You can spin it however you want. There is no evidence of a crime. No crime. Just pathetic little losers who cant win acting like losers.
Justin Amash situation and townhall is interesting
- Thread starter WVUBRU
- Start date
OK, keep telling yourself that Muller is not anti-Trump if it makes you feel better. Peter Strzok and Lisa Paige is all I need to prove that this was a politically picked team. Both of these players knew that Russian Collusion was a hoax because they created it, yet they were some of the 1st people to join Muller's staff.
I didn't say that he was pro or anti Trump. He's a Repub appointed by Repubs so there's that. You're too deep into conspiracy theories as witnessed by your attempted mind reading of two FBI agents or are you just parroting right wing talking points?
For the 18th time, Mueller said that it would be unfair to accuse Trump of crimes that he could not defend himself of. Mueller did not address collusion. Collusion is not a legal term.
If you can prove to me that Muller said that at the beginning of the investigation that he stated that the would only find facts and not come to conclusion I will let you this one.
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the
Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order asfollows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBIDirector James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i)
(ii) (iii)
any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations areapplicable to the Special Counsel.
1
At this point, Nadler has the hammer. He can make a case that the Dem majority will vote out of conference. Next step is to get it on floor, and it is doubtful that Dems will loose a vote at either place and the call for Impeachment will survive everywhere until it is brought before Senate. Trump will prevail in Senate 51-49 from where I see it.
And he did that. He just didn't do that with respect to the one person he was not allowed to prosecute. Now that's up to the House.
You're questioning when Mueller knew that he wouldn't be charging Trump? He never talked about the investigation once it began.
Care to point out where that is said with respect to the obstruction question, i.e. Volume 2?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...omments-russia-trump-lack-charges/1270761001/
And those weren't his words. He said they did not find sufficient evidence to charge for a conspiracy crime. (Maybe because of the obstruction? ---***GASP***) He did not say he didn't "find evidence of a crime".
It has been speculated that he knew by June of last year that he did not have anything on the Russian front but kept it alive hoping to find obstruction. It's as if he was leaking things hoping to force Trump to do something that he could charge him with.
My point is that he never stated how he would report out his findings, only when he knew what hand he held did he mention how he was going to play it. The MSM and many on this site speculated that he would would in fact charge Trump with a crime. My whole premise is if he did find a criminal action taken by the president, how would he have presented it?
So? Do you know why Strzok was fired? Did Strzok (or his gf) do anything wrong during the course of the investigation? besides saying Trump is an asshat between each other? did Strzok keep Trump from becoming prez? did he try to? seems like any insurance policy is total bs. Everyone has opinions. Do you think that people can not like their boss and still do their jobs? or should we all resign?
FBI agent Peter Strzok fired over anti-Trump texts
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...3fff17f0689_story.html?utm_term=.f439c58a0585
The FBI never provided detail. Her article contains speculation from unnamed former agents. I'm sure there are lots of theories out there.
And what do we know about it? If it implicated Trump why would the SC shut down the investigation prior to the conclusion?
I didn't say it implicated trump. You were complaining about the SC not being shut down last June.
And don't forget about the multiple redactions in the Mueller Report that simply list "Ongoing Matter."
Not complaining just stating things that were out there. You want me to believe that Mueller did not fully investigate every lead and just decided to shut it down? Really...
I think you mean implicate and you don't know that to be true. None of us do. That information was redacted.
No, these are his words.
The evidence we obtained about the
President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state.
So it says a crime was committed but just no charges? You keep providing quotes to "prove" your point but they prove my point. I fear that this matter may once again boil down to your debilitating lack of intelligence.
Trump still has all kinds of legal problems.
Here Are the Other Investigations President Trump Still Faces
http://time.com/5557644/donald-trump-other-investigations-mueller/
"We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime."
Plus....
"We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work."
Plus.....
The AG's stated after given the final report that they found NO criminal offenses committed by Trump on the obstruction issue.
I guess he just missed this sentence.
At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.
In America you are innocent until the prosecutor is confident you did not commit a crime. Moron
