So you are relying on the fact that someone Trump hired to be loyal to him said he did nothing wrong and completing ignoring the conclusion of independent investigators. Gotcha.
As I said before, we still know that:
Tons of Trump’s staff had contacts with the Russians and that they reached out to the Russians for information that they believe would help them win.
Trump and several of his associates lied about what happened and attempted to cover it up. Some of them are in jail due to their lies.
Trump repeatedly tried to remove investigators and wanted to install loyalists who would only look into future elections and not issues with his election.
Many of Trump’s subordinates did not follow his orders as they viewed them as being illegal.
And yet, in the end, Mueller could not accuse Trump of a crime or conspiracy with Russia. Just things he did or some other people did that you don’t like.
Let Pelosi do it. Just do it.
The reason Mueller did not accuse trump of a crime has to do with the fact that he explicitly stated it would be unfair to do so because he can’t be indicted…therefore he can’t defend himself. Giving the restrictions placed on Mueller it was his job to lay out the facts and congress can choose to act on it.
There was a restriction on indicting him, there was no restriction whatsoever in finding he had committed a crime. Mueller did not say Trump had committed a crime because there was none.
The report states that the “investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to [Mueller’s team] and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.”
The report also states that many of their communications were deleted and also made using apps that don’t keep records.
Nowhere does it suggest that their was no evidence of criminal activity. Only that the evidence was not sufficient to be provable beyond a reasonable doubt. There is indeed evidence of obstruction and conspiracy laid out in the report.
The “he” I was referring to was Trump, not various other people who may have lied under oath.
Ok. Poor evidence that did not prove criminal activity in relation to Trump. So what? They are going to impeach based on faulty or insufficient evidence? Well, I wouldn 't put it past Pelosi and Waters and such. Fortunately, the impeachment would be dead in the water.
There are plenty of terrible things that a president can do that are not “technically illegal”… it certainly doesn’t mean that those things wouldn’t make him unfit for office or that those things wouldn’t be considered impeachable offenses.
Also, you don’t seem to understand that simply because certain laws are complicated and involve proving intent or are hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt when officials are lying and deleting information… it does not mean that all existing information is “weak.”
You have to be joking. Man Fox is good, they outperform virtually every other news outlet combined in swaying public opinion. They must have Russian facebook ad writers working for them.
