Poll: More support impeaching Trump than Nixon at start of Watergate

Southern Chicken said:
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
Click to expand...

“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.”

He outlined 10 instances of obstruction.
I can’t fix your willful ignorance.
 
Superfreak said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course there are exceptions, but this is certainly most boomers and older people.
I don't think I've ever even seen an older person have beliefs from both the Left and the Right.
 
domer76 said:
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.”
Click to expand...

Lets try to have a discussion without you resorting to gutter ad hominem attacks, ok?
IF we had confidence part of the sentence show a lack of conclusion(as you posted one way OR the other). He left it up to Barr to decide, correct?
 
domer76 said:
“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.”

He outlined 10 instances of obstruction.
I can’t fix your willful ignorance.
Click to expand...

Did the report label them as obstruction of Justice/probable cause to indict or did you?
 
DEMOCRAT domer76 said:
^Stupid fuck doesn’t even know the role of Congree. Pathetic dumbfuck.
Click to expand...

What does "Congree" (sic) have to do with the crowing of countless DEMOCRATS over the Mueller report during the past couple of years?

I'll understand if you can't explain, naturally.

Loser.

:rofl2:
 
Southern Chicken said:
Did the report label them as obstruction of Justice or did you?
Click to expand...

He's been like a stuck record......always leaves out "opportunities for obstruction".
If he had found "OBSTRUCTION", he would have advised Barr to that fact. But, Mullet said that he "could not conclude that."
 
Southern Chicken said:
Lets try to have a discussion without you resorting to gutter ad hominem attacks, ok?
IF we had confidence part of the sentence show a lack of conclusion(as you posted one way OR the other). He left it up to Barr to decide, correct?
Click to expand...

Then quit lying.

Yeah, he left it up to the liar. And still with the inability to indict.

He also left it up to Congress.
 
Southern Chicken said:
Did the report label them as obstruction of Justice/probable cause to indict or did you?
Click to expand...

Let's try this one more time, dumbfuck.

The issue of indictment was never on the table. What part of that do you fail to understand?

"In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.""
 
Stretch said:
He's been like a stuck record......always leaves out "opportunities for obstruction".
If he had found "OBSTRUCTION", he would have advised Barr to that fact. But, Mullet said that he "could not conclude that."
Click to expand...

Exactly my point to Domer. He would repeat this but somehow omit that the report didn't label the "outlined 10 instances" as opportunities for obstruction. There isnt a reference to the OLC opinion being THE REASON that the report did or didnt outline probable cause.
 
domer76 said:
Let's try this one more time, dumbfuck.

The issue of indictment was never on the table. What part of that do you fail to understand?

"In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.""
Click to expand...

Did he call those "outlined 10 instances ." probable causes for obstruction? What were the "conclusions reached?
 
Southern Chicken said:
Exactly my point to Domer. He would repeat this but somehow omit that the report didn't label the "outlined 10 instances" as opportunities for obstruction. There isnt a reference to the OLC opinion being THE REASON that the report did or didnt outline probable cause.
Click to expand...

Those are words DIRECTLY from Volume II of the Mueller report.

I can't dumb it down ay more for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top