Nancy has been waiting because she wants more than just impeachment-JAIL!!

Darth Omar said:
Are you claiming Mullet made a criminal conclusion even as DOJ rules prevented him from it lol?
Click to expand...


No, you illiterate fuck. Can’t you morons read?

“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.”

Why are all you Trumpanzees so fucking illiterate?
 
domer76 said:
No, you illiterate fuck. Can’t you morons read?

“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.”

Why are all you Trumpanzees so fucking illiterate?
Click to expand...

But you’re claiming Mullet made a conclusion anyway.

Aren’t the ‘ten counts’ a conclusion? And isn’t the sentence you claim we can’t read a conclusion in your opinion? Even though it’s not lol.
 
Darth Omar said:
But you’re claiming Mullet made a conclusion anyway.

Aren’t the ‘ten counts’ a conclusion? And isn’t the sentence you claim we can’t read a conclusion in your opinion? Even though it’s not lol.
Click to expand...

DOJ rules didn't prevent any conclusions. His conclusions are in his report, which, in your willful ignorance you haven't read.

Lazy fuck, start with page 24

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-con...-04.18.2019-Word-Searchable.-Reduced-Size.pdf

Then, try to absorb this "conclusion", dumbfuck.

“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.”

What part of “would not” confuses you, illiterate dumbfuck?
 
domer76 said:
Let’s hear the recording.

Executive privilege had nothing to do with not being able to indict, stupid fuck.

The investigation began as a result of the Comey firing, idiot.

Barr lied, you fucking idiot. The are 10 instances of obstruction that I’ve given you illiterates dozens of times.

Congress has the power of oversight over the executive branch, you uninformed moron.

“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.”

What part of that do you fail to understand, senile halfwit?
Click to expand...

A couple of things here since I’m bored and have nothing better to do than debate partisan nitwits.

One is you have absolutely no idea whether Barr is lying or not. Another is that sentence from Mullet is meaningless from a prosecutor’s standpoint. If Mullet ‘had no confidence the president did not clearly commit a crime’, and if he makes that proclamation *after* wrapping up the investigation—it’s bloody OVER.

The only really interesting question is why Mullet would go to the expense of making himself look like an idiot in making such a statement. I guess, after all, his investigation was a crime search and impeachment was the objective. Some of us knew it from Day One. And you goof balls all but venerated the Honorable Mullet.

But Mullet resigned from government service before he stepped away from the podium. How fitting.
 
Darth Omar said:
A couple of things here since I’m bored and have nothing better to do than debate partisan nitwits.

One is you have absolutely no idea whether Barr is lying or not. Another is that sentence from Mullet is meaningless from a prosecutor’s standpoint. If Mullet ‘had no confidence the president did not clearly commit a crime’, and if he makes that proclamation *after* wrapping up the investigation—it’s bloody OVER.

The only really interesting question is why Mullet would go to the expense of making himself look like an idiot in making such a statement. I guess, after all, his investigation was a crime search and impeachment was the objective. Some of us knew it from Day One. And you goof balls all but venerated the Honorable Mullet.

But Mullet resigned from government service before he stepped away from the podium. How fitting.
Click to expand...

Let's try this one more time, you fucking illiterate moron.

With Trump, it was NEVER a criminal investigation. How many times do I have to provide his quote until you are able to understand plain English? Dozens more?

He resigned because his mission was completed, stupid fuck.

Barr lied in his testimony under oath, when asked if he was aware of the SC's team was frustrated over his misleading 4 page report, said "No, I don't." Whn, in fact, he had just received a letter less than two weeks prior saying that Barr's 4 pager " failed to capture the “context, nature, and substance” of his work and conclusions and had caused public confusion about critical aspects of the investigation."

Barr also said he did not know whether Mueller supported his summary's conclusion, when the letter says the opposite.

It's hardly over, moron. Investigations will continue and every refusal of Trump to allow testimony of individuals only adds to more obstruction.
 
domer76 said:
Let's try this one more time, you fucking illiterate moron.

With Trump, it was NEVER a criminal investigation. How many times do I have to provide his quote until you are able to understand plain English? Dozens more?

He resigned because his mission was completed, stupid fuck.

Barr lied in his testimony under oath, when asked if he was aware of the SC's team was frustrated over his misleading 4 page report, said "No, I don't." Whn, in fact, he had just received a letter less than two weeks prior saying that Barr's 4 pager " failed to capture the “context, nature, and substance” of his work and conclusions and had caused public confusion about critical aspects of the investigation."

Barr also said he did not know whether Mueller supported his summary's conclusion, when the letter says the opposite.

It's hardly over, moron. Investigations will continue and every refusal of Trump to allow testimony of individuals only adds to more obstruction.
Click to expand...

And Mullet only added to the confusion in his press conference lol!

And you realize Barr couldn’t have lied when *whoever* wrote the letter was non-descript about what, exactly, they meant about the ‘failing to capture the context’ mumbo-jumbo, right? ‘Failing to capture context’ can be interpreted at least two ways and it’s only possible to lie when facts are known.

But go ahead, have the impeachment vote. Shit or get off the pot already.
 
Darth Omar said:
And Mullet only added to the confusion in his press conference lol!

And you realize Barr couldn’t have lied when *whoever* wrote the letter was non-descript about what, exactly, they meant about the ‘failing to capture the context’ mumbo-jumbo, right? ‘Failing to capture context’ can be interpreted at least two ways and it’s only possible to lie when facts are known.

But go ahead, have the impeachment vote. Shit or get off the pot already.
Click to expand...

He sure didn't. Only to you illiterate dumb fucks that can't follow simple English. What about this do you fail to understand, stupid fuck? Find someone that can comprehend English to help you out.

“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.”

Keep up the desperate delusional denial, moron. It suits you well.

Let's get those financial statements and allow people to testify. What is the Liar-in-Chief hiding?

Gullible Trumptard :rofl2:
 
Darth Omar said:
And Mullet only added to the confusion in his press conference lol!

And you realize Barr couldn’t have lied when *whoever* wrote the letter was non-descript about what, exactly, they meant about the ‘failing to capture the context’ mumbo-jumbo, right? ‘Failing to capture context’ can be interpreted at least two ways and it’s only possible to lie when facts are known.

But go ahead, have the impeachment vote. Shit or get off the pot already.
Click to expand...
They can't do either!!

So what is it now -Mueller wanted his little packet summaries dribbled out in the press?

Barr isn't playing that. He ruled not probable evidence to charge obstruction, and Russian collusion
was always a ridiculous construct from the beginning

Mueller's got his own problems of redacting Dowd and concealing the status of Manafort's "Russian contact"
 
anatta said:
They can't do either!!

So what is it now -Mueller wanted his little packet summaries dribbled out in the press?

Barr isn't playing that. He ruled not probable evidence to charge obstruction, and Russian collusion
was always a ridiculous construct from the beginning

Mueller's got his own problems of redacting Dowd and concealing the status of Manafort's "Russian contact"
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck, Barr is still DOJ. He was prohibited from charging a crime as much as Mueller was.

Mueller has no problem with the Dowd phone call. The redaction changes nothing about Dowd’s intent.

-Don’t provide information that will implicate Trump
-Inform us what’s going on in order to protect Trump.
-Offering that a pardon was available if Flynn helped Trump.

When Flynn’s attorney returned Dowd’s call and said thanks but no thanks, Dowd went nuts and made threatening remarks, now in an attempt to intimidate Flynn.
 
LV426 said:
You stapled teabags to your faces to try and convince everyone you cared about debt and deficits after increasing both with your terrible policies during Bush the Dumber.

You put on shirts that say "I'd rather be Russian than vote Democrat".

You shoot up temples, churches, schools, video game tournaments, mosques, clinics, supermarkets, movie theaters, yoga studios, offices, concerts, clubs, and bars.

You mail pipe bombs to your political opponents.

You disseminate Russian propaganda (#Walkaway).

Conservatives are reactionaries.
Click to expand...

I'd say you're retarded, but that would be an insult to those who are.
 
domer76 said:
Who was that Trump campaign aide that was arrested for possession of child porn?

Trump walked into teenage girls' dressing rooms, cheated on all three of his marriages and admitted to grabbing pussy.

Ever hear of Dennis Hastert? He was your Speaker. :rofl2:

Fucking liar.
Click to expand...

Should I name the Dems who were arrested?
 
Absolutely because it appears at trolls trying to rush the issue are playing a losing game, when Speaker Pelosi in particular are carefully and prudently working on a remedy to this global tRump atrocity.
 
gemini104104 said:
Absolutely because it appears at trolls trying to rush the issue are playing a losing game, when Speaker Pelosi in particular are carefully and prudently working on a remedy to this global tRump atrocity.
Click to expand...

Here's a few

Nick Mavroules, Massachusetts Democrat: tax evasion, accepting illegal gratuity (1992).
Albert Bustamante, Texas Democrat: racketeering (1993).
Carroll Hubbard, Kentucky Democrat: fraud and corruption (1994).
Carl Perkins, Kentucky Democrat: fraud (1994).
Charlie Rose, North Carolina Democrat: financial-disclosure irregularities (1994).
Larry Smith, Florida Democrat: tax evasion (1994).
Walter Fauntroy, District of Columbia Democrat: financial-disclosure misdemeanor (1995).
Gerald Kleczka, Wisconsin Democrat: arrested for DWI (1995 and 1990); convicted DWI (1987).
Mel Reynolds, Illinois Democrat: sexual misconduct (1995).
Walter Tucker, California Democrat: extortion (1995).
Charles Wilson, Texas Democrat: paid $90,000 fine to Federal Election Commission (1995).
Joe Kolter, Pennsylvania Democrat: fraud and conspiracy (1996).
Dan Rostenkowski, Illinois Democrat: mail fraud (1996).
Mary Rose Oakar, Ohio Democrat: financial-disclosure irregularities (1998).
Austin J. Murphy, Pennsylvania Democrat: vote fraud (1999).

You want more?
 
RB 60 said:
Here's a few

Nick Mavroules, Massachusetts Democrat: tax evasion, accepting illegal gratuity (1992).
Albert Bustamante, Texas Democrat: racketeering (1993).
Carroll Hubbard, Kentucky Democrat: fraud and corruption (1994).
Carl Perkins, Kentucky Democrat: fraud (1994).
Charlie Rose, North Carolina Democrat: financial-disclosure irregularities (1994).
Larry Smith, Florida Democrat: tax evasion (1994).
Walter Fauntroy, District of Columbia Democrat: financial-disclosure misdemeanor (1995).
Gerald Kleczka, Wisconsin Democrat: arrested for DWI (1995 and 1990); convicted DWI (1987).
Mel Reynolds, Illinois Democrat: sexual misconduct (1995).
Walter Tucker, California Democrat: extortion (1995).
Charles Wilson, Texas Democrat: paid $90,000 fine to Federal Election Commission (1995).
Joe Kolter, Pennsylvania Democrat: fraud and conspiracy (1996).
Dan Rostenkowski, Illinois Democrat: mail fraud (1996).
Mary Rose Oakar, Ohio Democrat: financial-disclosure irregularities (1998).
Austin J. Murphy, Pennsylvania Democrat: vote fraud (1999).

You want more?
Click to expand...

“Conservatives are moral and decent” :lolup::rofl2:

Pathetic fool
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top