Mueller Report Imminent

#9,653
#9,653
One person destroys evidence under subpoena by congress nothing happens, the other provides all information and no witnesses take the 5th over a period of 2 years and he is accused of obstruction to a frame job. A lot of these people need to go.

Put terms limits as an item on the 2020 ballot and let the people decide. Politician should not be a profession.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, ajvol01, tennvols77 and 1 other person
#9,660
#9,660
There is an attempt to search a person's car based on suspicion of drug activity.
The owner of the car tries desperately to block the search.
There are no drugs in the car, but there is a dead body in the trunk.
Lack of direct proof of the suspected crime has no bearing on the person's desire to obstruct in order to cover other crimes.
 
#9,661
#9,661
luthervol said:
There is an attempt to search a person's car based on suspicion of drug activity.
The owner of the car tries desperately to block the search.
There are no drugs in the car, but there is a dead body in the trunk.
Lack of direct proof of the suspected crime has no bearing on the person's desire to obstruct in order to cover other crimes.
Click to expand...

No probable cause to stop the car in the first place. Police broke the tail light after making the stop. then used that as probable cause.
 
#9,662
#9,662
IPleadInsanity said:
LOL...its over, let it go. Go back to Acme Products and try another strategy. Anxious to see.
Click to expand...
Don't delude yourself. A more complete and accurate understanding of the facts contained in the report is the objective. Anyone viewing that as a bad thing is showing their hand.
 
#9,665
#9,665
IPleadInsanity said:
No probable cause to stop the car in the first place. Police broke the tail light after making the stop. then used that as probable cause.
Click to expand...
Sure there was probable cause. The driver has a long history of dealings with people in the illegal drug business and then was stupid enough to flip off the police as he sped by them after leaving a suspected distribution warehouse.
 
#9,666
#9,666
luthervol said:
Sure there was probable cause. The driver has a long history of dealings with people in the illegal drug business and then was stupid enough to flip off the police as he sped by them after leaving a suspected distribution warehouse.
Click to expand...

You got him now, Luth.

I cannot figure out why the esteemed Mueller didn’t spell out in his report what you now want him to imply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#9,669
#9,669
DC_Vol said:
You got him now, Luth.

I cannot figure out why the esteemed Mueller didn’t spell out in his report what you now want him to imply.
Click to expand...
He is just going to restate what he spelled out in his report..............many seemed unable to comprehend the implications on their own.
Who am I kidding, it wasn't on their own, it was through the filter of Fox news and Barr. Don't sweat it though, I'm sure Fox will interpret the Mueller testimony in a way that allows you to remain a Trumper.
At best, the Mueller testimony will move 2-5% of the public......looking for that critical mass.
 
#9,670
#9,670
luthervol said:
Sure there was probable cause. The driver has a long history of dealings with people in the illegal drug business and then was stupid enough to flip off the police as he sped by them after leaving a suspected distribution warehouse.
Click to expand...

It's not illegal to flip off the police and prior history has no bearing on this current stop. If this was the case search warrants for drug dealers would be simple. "Well judge, he had a prior history so we pulled him over". Even Judge Judy would throw that out of court.
 
#9,672
#9,672
Sticking to only the report..awesome.

Please explain the foundation/basis documents of your investigation and if you verified their contents/veracity at the beginning of your investigation?

Please explain in depth the processes utilized in verifying the veracity of those documents?

Are you confident that the foundation/basis documents of your investigation are 100% based on truthful facts?

Were any foundation/basis documents discounted or ignored based on an inability to verify contents as completely accurate?

Hmmm....
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinsd and Orange_Vol1321
#9,673
#9,673
DynaLo said:
Sticking to only the report..awesome.

Please explain the foundation/basis documents of your investigation and if you verified their contents/veracity at the beginning of your investigation?

Please explain in depth the processes utilized in verifying the veracity of those documents?

Are you confident that the foundation/basis documents of your investigation are 100% based on truthful facts?

Were any foundation/basis documents discounted or ignored based on an inability to verify contents as completely accurate?

Hmmm....
Click to expand...
None of which has anything to do with Trump's guilt of innocence.
The right will attack the investigation and the investigator.
They will not defend Trump, mainly because he is indefensible.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top