Fox News says Mueller report did NOT clear Trump

[Superfreak]

nope, accusing someone of a crime when they can't defend themselves in court is unethical and immoral

you're lost

What is also comical is that an indictment actually allows the accused to defend themselves. But what Mueller has done is said 'I can't conclude he is innocent, here is a lot of alleged dirt and supposition, I am not indicting or reaching conclusions, but I disagree with anyone who doesn't take the supposition in direction I want to go, again Trump isn't verified 100% innocent, but I cannot indict him'... How the fuck is that ethical or moral? How the fuck is anyone supposed to defend against that nonsense?

You are sitting here, along with many other Dems, insisting that obstruction occurred. Then you say, 'he couldn't indict'... meaning that Trump cannot defend himself in court. Which means you are the unethical and immoral person.

[Superfreak]

an investigation for Congress to impeach, by law he couldn't indict.........Trump campaign was communicating with over 70 Russians, discovered by surveillance, even allied intel was giving them the heads up

Fox has rendered you senseless

Again moron... YOU are the one quoting Fox. Again Moron, there is NO LAW that says he couldn't indict. There is a DOJ letter ruling that states not to indict a sitting President. That is not a law, but an internal procedure. A procedure that DOES NOT stop the prosecutor from drawing conclusions. You are an idiot.

[reagansghost]

What is also comical is that an indictment actually allows the accused to defend themselves. But what Mueller has done is said 'I can't conclude he is innocent, here is a lot of alleged dirt and supposition, I am not indicting or reaching conclusions, but I disagree with anyone who doesn't take the supposition in direction I want to go, again Trump isn't verified 100% innocent, but I cannot indict him'... How the fuck is that ethical or moral? How the fuck is anyone supposed to defend against that nonsense?

You are sitting here, along with many other Dems, insisting that obstruction occurred. Then you say, 'he couldn't indict'... meaning that Trump cannot defend himself in court. Which means you are the unethical and immoral person.

nope, Mueller stated clearly he couldn't indict a sitting president

you're dumb

[LV426]

Would you agree that appointing an SC but disallowing them from stating a conclusion to their investigation—is utterly asinine lol?

Mueller made plenty of conclusions; the report is filled with them.

34 individuals and businesses indicted across over 150+ charges and convictions totaling at least $40M in seized assets.

What he didn't conclude was whether or not the President should be indicted, and the reason he didn't conclude that was because he didn't think he could thanks to DOJ rules.

[reagansghost]

Again Moron, there is NO LAW that says he couldn't indict. .

DOJ policy, sorry

[LV426]

You are an idiot. Tell us, why did they investigate Trump then?

They did investigate Trump.

Mueller said he couldn't bring charges because of OLC rules.

He said that in his report and on live TV on May 29th.

Why are you lying?

[LV426]

Why were you Dems so adamant about him testifying? If you claim he can't be indicted, then why investigate?

Because he can be impeached, you jackass. That's why you investigate.

Wow.

What a fucking idiot.

It's like you're getting dumber on purpose as you realize your position is increasingly untenable.

You can only play stupid for so long before it catches up with you.

[Southern Chicken]

What does the report say is "inconclusive"?.

Read the Mueller report and find out. Hint* Do a search in the document on the word conclusion.

[Superfreak]

nope, Mueller stated clearly he couldn't indict a sitting president

you're dumb

So Dershowitz is dumb according to you?

You are an immoral and unethical person, using the standards you set forth.

you also are a liar. I spelled out exactly what he could have done, as did Dershowitz. Yet you still lie.

[Superfreak]

DOJ policy, sorry

not going to respond to the rest? Afraid to read what Dershowitz said?

[Southern Chicken]

What he didn't conclude was whether or not the President should be indicted, and the reason he didn't conclude that was because he didn't think he could thanks to DOJ rules.

Starting to get it

[LV426]

Read the Mueller report and find out. Hint* Do a search in the document on the word conclusion.

You didn't read the report, so what the fuck are you talking about?

[LV426]

So Dershowitz is dumb according to you?

If John Dean is irrelevant, then so is Alan fucking Dershowitz.

[LV426]

Starting to get it

Yes, you are starting to get it.

So before, you said Mueller couldn't make a case...but the part you left out, was that he couldn't make a case because of the DOJ rules.

So once again, you were caught telling a lie. You weren't being entirely truthful. You were leaving out exculpatory information and you did that expressly to push what you know is a false, sophistic narrative.

Why do you feel compelled to do that?

Do you have something personal at stake here that is causing you to compromise your own ethics (!) for your ego's sake? Cuz that's what it looks like.

[Micawber]

wrong, can't indict a sitting president ya ignoramus

That moron said that right after the opposite was posted sourced from the DOJ? God damn they can't hold a thought.