Dems in Congress, so they have something to continue the witch hunt.  Vol 2 never should have existed.  They focused 100% on the Trump team investigating tax returns and taxi medallions, but not one word of their investigation into the actions that the FBI counter-intelligence investigation was predicated on.

Mueller was tasked to perform a counter-intelligence investigation into Russian election interference and possible US citizen involvement.

Mueller turned it into a criminal investigation.  The things they chose to not investigate would have been the first things an intelligence officer would have looked into, such as who first reported the collusion? Why was the Steele Dossier used to secure the FISA warrants if they were unverified? Why was Mueller not worried about bias in the Special Counsel's office even after the FBI started firing one Trump-hater after another?  Surely he should have worried that any accusations of bias would bring into question any negative findings.

Mueller should have never been appointed Special Counsel. He obviously has outlived his ability to actually run a competent investigation.

Mueller could have come out and said Trump committed a crime but as others have pointed out it wouldn't be fair to say he committed a crime when he doesn't have the ability to charge him with a crime. He presented the findings and left it up for congress to decide what to do with it. That is the best way to keep his hands clean.

What evidence is there that Mueller's whole team was anti-Trump/pro-Hillary? Yeah you had three people who were found making comments which rightly got them removed from their position but that doesn't mean his whole team was biased.

The FISA warrants were issued before Mueller was appointed to investigate. I don't know why Mueller didn't go back and investigate the Steel dossier more. That is a fair criticism in my opinion and maybe there is even a good answer to it, but I don't know. Mueller was tasked with investigating Russian involvement with anyone in the Trump campaign and was authorized to prosecute any criminal violations arising out of the investigation.

The complaints about Mueller just don't make sense. He is somehow a Trump hater who was only investigating crimes by Trump and his buddies yet in the end he didn't say Trump committed a crime. He didn't even give the democrats a bone when he could have said all manner of things to try and hurt Trump.

Your argument is inconsistent.  Why even have a Special Counsel investigation if the inability to charge Trump with any crime also made it "unfair" to state whether or not Trump committed acts that satisfied the elements of a crime?

Mueller stated there was no evidence to support the accusation that Trump nor anyone related to his family or campaign, committed collusion or conspiracy with anyone from Russia with efforts to interfere in the 2016 election , BUT, when it came to obstruction, the rules were different?  If Mueller can't charge Trump with a crime, he could have very easily charged ANYONE ELSE who helped Trump obstruct the investigation.

Mueller stated point-blank that his investigation was NOT OBSTRUCTED.  But, that somehow doesn't mean Trump didn't commit the crime of obstruction?  Are you serious?

The entire investigation was predicated on a HOAX, yet Mueller purportedly didn't investigate the underlying facts that started the alleged crimes?

The way I see it Mueller was screwed no matter what he did. If he said Trump should be charged with a crime he would get criticized by one side. If he said Trump should not be charged with a crime he would get criticized by the other side. I think the smartest thing he could do is just investigate and present the findings to congress and let them decide what to do with the findings.

** Wrong.  The Special Counsel's duty was to the Attorney General, not Congress.  He was mandated to submit a CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO THE USAG.  Period.  He did that, and Barr made the decision to make it public.  Congress is not part of the executive branch.  If they wanted to run things, they could have (and should have) formed a bi-partisan committee to do it, instead of letting the FBI investigate their own hoax.

As for the obstruction you are right, Mueller could have charged anyone else however there wasn't really evidence that anyone else did anything. The whole argument for an obstruction charge is based entirely on Trump's comments and actions so I don't think there was anyone else to look at there. The fact that Mueller's investigation was never obstructed does not mean that no one attempted to obstruct. One does not have to be successful in obstructing an investigation to have violated the law. Thats why people can be charged with attempted crimes like attempted murder, attempted theft, attempted obstruction, etc.

Now correct me if I am wrong but Mueller never said there was no evidence, he just said there was not sufficient evidence to charge anyone with conspiracy. (colluding with Russia).

** You're wrong.  Mueller said a lot of things, then contradicted himself, both verbally and in the report itself which was obviously drafted by someone other than Mueller.  You're trying to split hairs, as if actions alone that MIGHT BECOME evidence is actual evidence when it can't be -- by definition.

The presumption of innocence requires evidence to establish all elements of a crime in order to charge the subject with that crime.  If Mueller finds 1, 2, or 3 elements, but no evidence of the 4th required element, it's as iff the first 3 do not exist, because without ALL the evidence of a crime, there WAS NO CRIME.  Taken separately, they are evidence of nothing more than the individual acts themselves.

Analogy:  I look in your fridge and cabinets and find butter, eggs, vanilla extract, sugar, baking powder, salt and buttermilk. All you're missing to make a tasty vanilla cake is flour. Can I call what you have a cake?  No.  Can I call those items cake ingredients?  No, not until they are mixed together and baked(assuming flour is added) or you tell me you intend to use them to make a cake.  (Most people intending to commit a crime don't give investigators the courtesy of stating their intentions.) You call them what they are -- individual items that MAY be used for any variety of things, including a cake.  But, without the flour, you'll never be able to call it a cake -- ever.

The cake (obstruction) never existed.  Therefore, there can be no ingredients (evidence) of it.

I think it is a fair question to ask why Mueller didn't focus more on the legitimacy of the report that started it all. Maybe there was enough evidence that could have led him to report back there is insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation but on the other hand if there remained a reasonable possibility that the allegation was true then I think, in this case, it is better to be safe than sorry. Take a rape case for example, there is rarely any proof that a rape actually happened, only an allegation but police still investigate it as if it were true. This may have been what Mueller was doing but its hard to know for sure since we didn't get an explanation out of him as far as I understand. Like I said, it is a fair question.

** He was on a witch hunt, plain and simple.  It was an obstruction trap.  The Dems hoped (believed) Trump would fall into the Nixon hole of obstruction and be impeached.  The big difference:  Nixon actually obstructed the investigation by having a portion of a tape (evidence) erased.  The assumption is that part of the tape was evidence of Nixon's knowledge of the break-in. 

Trump never colluded, conspired or coordinated with the Russians to interfere with the election.  There was no evidence to destroy.  There was no crime to cover up.  Trump knew the only crime the Dems could use is if he obstructed the investigation.

Most of the "acts" Mueller included in Vol II were lawful, Constitutional acts the President can perform, such as firing Comey and Mueller.  After the FBI IG investigation, it was Rosenstein who actually recommended Comey's firing.  And if Mueller was fired, the Special Counsel and its task would continue on under another appointee.  There is no way Trump could obstruct by firing Mueller.  The only way would be to tell the USAG to stop the investigation completely.  Never happened.

Volume II was a political smear job created by Dem loyalists on Mueller's team.  it never should have been created.

Don't forget that Barr made the report unredacted and available to all members of congress, but to be kept and read only at a secure location.  Only 2 DNC congressmen showed up.  Maybe if the others read the report, then we wouldn't need Mueller's testimony.

Reminds me when your mom does your book report for you and then the teacher ask you questions about the book.

** Wrong.  The Special Counsel's duty was to the Attorney General, not Congress.  He was mandated to submit a CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO THE USAG.  Period.  He did that, and Barr made the decision to make it public.  Congress is not part of the executive branch.  If they wanted to run things, they could have (and should have) formed a bi-partisan committee to do it, instead of letting the FBI investigate their own hoax.

** You're wrong.  Mueller said a lot of things, then contradicted himself, both verbally and in the report itself which was obviously drafted by someone other than Mueller.  You're trying to split hairs, as if actions alone that MIGHT BECOME evidence is actual evidence when it can't be -- by definition.

The presumption of innocence requires evidence to establish all elements of a crime in order to charge the subject with that crime.  If Mueller finds 1, 2, or 3 elements, but no evidence of the 4th required element, it's as iff the first 3 do not exist, because without ALL the evidence of a crime, there WAS NO CRIME.  Taken separately, they are evidence of nothing more than the individual acts themselves.

Analogy:  I look in your fridge and cabinets and find butter, eggs, vanilla extract, sugar, baking powder, salt and buttermilk. All you're missing to make a tasty vanilla cake is flour. Can I call what you have a cake?  No.  Can I call those items cake ingredients?  No, not until they are mixed together and baked(assuming flour is added) or you tell me you intend to use them to make a cake.  (Most people intending to commit a crime don't give investigators the courtesy of stating their intentions.) You call them what they are -- individual items that MAY be used for any variety of things, including a cake.  But, without the flour, you'll never be able to call it a cake -- ever.
The cake (obstruction) never existed.  Therefore, there can be no ingredients (evidence) of it.

** He was on a witch hunt, plain and simple.  It was an obstruction trap.  The Dems hoped (believed) Trump would fall into the Nixon hole of obstruction and be impeached.  The big difference:  Nixon actually obstructed the investigation by having a portion of a tape (evidence) erased.  The assumption is that part of the tape was evidence of Nixon's knowledge of the break-in. 

Trump never colluded, conspired or coordinated with the Russians to interfere with the election.  There was no evidence to destroy.  There was no crime to cover up.  Trump knew the only crime the Dems could use is if he obstructed the investigation.

Most of the "acts" Mueller included in Vol II were lawful, Constitutional acts the President can perform, such as firing Comey and Mueller.  After the FBI IG investigation, it was Rosenstein who actually recommended Comey's firing.  And if Mueller was fired, the Special Counsel and its task would continue on under another appointee.  There is no way Trump could obstruct by firing Mueller.  The only way would be to tell the USAG to stop the investigation completely.  Never happened.
Volume II was a political smear job created by Dem loyalists on Mueller's team.  it never should have been created.

Mueller was smart in referring to his report so heavily so they couldn't try to trip him up.