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.
Don't let them facts get in the way....or we would not be here right now, Mueller would have laid it out (which he did not) and said here is the evidence that pushes the charges over the threshold of Obstruction of Justice and all the other charges....I cannot indict him, but here is the proof.
Mueller even said, if it was there or not, he would say it...he did not...
I have no idea what you're talking about. Mueller laid out all of the acts that could be obstruction, explained why they constitute obstruction, but stopped short of calling them definitive crimes because he could not indict him. Seventy five percent of Volume II is Mueller saying (in not so few words) "I cannot indict him, but here is the proof."
Again, I have my doubts that you actually read and understand the Report if you are making posts like these.
I'm not a "lib" and my comments on this thread have stemmed from me personally reading the source documents themselves and not a media outlet's take on them. I'm not sure what point you think you're making, but you are doing a poor job of it.
" I'm not sure what point you think you're making, but you are doing a poor job of it."
My point is you say you don't believe the story because it came of where it came from.
"but you are doing a poor job of it." Maybe you have reading comprehension problem.
So I asked if you believe the stories the LSM says?
Instead of casting aside the source did you read what it said?
If not, how can you from an opinion on it.
READ the story, do your research and see if the claims made in the story are true or not.
Or are you afraid of what you will find.
P.S. I make no bones on where I stand. I also read and watch liberal source to get perspective of where they stand today.
It is much easier to form a bias when you only get your info from 1 side.
Given that his campaign had over 200+ contacts with the Russians WITHOUT contacting the FBI, lies about business ties with Putin, sharing of polling data with the Russian oligarchs, 34 indictment AND looked to benefit from Russian interference? Yeah, tell that to a citizen or non-president that would have been indicted and charged already. Those talking points of "never should have been started" is a made up lie to fit Trump's corrupt Kremlin agenda.
YOU need to tell it to Mueller, because HE said with no equivocation that the Trump Campaign and everyone associated with it were not involved in any collusion at all - in fact, further -- no American was involved in any Collusion with Russia.
Get over your Collusion Delusion ..... this is a Done Deal and it was Mueller who after 2 years of Investigation said it was a Done Deal.
YOU need to tell it to Mueller, because HE said with no equivocation that the Trump Campaign and everyone associated with it were not involved in any collusion at all - in fact, further -- no American was involved in any Collusion with Russia.
Get over your Collusion Delusion ..... this is a Done Deal and it was Mueller who after 2 years of Investigation said it was a Done Deal.
Nothing in my statement includes the word "collusion". Why? Collusion is the president's and Fake Fox talking point that his base buys into every day. Collusion is not illegal or a crime. But again, everything I spelled out is in the report! Mueller can't indict a sitting president. He left it open for prosecution when the president leaves office AND punted to Congress. Get over "total exoneration" and "witchhunt" delusion. Neither is true.
The Funny part is, i happen to be watching fox news in my break room at work, and most of the people, analyst they had on all except for a couple of stooges, all said "Barr screwed himself".
The whole exchange at the end with, "One of his staffers must of wrote it" seemed more of Trump than of himself.
What Lawyer, prosecutor doesn't review evidence
Why even say that, "you didn't review key evidence"?
"You realize that is representative of the country, right?
You realize that I never claimed otherwise, right?
I said when 1 party is polled much MORE then other party, it stands to reason the "results" will ALWAYS favor the MOST polled.
Fair enough. I guess I don't know what your point was. If your point was the post I'm quoting, I think most people already knew that.
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.
Get over "total exoneration" and "witchhunt" delusion. Neither is true.
