Fox News says Mueller report did NOT clear Trump

[domer76]

And nine out of ten juries would have thrown the indictment out.

Funny, a 1000 former federal prosecutors say otherwise.

 

[domer76]

Port tack is a waste of time for intellectual conversation.

You can’t cut that irony with a chain saw!

 

[Southern Chicken]

Funny, a 1000 former federal prosecutors say otherwise.

Did any of those 1000 former prosecutor have direct access to review the case? No they didn't. They even signed the petition as we believe. They didn't state they knew the case directly.

 

[Micawber]

The only interesting question is whether, if nothing new comes about (through further investigation or impeachment proceedings
altering the Republican rank in file consciousness, and after Trump loses in a massive electoral and popular landslide election to whomsoever
the wildly unpopular and hated PIG goes up against), will he be immediately indicted or not.

I consider all events within above parenthetical fait accompli.

 

[Southern Chicken]

The congress now has the report and they don't give a flying fuck about the AG's explanation, hell, he is being held in contempt of congress as it is now.

Then why is there only 14% members of the house supports impeachment?

 

[domer76]

Did any of those 1000 former prosecutor have direct access to review the case? No they didn't. They even signed the petition as we believe. They didn't state they knew the case directly.

There’s plenty in the redacted report, you fucking moron.

You know, the one you idiots HAVEN’T read.

https://www.newsweek.com/former-federal-prosecutors-trump-indicted-wasnt-president-1439716

Loser

 

[Southern Chicken]

You can’t cut that irony with a chain saw!

How is hoong?

 

[Micawber]

The Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.

Mueller report ^

 

[domer76]

How is hoong?

^”Intellectual” anything with you, halfwit, is an oxymoron.

 

[Althea]

I have. It isn't in there. So you can either back your claim by citing page and paragraph or you can admit you were wrong

Sorry. You didn't read it. When you do, get back to us.

Or...you did read it, and you're lying again. It's 50/50 which of the above options it is.

 

[Micawber]

How is hoong?

What is hoong

 

[Althea]

No individual is above the law. Not even the President. The DoJ may delay the indictment, but that is all

LMAO. When the DOJ is acting as the president's personal legal team, POTUS is above the law. Why do you think he hand picked the moron who applied for the job via a dissertation re. POTUS' immunity from prosecution?

 

[Southern Chicken]

What is hoong

Just a friend of domer. Isn't that right, domer? He made a recent ode to hoong on one of his post. It was beautiful.

 

[Southern Chicken]

^”Intellectual” anything with you, halfwit, is an oxymoron.

And you're the expert? Lol , too funny

 

[Micawber]

Just a friend of domer. Isn't that right, domer? He made a recent ode to hoong on one of his post. It was beautiful.

price of rice in china stuff then

 

[Darth Omar]

Funny, a 1000 former federal prosecutors say otherwise.

How many of them are rushing to court with their ‘indictments’ lol?

 

[Legion]

Thats because this was the president and he can't indict him, if he could have he would have.

So you say.

What was the purpose of the 18 month and $20 + million witch hunt?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

But that’s kind of it lol.

It’s a policy and it’s open to interpretation. The reason presidents should be immune from indictment is because state Attorneys General could file bogus indictments against a president for partisan reasons. So rather than opening that Pandoras Box it was decided presidents should be immune from indictments—while serving. Makes perfect sense and it’s a good rule.

Sadly, presidents aren’t immune from partisan Witch Hunts.

At any rate, note that says *nothing* about presidents being immune from criminal conclusions or determinations that arise out of investigations. A conclusion is not an indictment. Mullet is totally on his own with that one. There is NO reason Mullet couldn’t have concluded Trump’s actions were worthy of indictment and then *plainly stated* it as such.

But he left us this Mumbo-jumbo about Trump being not not guilty of obstruction. I challenge anyone to cite another single instance where a federal prosecutor ended with such an absurd proclamation. And along with it, the so-called ten instances of obstruction which are actually ten potential instances of obstruction.

It’s very easy to get the idea it was done in order to give House Democrats something to work with. In fact, that’s the most plausible explanation for the contortions.

Yeah, but the suspicious right biased view is not the only perspective in the situation.

 

[Legion]

How many of them are rushing to court with their ‘indictments’ lol?

None, lol.

 

[Legion]

Hell, polls in Texas say if he goes against Biden he will lose that state. He damn sure won't win any of the states in the rust belt like he did last time, the guys a fucking idiot as are those who support him.

Polls.