When you start asking "why?", their defense falls apart

StoneByStone said:
Because we can't indict a sitting president.

Next question.
Click to expand...

That isn't true, but regardless of that point

Is there OLC guidelines that say they couldn't indict OTHERS? Can we not indict a sitting President's son? His lawyer?

Remember I said ANYONE, not just the President. Thank you so much for falling into my trap and showing you just spout off left wing talking points from Rachel Maddow and don't think for yourself
 
domer76 said:
If you can't indict, you can't prosecute, stupid fuck.

“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.”
Click to expand...


Justice Department policy is that NOBODY can be indicted? Remember I asked why ANYONE wasn't indicted. You seem to be solely focused on the President as if others don't matter. Why is that?

Is that because this has always been witch hunt?

Thanks for proving my point. I knew you would
 
DUMBER IQ of 76 said:
Kilimnik worked for Deripaska, who had close ties to the Kremlin. Gates testified that it was understood Kilimnik would deliver the info to Deripaska.

This was the intent of Dowd's recorded call, idiot.

The parts of the Dowd phone call left out does nothing to change the 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.
Click to expand...

:lolup:Another laughable pile of STUPID from the forums pet idiot. :laugh:
 
DUMBER IQ of 76 said:
If you can't indict, you can't prosecute, stupid fuck.

“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.”
Click to expand...

You sad, pathetic, dishonest lying idiot; then why have the investigation at all?
 
Teflon Don said:
Why did Mueller not indict ANYONE for conspiracy or obstruction?

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY

WHY
Click to expand...

I noticed that the Living Victim didn't bother to ask why did the left lie to the Judge, to get this investigation started or why they're still crying over the Mueller report not giving them what they wanted.

There are more why's; but the Living Victim just can't survive without a chalk line around her.

:facepalm:
 
LV426 said:
The only fools here are the ones defending Trump, but refusing to explain why he and his people did what Mueller outlines in his report.

You're going to carry that baggage with you forever.

Not sure if you truly realize the implication of what you're doing.
Click to expand...

Did you ever consider that just maybe Mueller decided it wasn't any of your fucking business??

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
AssHatZombie said:
exoneration is not what special prosecutors do. he just pretended it's what they do give you nutbags gas for your crazy car.
Click to expand...

If you can't indict, you can't prosecute, dumbfuck.

“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.”

Last sentence in the report.

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. "
 
LV426 said:
The problem with you is that you're a Russian troll whose job it is to come on these boards and test out bullshti before you disseminate it across broader social media.

So you create myriad IDs to argue the same points from, but with different voices (ostensibly...you eventually slide into the same habits that make it so easy to identify you...because you're lazy as fuck) to give the impression that there's more support for your bullshit than there actually is.

You astroturf on the internet to feel less secure in your failed arguments, beliefs, and policies.

You're not very good at this.
Click to expand...

After that post of yours, it's now obvious what the real problem is and it's that your certifiably insane.

:truestory:
 
Teflon Don said:
Is there OLC guidelines that say they couldn't indict OTHERS?
Click to expand...

34 business and individuals were indicted, resulting in over 150+ charges and convictions and over $40M seized.

You're lying because you're desperate.

Trump is making you carry his baggage. What a sucker.
 
Teflon Don said:
Justice Department policy is that NOBODY can be indicted? Remember I asked why ANYONE wasn't indicted. You seem to be solely focused on the President as if others don't matter. Why is that?
Click to expand...

34 business and individuals were indicted for crimes related to what's in the Mueller report.

There are also 13 or 14 other current investigations you don't even know about.

So the question is why are you lying?
 
Teflon Don said:
Justice Department policy is that NOBODY can be indicted? Remember I asked why ANYONE wasn't indicted. You seem to be solely focused on the President as if others don't matter. Why is that?

Is that because this has always been witch hunt?

Thanks for proving my point. I knew you would
Click to expand...

Goddam, what an illiterate cunt!

34 indictments, halfwit. How many of Trump's boys in prison or going to Prison?

:lolup::rofl2:
 
DUMBER IQ of 76 said:
If you can't indict, you can't prosecute, dumbfuck.

“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.”

Last sentence in the report.

"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. "
Click to expand...

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.

Barr: 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.
 
LV426 said:
You don't need to read the thing you are commenting about.

LOL.
Click to expand...

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.

Barr: 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.
 
LV426 said:
According to the guidelines Mueller was working under, it is true.

Furthermore, you are so stupid, you were conned by Trump...so why would your instincts be good here?
Click to expand...

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.

Barr: 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top