Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously trump obstructed, that was made very clear. That little ditty that presidents canmot be indicted while in office needs to change, immediately.
"If we had confidence that the President did not commit a crime we would have said so."
Special Counsel Mueller
The Mueller report did not exonerate Trump as it made no definitive judgements. Barr and DJT have been perpetuating the lie of exoneration since it was completed.
Well that was a nothing burger. We may not of heard the last of Mr Mueller, let’s see where the real investigation leads. He seems scared of questions, but he can be subpoenaed
-Volume 1 conclusion: They had insufficient evidence of conspiracy. So perhaps there was none, but he worded it as they had insufficient evidence.
-Volume 2 conclusion: He did not conclude whether Trump obstructed justice. He didn't charge because DOJ policy says you cannot indict the President.
I think he was clarifying this for those that keep saying "No collusion, no obstruction" because each of the bullet points above are different than "no collusion, no obstruction."
So there's no indictments, which is acceptable because how the Justice Department works. What is not acceptable is people burying their heads in the sand about what is acceptable behavior or having a reasonable debate about what is acceptable behavior.
Also, do you believe the country should fix areas in terms of election interference by Russia? His last statement was that every American should be concerned about that.
I suppose he's suggesting the DOJ policy is unconstitutional.
No, I think the DOJ approved his speech there - which is why he was reading it.
I think they stretched the truth from "longstanding policy" to "unconstitutional" in order to try and make a point.
I do understand the basics behind charging someone if you aren't going to try them...but maybe the DOJ should then suggest Impeachment (which he sorta did, by inference). That's a fair trial....and should not be partisan. After all, if the evidence is presented and the witnesses testify, we get closer to the truth and Trump has a real defense.
Evidence to prove a negative? I didn't kill that guy who was running in the park last Tuesday, but I can't prove it.
No, this is.......
A guy was running in the park last week - caught on camera and by witnesses and other means.
BUT, I am the FBI and DOJ and only the city police are allowed to charge the Jogger
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
