Poll: More support impeaching Trump than Nixon at start of Watergate
- Thread starter Cinnabar
- Start date
Fucking idiot; Under the current law, the special counsel's focus is somewhat more limited, with the scope of the investigation set by the attorney general and confined to investigating criminal matters.
If the moron argument is that Mueller cannot indict or come to a conclusion regarding a crime being committed; why the fuck did we spend $35 million and engage in a HOAX for two fucking years.
You morons on the left are too stupid to comprehend the OBVIOUS.
Superfreak
Verified User
"Prosecutors were unable to determine what became of the data or if Deripaska received it. Kilimnik, in an email exchange on Thursday with Bloomberg News, said he had no ties to Russian intelligence and didn’t pass along detailed polling data.
“I never got any in-depth polling data,” Kilimnik said. “This is the main issue being misinterpreted. As someone who worked with Paul on political campaigns for over 10 years I was very much interested in the U.S. presidential race. The notion that I got detailed polling data on several key states is simply nonsense. I did not share it with anyone.”
https://news.yahoo.com/why-did-manafort-share-trump-183456837.html
Again, that is not evidence of collusion.
Also, please cite the page the above is on. I looked on both pages I quoted and I am missing it somehow.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Can you show me where in his report he said that he had probable cause to indict a sitting president but because of the limitations of the Department of Justice he couldn't indict him? The OLC opinion didnt set a limit for including this type of statement in the report. In fact his position was the OLC opinion guided their work.
The OLC rules prohibited him from acting in a prosecutorial role. He reiterated that the other day with his statement.
“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”
Indeed.
Post the text that proves your claim - with a link.
I'll understand completely if you can't, naturally.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
That DOESNT answer the question does it?
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Sure, but there are also many who don't. With boomers, virtually all of them are stuck in their echo chambers. They're pretty much all NPCs repeating the same talking points about the Democrat plantations and how such and such is Socialism.
Words are hard for DEMOCRAT Domer.
Educate yourself.
So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Question again for ya
Southern Chicken
Verified User
in·con·clu·sive in other words,right?
inconclusive
adjective US /ˌɪn·kənˈklu·sɪv/
not giving or having a result or decision
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/inconclusive
So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated. And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/politics/mueller-transcript.html
So you keep claiming, DEMOCRAT.
Link up and cite the supporting text in the Mueller report, if you can.
Naturally, I will understand if you can't.
Loser.
Superfreak
Verified User
That is also nonsense. There are certainly some that fit your description, but you have no evidence that 'virtually all' are.
Your final sentence dictates that you are wrong. Unless you think all boomers are Reps/conservatives, which is of course nonsense.
Nope, dumbfuck, not in other words.
“As set forth in the report, after the investigation, if we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not.”