Mueller Report Imminent

#7,877
#7,877
volfanhill said:
Then why did he meet with Trump multiple times during the transition? Why does he claim he and trump have been friends for 30 years?
Click to expand...
I was wrong. It was after he got elected, and turned down Nap's request for a pardon for a friend and not offering Nap a seat on the SC.
 
#7,879
#7,879
1972 Grad said:
I was wrong. It was after he got elected, and turned down Nap's request for a pardon for a friend and not offering Nap a seat on the SC.
Click to expand...

Translation: I tried to craft a narrative around his hatred of Trump only to find that he aligns closely with his ideology and opposes him off of legitimate legal concerns. Now I will try to form a different excuse train to protect this president.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan and lawgator1
#7,883
#7,883
Nothing is going to happen to Trump where he isnt still President next November. Elections are the only way to oust him and then if people want to cool their perpetual butthurt they can try him for obstruction of a fake crime. Good luck with that.
Septic said:
How does a prosecutor decide guilt? He literally said it was the DOJ's policy not to charge a sitting president, no matter what.
Click to expand...
He didnt have to charge him with a crime. He could have said he committed a crime. I honestly believe that phrasing was Muellers very professional big F U to Trump.

Posting double ..thanks Samsung
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Franklin Pierce and McDad
#7,886
#7,886
40 % of the country will vote for Trump no matter what. 50 % will vote against him no matter what.

Trump has to run the table (as modified by the EC) to get reelected. Impeachment proceedings will not change those numbers. And given the lack of motivation that remaining 10 % must have to not have picked a side by now, one questions how many will show up to vote.

Trump may well prove Clinton wrong after all. It may not be the economy that drives the result in 2020.
 
#7,887
#7,887
1972 Grad said:
Sorry your big fish got off the hook, your horse spit the bit, your dreams didn't come true. Bwaaaahaahaa.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you said that in the other post. Complete with the forced 'bwaahhaa', it wasn't clever there either.


First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.

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.
Click to expand...

This should concern Donald.
 
#7,889
#7,889
zaqhhh said:
Translation: I tried to craft a narrative around his hatred of Trump only to find that he aligns closely with his ideology and opposes him off of legitimate legal concerns. Now I will try to form a different excuse train to protect this president.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was going from memory about how long Nap has been railing on Trump. It just seems like it has been since the primaries. I still think that Nap was Eddie Munster as a child.
 
#7,892
#7,892
FLVOL_79 said:
Nothing is going to happen to Trump where he isnt still President next November. Elections are the only way to oust him and then if people want to cool their perpetual butthurt they can try him for obstruction of a fake crime. Good luck with that.

He didnt have to charge him with a crime. He could have said he committed a crime. I honestly believe that phrasing was Muellers very professional big F U to Trump.
Click to expand...

"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. "

"And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. "
 
#7,894
#7,894
Septic said:
"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. "

"And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially — it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. "
Click to expand...
Still didn't prevent him from charging other members of Trump's team.
 
#7,895
#7,895
Septic said:
This should concern Donald.
Click to expand...
Not one bit. That’s count one of the Muell implying obstruction when Trump told him to piss off on a sit down. The Muell could have subpoenaed him. He chose not to and bought some extra Preparation H on the way home that day.

Trump would have been a fool to respond for a sit down with no subpoena in the mix. And that subpoena never came. That’s on the Muell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and volfanjustin
#7,900
#7,900
Septic said:
They weren't the POTUS.

C'mon man.
Click to expand...
Nope not the point. Only the Donald has that protection. Any other member of the campaign could have been charged. None were. Thus it’s fairly certain there was no evidence of which they could level any other campaign individual on conspiracy. This was the original charge given to the Muell and it was a complete dry hole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top