so?
I keep hearing, there is nothing to investigate:
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
so?
Trump did what he was allowed to do as President.
Mullet did not recommend anything against him to Barr.
And, Mullet stated that Barr's summary report was accurate.
Superfreak
Verified User
"The
investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the
IRA. " Page four of the summary.
"Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to
the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was
not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to
charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian
principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks' s releases of hacked
materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence
was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with
representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. " Page 9 of the summary
So, you see, that is significantly different than your original claim.
Ignorance of the law is now an excuse?
Superfreak
Verified User
Who is gone Garud? What charges did Mueller bring against Flynn, Cohen and Manafort? Can you list them?
Superfreak
Verified User
That is funny. You are ignorant of the law and demanding more information be provided. Whining about redactions when you should know they are required by law.
Superfreak
Verified User
Please elaborate.
You claimed one thing, then provided a quote of a very different thing. I guess you got nothing, as usual.
Dance candy, dance.
Superfreak
Verified User
Once again you prove yourself a liar. You stated Mueller did not make any conclusions. I stated he did. You asked for the quote of the conclusions. I provided them.
Now you say that my original and subsequent comments were very different. I ask you to elaborate on why you think that. You spew forth your nonsense above.
You are a liar. You know it, the board knows it.
Holy smoke.
And according to Justin Amash, and former GOP congressman Joe Walsh, there are Republicans in congress who privately agree with Amash's conclusion that Trump committed impeachable offenses. Its just that they can't tear themselves away from keeping their lips locked on his flabby ass.
False.
so do it.
you guys want to be able to claim crimes without proof,and then you want to threaten Impeachment without doing it
All you got is innuendo and slime. Hopefully the American people punish the Dems for their duplicity
Superfreak
Verified User
Once again you run away... what is the difference? Simply stating there is a difference without explanation shows that you know you are lying.
Justine Amash (Conservative Republican-Michigan) just tweeted today that Trump's efforts to obstruct justice are inherently corrupt and explains how Trump abused his presidential powers. .
Superfreak
Verified User
The desperation of moronic leg humping rape apologists is amusing. Clinging to whatever they can and screaming 'THIS IS IT!' for the 100,000th time.
How sad is that, they need to read the oath they swore to take office.
oh well gee. he's a #neverTrump -who the fuck cares about what he says?
Like I said you guys soo want to impeach but are a bunch of cowards, so you rely on slime and innuendo.
Nancy says shit like "villanous" "wants to be impeached" -accuses Trump of a criminal "cover up"
Put up or STFU.. Trump called the Dems "do nothings" today" - I can think of a lot worse characterizations.
Sore losers /cowards / pure obstructionists / liars -take your picks
Are you blind? I said "Trump did what he was allowed to do as President."