Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 7131415161718192021 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 369

Thread: Fox News says Mueller report did NOT clear Trump

  1. #241 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7,463
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 3,913 Times in 2,945 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 229 Times in 217 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    To get to the truth, if he had decided Swampy was innocent, he could have said so, could not do so the other way around.

    He determined that would be up to Congress to do something about, as he could not indict.
    Complete nonsense. His job isn't too prove innocence you idiot. How the hell are you a lawyer? His job is to see if the EVIDENCE is strong enough to bring charges.

    Again, he absolutely, 100%, could have concluded indictment was warranted. The DoJ then would have waited until Trump was out of office to do so. Basic law you moron.

    There is nothing that said Mueller couldn't reach conclusions.

  2. #242 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7,463
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked 3,913 Times in 2,945 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 229 Times in 217 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    well those the rules allow him to indict


    they cant indict a sitting president


    OR

    do you claim he can?
    He can indeed reach the conclusion that the evidence was indictment. The fact that the DoJ would postpone the indictment is irrelevant.

  3. #243 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    33,529
    Thanks
    6,865
    Thanked 8,815 Times in 6,633 Posts
    Groans
    33
    Groaned 1,743 Times in 1,661 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfreak View Post
    Complete nonsense. His job isn't too prove innocence you idiot. How the hell are you a lawyer? His job is to see if the EVIDENCE is strong enough to bring charges.

    Again, he absolutely, 100%, could have concluded indictment was warranted. The DoJ then would have waited until Trump was out of office to do so. Basic law you moron.

    There is nothing that said Mueller couldn't reach conclusions.
    Sure not, liar.

    “So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.”

    “As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”

    He reached 10 conclusions

    FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION”


    A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
    B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
    C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
    D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
    E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
    F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
    H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
    I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
    J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
    K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen

  4. #244 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    10,159
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 6,196 Times in 4,379 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 323 Times in 308 Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=domer76;3096923]



    He reached 10 conclusions

    FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATIONĒ


    A. The Campaign's Response to Reports About Russian Support for Trump
    how is that obstruction of justice, other than in lala land
    B. The President's Conduct Concerning the Investigation of Michael Flynn
    which conduct is that nutjob?
    C. The President's Reaction to Public Confirmation of the FBl's Russia Investigation
    we're only three in and you've claimed twice that a reaction is obstruction, and you wonder why we all think you're a triggered cupcake?
    D. Events Leading Up To and Surrounding the Termination of FBI Director Corney
    last I checked trump can fire anyone he wants to first of all, and secondly I think Comey's incompetence is beyond being able to dispute, no?

    E. The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel
    but he didn't huh nutbags, he could have right, but didn't.. I'm trying to follow your triggered babble I really am
    F. The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation
    that's just a lie, he said repeatedly he wanted it to finish because he did nothing wrong, but pointing out what a waste of time and resource it was... RIGHT AGAIN wasn't he tiny?
    H. The President's Further Efforts to Have the Attorney General Take Over the Investigation
    What ?^^^^
    I. The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel
    why would he deny he tried to do something that he could have done anytime he wanted to, ina n instant, that ^^^makes about as much sense as paying for your education did to your parents probably
    J. The President's Conduct Towards Flynn, Manafort,
    ^^^ what? did you take your meds? they're in a cup at the desk
    K. The President's Conduct Involving Michael Cohen
    what doe's that even mean?

    you have too much time on your hands, ever think about knitting flower boy?
    I VOTED FOR THE WHITE GUY THIS TIME

    C̶N̶N̶ SNN.... Shithole News Network

    WHERES RUTH

  5. #245 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    33,529
    Thanks
    6,865
    Thanked 8,815 Times in 6,633 Posts
    Groans
    33
    Groaned 1,743 Times in 1,661 Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=Getin the ring;3096948]
    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post



    He reached 10 conclusions

    FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION”



    how is that obstruction of justice, other than in lala land

    which conduct is that nutjob?

    we're only three in and you've claimed twice that a reaction is obstruction, and you wonder why we all think you're a triggered cupcake?

    last I checked trump can fire anyone he wants to first of all, and secondly I think Comey's incompetence is beyond being able to dispute, no?


    but he didn't huh nutbags, he could have right, but didn't.. I'm trying to follow your triggered babble I really am

    that's just a lie, he said repeatedly he wanted it to finish because he did nothing wrong, but pointing out what a waste of time and resource it was... RIGHT AGAIN wasn't he tiny?

    What ?^^^^

    why would he deny he tried to do something that he could have done anytime he wanted to, ina n instant, that ^^^makes about as much sense as paying for your education did to your parents probably

    ^^^ what? did you take your meds? they're in a cup at the desk

    what doe's that even mean?

    you have too much time on your hands, ever think about knitting flower boy?
    Read Volume II the report, lazy assed moron. It’s all there.

  6. #246 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    14,552
    Thanks
    5,667
    Thanked 7,185 Times in 4,976 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 677 Times in 639 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfreak View Post
    Where in the report does it say that
    Read it.
    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

  7. #247 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    14,552
    Thanks
    5,667
    Thanked 7,185 Times in 4,976 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 677 Times in 639 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfreak View Post
    Complete nonsense. His job isn't too prove innocence you idiot. How the hell are you a lawyer? His job is to see if the EVIDENCE is strong enough to bring charges.

    Again, he absolutely, 100%, could have concluded indictment was warranted. The DoJ then would have waited until Trump was out of office to do so. Basic law you moron.

    There is nothing that said Mueller couldn't reach conclusions.
    LMAO. And indictment is warranted in a case where the individual is above the law? That's funny.
    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

  8. #248 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,732
    Thanks
    4,741
    Thanked 4,972 Times in 3,270 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,423 Times in 1,289 Posts

    Default

    Hello Southern Chicken,

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Chicken View Post
    A prosecutor either finds enough evidence to charge someone or he doesnít. He doesn't make a list for the house to go after someone.

    He knows that if he doesn't make a conclusion about on whether to charge or not it is left up to the Atty. General to make a conclusion.
    I disagree.

    Mueller indeed left it up to the house to proceed with charges if they deem fit. He did so create a list of possible infractions. He stated that he is prevented from bringing an indictment against a sitting president.

    The AG is likewise unable to indict the president. That task is left up to the house.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  9. #249 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,732
    Thanks
    4,741
    Thanked 4,972 Times in 3,270 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,423 Times in 1,289 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Chicken View Post
    Yes that is what the heads of the DOJ said in the following:

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wil...-investigation
    That is not DOJ policy. He said that was his own personal feelings.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  10. #250 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    27,244
    Thanks
    7,121
    Thanked 16,027 Times in 10,925 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 957 Times in 918 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    That is not DOJ policy. He said that was his own personal feelings.
    But thatís kind of it lol.

    Itís a policy and itís open to interpretation. The reason presidents should be immune from indictment is because state Attorneys General could file bogus indictments against a president for partisan reasons. So rather than opening that Pandoras Box it was decided presidents should be immune from indictmentsówhile serving. Makes perfect sense and itís a good rule.

    Sadly, presidents arenít immune from partisan Witch Hunts.

    At any rate, note that says *nothing* about presidents being immune from criminal conclusions or determinations that arise out of investigations. A conclusion is not an indictment. Mullet is totally on his own with that one. There is NO reason Mullet couldnít have concluded Trumpís actions were worthy of indictment and then *plainly stated* it as such.

    But he left us this Mumbo-jumbo about Trump being not not guilty of obstruction. I challenge anyone to cite another single instance where a federal prosecutor ended with such an absurd proclamation. And along with it, the so-called ten instances of obstruction which are actually ten potential instances of obstruction.

    Itís very easy to get the idea it was done in order to give House Democrats something to work with. In fact, thatís the most plausible explanation for the contortions.
    ďI would like you to do us a favor, I would like you to find out what happened with the whole situation with Ukraine, with CrowdStrike. The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation.Ē~verbatim, from Trumpís Perfect Call

  11. #251 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,120
    Thanks
    301
    Thanked 436 Times in 346 Posts
    Groans
    20
    Groaned 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Southern Chicken,



    I disagree.

    Mueller indeed left it up to the house to proceed with charges if they deem fit. He did so create a list of possible infractions. He stated that he is prevented from bringing an indictment against a sitting president.

    The AG is likewise unable to indict the president. That task is left up to the house.
    Hello politalker.

    The special counsel sends the report to the AG not to congress. The AG explains it to congress.

    For your review please read this thoroughly or this is a wasted exercise

    https://www.brookings.edu/testimonie...l-regulations/

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Southern Chicken For This Post:

    PoliTalker (06-13-2019)

  13. #252 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,120
    Thanks
    301
    Thanked 436 Times in 346 Posts
    Groans
    20
    Groaned 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    But thatís kind of it lol.

    Itís a policy and itís open to interpretation. The reason presidents should be immune from indictment is because state Attorneys General could file bogus indictments against a president for partisan reasons. So rather than opening that Pandoras Box it was decided presidents should be immune from indictmentsówhile serving. Makes perfect sense and itís a good rule.

    Sadly, presidents arenít immune from partisan Witch Hunts.

    At any rate, note that says *nothing* about presidents being immune from criminal conclusions or determinations that arise out of investigations. A conclusion is not an indictment. Mullet is totally on his own with that one. There is NO reason Mullet couldnít have concluded Trumpís actions were worthy of indictment and then *plainly stated* it as such.

    But he left us this Mumbo-jumbo about Trump being not not guilty of obstruction. I challenge anyone to cite another single instance where a federal prosecutor ended with such an absurd proclamation. And along with it, the so-called ten instances of obstruction which are actually ten potential instances of obstruction.

    Itís very easy to get the idea it was done in order to give House Democrats something to work with. In fact, thatís the most plausible explanation for the contortions.
    see my link

  14. #253 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,120
    Thanks
    301
    Thanked 436 Times in 346 Posts
    Groans
    20
    Groaned 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    That is not DOJ policy. He said that was his own personal feelings.
    "The Attorney General has full control over the assignment to a special counsel of additional jurisdiction (section 600.4(b)) that is ďnecessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to lightĒ during a special counselís investigation. A special counsel is to consult with the Attorney General, who will then ďdetermine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counselís jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.Ē

  15. #254 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    352
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 77 Times in 59 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 21 Times in 21 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfreak View Post
    How many times will the idiots spit out this stupidity?

    'We didn't prove 100% he was innocent, so please keep speculating. We didn't have enough evidence to indict, but hey... Guilty until proven innocent!'
    They had plenty to indict and would have if they could have.

  16. #255 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    352
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 77 Times in 59 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 21 Times in 21 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfreak View Post
    Wrong. First, that is a DOJ guideline. Second, Mueller was still able to recommend indictment... it simply would have been delayed until Trump was out of office under the guideline.

    So you are incorrect. Mueller could have reached the conclusion if he felt he had the evidence.
    He has the evidence and gave it to congress, it's their responsibility.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-21-2019, 05:44 AM
  2. Trump: Its fake news.... Mueller report.... Nope.
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 229
    Last Post: 04-19-2019, 10:09 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-03-2019, 09:06 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2019, 09:07 AM
  5. Mueller to Clear Trump
    By hvilleherb in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 03-26-2018, 09:40 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •