And Durham is having to investigate all these areas at once.
It really could. The dems we hve here are the worst.Most Democrats want Hillary Clinton investigated for any role in Russiagate scandal: poll
Exclusive | Most Democrats want Hillary Clinton investigated for any role in Russiagate scandal: poll
Democrats want to see Hillary Clinton investigated over her possible role in manufacturing dirt to try to tie Donald Trump to the Kremlin.nypost.com
Even the overwhelming majority of libs agree with this.. Funny enough not one lib here does.. God this board could use a few honest libs..
What are you basing this on?
Here is Mueller’s actual statement about the report:
Relevant excerpt:
"
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
[COLOR=var(--noir-inline-color)]We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.[/COLOR]
It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
"
Lol…wasn’t Trump supposed to be back in the White House by now, seriously WTF?!?!?
With all due respect, the "Relevant excerpt" you quote was simply linguistic parsing to make Trump look as guilty as possible without explicitly admitting they had nothing to charge him with. There was a classic phrase in the report that said (paraphasing): "While this report does not charge the President, neither does it exonerate him"What are you basing this on?
Here is Mueller’s actual statement about the report:
Relevant excerpt:
"
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
[COLOR=var(--noir-inline-color)]We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.[/COLOR]
It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
"
Correction. Mueller declined because he didn’t have enough evidence to do anything meaningful. How do we know this? Because Dems would have done more using his report if there was.
And he said that obama and Hiden both knew about it. Which we discussed on this board about 2 years ago because Q pointed us to this information.
@Uniformed_ReRe is simply backdating facts to suit his narrative again.
But it gave the media talking points to run with and feed the sheep. Who are all too willing to gobble down.
Also Mueller and company didn't decline crap in reality. Barr made it clear to him that joke claim wasn't going to be referred to Congress for a possible impeachment. It's a good thing they reigned these special counsels in as they can be used as political hit men just like Mueller's band of clowns were used.
So, you are saying, Mueller's Job was to find Trump guilty of something, anything, and even though every member of his team were Trump hating democrats, most who donated $ to Hillary, who spent 3+ years and millions and millions of tax payer $, they found nothing that lead them to be able to determine that a crime was committed.What are you basing this on?
Here is Mueller’s actual statement about the report:
Relevant excerpt:
"
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
[COLOR=var(--noir-inline-color)]We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.[/COLOR]
It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
"
I mean, that kinda proves there's nothing there.
What are you basing this on?
Here is Mueller’s actual statement about the report:
Relevant excerpt:
"
As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.
[COLOR=var(--noir-inline-color)]We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.[/COLOR]
It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.
The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
"
I legit thought his name was @uninformedrere for the first year he posted here. Someone finally pointed out that his name should have been 'uninformed' and that's when I realized it wasn't.
