in this investigation you’re a peon who doesn’t get to ask anything.
Bring on the Barr investigation, I’m sure it will be as fruitful as the 2 thousand Benghazi investigations. It’s a smokescreen, but I dont have any issue with them trying it because people will see through it.
Sure. I’m a peon. And you’re an angry, bitter peon. So I’ll take it. Deep breaths. And repeat:
Altair is cool
Altair is cool
Altair is cool.
i’m just slowly and calmly watching this whole thing play out. they haven’t even uncovered his financial crimes yet.
we have 10 years or Trump trials and investigations to go.
sleep with dogs…
Let the Trump worshipers defend him. It makes the rest of us laugh.
Which crimes might those be? Please tell!
Bears repeating. Congress is full of cowards, frightened curs slinking around a morally corrupt and incompetent POTUS.
Yes by all means. You must laugh or you risk ending up like this!
My first question would be, do you agree with the findings of the Mueller Report?
1 Like
He said absolutely no such words. It is likely your interpretation of something he said.
Write down what he literally said and you will easily see that there are other, more accurate, interpretations…or just don’t interpret it at all.
And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.
And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.
Oh dear god. 3 years ago we had trump saying the hacker was a 400lb kid in his moms basement. A year ago we had trump in helsinki saying he trusts Putin when he says Russia didn’t do anything. So he’s either lying and complicit, or dumber than a box of hair. Take your pick.
This is getting old
“And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.“
“The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding 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. A 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. The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you.“
I can do this all day.
See page two of the report. They reviewed for coordination because that was in the authorization document letter. That is what they did not find sufficient evidence of and the word they settled on.
It should be obvious if you had been able to prove coordination you also would have proven cooperation. Its really not all a word game.
Exactly. None of that says they would indict Trump except for departmental policy. All of that discussion was used to explain why they were not going to make a determination of whether a crime were involved, not that one had been involved but they were not going to indict.
In fact, Mueller says literally says the made no such determination.
Show us this statement
Huh? 
Must’ve made sense when he was typing it out.
No, cooperation and coordination are two different things, and coordination is harder to show than cooperation.
When you start inventing backslashes for words expressly used in the report, you’re Barring.
See the conclusion in Vol II, page 182. It is a short paragraph and it wouldn’t hurt you to download the report. I cannot copy and paste and have no desire to type the paragraph in total.
In part “…we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.”
