Here's a start. There's a ton more of backup info. Refute this one first.
https://www.apnews.com/e0d125d737be4a21a81bec3d9f1dffd8
Mueller is a man of integrity-Trumptards heard truth
- Thread starter Micawber
- Start date
Here's a start. There's a ton more of backup info. Refute this one first.
https://www.apnews.com/e0d125d737be4a21a81bec3d9f1dffd8
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Yup. That's it. He said in lieu of responding to subpoenas, he would "let his report stand."
And, his report says NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION.
See ya Mullet...enjoy St. Kitts!
Nope. It sure doesn't, liar.
Wrong again you willful idiot. The reason he didn't indict Trump is there was NOTHING to indict him on. If you weren't such a dishonest cunt on steroids, you would comprehend the OBVIOUS.
Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Add emoluments
What his report clearly says is Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.
Yes, you most certainly are. And a massive lying cunt as well.
LIE and LAME. Trump wasn't charged because there was no evidence of any crime or obstruction. If you weren't such a massive dishonest cunt you could comprehend the OBVIOUS.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Where does it say there was collusion and obstruction you dishonest cunt?
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Yes, you are quite full of it. You whiny, lying little cunt.
The Mueller report contains ZERO of educational value. If you read it, you would know this.
How many of Trump's inner circle are in prison for lying for him or providing info to Russians in his support?
Here are 10 instances of prosecutable offenses, according to 900 former federal prosecutors, save for he is a sitting President.
https://www.apnews.com/e0d125d737be4a21a81bec3d9f1dffd8
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
?????......now why on earth didn't you listen to Mueller today?......
It was a shit, go blind or deaf moment. I think all three.
I did. What do you want to know that you missed because your head is still up your ass? Here's one:
“If we had confidence the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”
"If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime,
we would have said so," Mueller announced. He once again pointed to inconclusive evidence.
They did not have that confidence. They did not have that evidence to indict.
Therefore, if Mullet DID conclude he committed a crime, he would indict. Oh wait......he did NOT indict.
Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction
Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction, releases document to provide more context
by Jerry Dunleavy
& Daniel Chaitin
| May 29, 2019 02:38 PM
| Updated May 29, 2019, 03:27 PM
Special counsel Robert Mueller released a document comparing his assertions about obstruction of justice to what Attorney General William Barr said about it.
Mueller delivered a public address about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election on Wednesday, after which some politicians and pundits argued the special counsel contradicted Barr.
Hours later, NBC News obtained a copy of the document and shared it on MSNBC.
"He [Mueller] did not contradict. We went back to the Special Counsel’s Office today and said, “Did you contradict what the attorney general said when he said that ‘if it had not been for that opinion, you would have charged’?” NBC News' Julia Ainsley said on MSNBC.
"And they said, 'We’re not contradicting, but we’re providing more context that' — It’s not even point. They didn’t even make a decision because they didn’t look at this like a prosecution. They didn’t walk down that road because they stopped because of this opinion," she added.
continued at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...e-more-context
Mueller defends Barr: Says no contradiction on obstruction, releases document to provide more context
by Jerry Dunleavy
& Daniel Chaitin
| May 29, 2019 02:38 PM
| Updated May 29, 2019, 03:27 PM
Special counsel Robert Mueller released a document comparing his assertions about obstruction of justice to what Attorney General William Barr said about it.
Mueller delivered a public address about his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election on Wednesday, after which some politicians and pundits argued the special counsel contradicted Barr.
Hours later, NBC News obtained a copy of the document and shared it on MSNBC.
"He [Mueller] did not contradict. We went back to the Special Counsel’s Office today and said, “Did you contradict what the attorney general said when he said that ‘if it had not been for that opinion, you would have charged’?” NBC News' Julia Ainsley said on MSNBC.
"And they said, 'We’re not contradicting, but we’re providing more context that' — It’s not even point. They didn’t even make a decision because they didn’t look at this like a prosecution. They didn’t walk down that road because they stopped because of this opinion," she added.
continued at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...e-more-context
"If we had had the confidence that the president had not clearly committed a crime,
we would have said so," Mueller announced. He once again pointed to inconclusive evidence.
They did not have that confidence. They did not have that evidence to indict.
Therefore, if Mullet DID conclude he committed a crime, he would indict. Oh wait......he did NOT indict.
^Densest motherfucker on the forum.
You have to ask? We have a political party, a FAKE media apparatus and leftist ideology that have spent two years smearing a man for no other reason than he won an election. This is a guy who won the election fair and square, doesn't take any salary and donates it in its entirety because he believes in the American dream.
I am sick of the lying, the smear campaign, the innuendo, the bullshit and the outright fabrications. You asswhipes had a two year investigation and got NOTHING. Taxpayers were bilked $40K for this HOAX started with a lie filled salacious dossier.
Now, you same morons want a redo with a fishing expedition conducted in the House by a bunch of ass clowns who believe they have the right to disenfranchise 60 million Americans.
You morons are willing to make a mockery of our institutions, our Constitution and the Presidency to further your delusional anger that has done NOTHING but make you look pathetic and stupid.
I am angry because we still are not the lawless third world shit hole the Party of the Jackass want to turn us into, but are perfectly willing to burn the house down because they continue to refuse to accept the results of an election.
You bet I am mad. I think you dumbasses are going to find out that I am not alone in that anger in 2020. But even if you lose the house and Trump gets re-elected, you morons will still lack the grey matter to comprehend you are wrong and losers.