Fox News says Mueller report did NOT clear Trump

No collusion and insufficient evidence to pursue obstruction.

In America, that means that you are innocent until proven guilty.
 
Earl said:
No collusion and insufficient evidence to pursue obstruction.

In America, that means that you are innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

collusion is not a crime

Mueller said he didn't indict on obstruction because he can't

what part of that don't you get?
 
DEMOCRAT domer76 said:
“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.”
Click to expand...

Almost 2 years and over $20 million for nothing?

She's still not your president, DEMOCRAT:

Newsweek.jpg


And this man is:

president-trump-ap-jef-190607_hpEmbed_3_3x2_1600.jpg


Loser.

:rofl2:
 
reagansghost said:
no longer a supporter?...........takin that Hannity sticker off the Hyundai?

“Mueller explained that if he and his team had confidence that the president did not commit obstruction, they would have said so. He also said that under Justice Department guidelines, charging the president with a crime was never an option to him. He said the Constitution requires another process,” Smith continued, referring to Mueller’s suggestion that Congress take up his report.

FOX NEWS..........wow
Click to expand...

Again. You now worship Fox news. Hilarious. Yet another idiot parroting the stupidity of Mueller. Innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty until proven innocent.

Again. Mueller could have reached a conclusion. Had he had enough evidence to indict, he could have stated that conclusion and then indicted Trump after he was out of office. That is a FACT. He is spinning now. He failed the Dems and he knows it. Now he is trying to open back doors and let them re-investigate everything.
 
reagansghost said:
collusion is not a crime

Mueller said he didn't indict on obstruction because he can't

what part of that don't you get?
Click to expand...

Yes, he could have. He could have stated he had enough evidence to indict, but that by rule, it would have to be after Trump left office. But he didn't. Because he didn't have enough evidence.
 
Otra vez.

No collusion and insufficient evidence to pursue obstruction.

In America, that means that you are innocent until proven guilty.
 
reagansghost said:
that's not what he said

you've been schooled on this 20 times just today retard
Click to expand...

I know it is not what he said. It is however... a FACT. He could easily have stated his conclusion if he had reached one. That is FACT. He could have recommended indicting Trump. He did not. That is a FACT. Had he done so, THEN the DOJ rule applies... the indictment would have been done AFTER Trump was out of office. That too, is a FACT.
 
Darth Omar said:
You understand the distinction between a conclusion and a formal charge, right?
Click to expand...

Mueller couldn't make a formal charge, so as he says, he didn't contemplate it.

If your defense is tantamount to "Mueller didn't recommend a conclusion" while leaving out "because he didn't think it was his place", then you're a sophist who is deliberately pushing a false narrative to save your own ass from the embarrassment of being conned by Donald fucking Trump.
 
Earl said:
FOX News, the most watched and the most trusted cable news in America...Snowflake.
Click to expand...

Bragging about being the most watched cable news network is like bragging about being the prettiest girl in Wasilla, Alaska.

Nickelodeon gets better ratings than Fox News.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top