They proved what was done by Trump to obstruct the investigation.Why would they be dismissed by me? What did they prove outside of talking points?
I know, you don't understand. It's OK, it's not like you have any interest.
They proved what was done by Trump to obstruct the investigation.Why would they be dismissed by me? What did they prove outside of talking points?
They proved what was done by Trump to obstruct the investigation.
You mean are there any more iductments beyond the 34 generated by the Meuller probe so far?Where is the indictments sealed or unsealed? Is there enough to proceed into impeachment? Is it more than enough to be blamed on a rookie non politician with a rookie team giving him bad advice? I know it said not enough evidence to indict and to much to exonerate, let's see how congress makes out with it.
It's been Justice Department policy, from which Mueller was not permitted to deviate, that the President cannot be indicted, since 1990.Where is the indictments sealed or unsealed? Is there enough to proceed into impeachment? Is it more than enough to be blamed on a rookie non politician with a rookie team giving him bad advice? I know it said not enough evidence to indict and to much to exonerate, let's see how congress makes out with it.
You mean are there any more iductments beyond the 34 generated by the Meuller probe so far?
http://time.com/5556331/mueller-investigation-indictments-guilty-pleas/
Don't forget that several items were spun off to the state of New York where Trump in not protected from prosecution by the Constitution.
What part of "cannot be indicted" is beyond your comprehension?But it can be sealed until he comes out of office right?
It's been Justice Department policy, from which Mueller was not permitted to deviate, that the President cannot be indicted, since 1990.
So, a decision by the government to indict a sitting president under seal coupled with a failure to do anything about it — to initiate trial proceedings or to litigate the question of whether a sitting president can be charged with a crime — could run into Sixth Amendment headwinds. It is not clear that the government would lose under these circumstances, but it could.
By the way, you might be familiar with some of the Department of Justice lawyers involved in the Doggett case when it was argued in the Supreme Court. The solicitor general on the Doggett brief filed in the Supreme Court was a gentleman by the name of Ken Starr. And the high-ranking assistant attorney general who argued the case the first time in the Supreme Court in 1991 (before it was reargued in 1992) was a gentleman by the name of Bob Mueller
How about Perjury.? He's never told the truth about anything in his entire life.https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...avoid-statute-limitations-expiring-ncna956841
So they technically need to impeach him first, so is there enough to impeach him T-bones?
How about Perjury.? He's never told the truth about anything in his entire life.
Funny. Kaboom.How about Perjury.? He's never told the truth about anything in his entire life.
You tell me , I don’t know or care .How 'bout it, coward? Where was Obama born?
Do you have a copy of this peepee tape you continue to talk about ?We'll see how much of a ground swell there is for impeachment.
I think ultimately that Barr has done a disservice to his boss on this one. As Warren and OAC and the rest of the progs dig deeper into the report they will no doubt want to go after President Pee Pee Tape.
Warren is already trying to drum up support and I don't think she will have a lot of trouble doing so.
Drain the swamp .
Trump seethes, blames ex-White House counsel after Mueller report relies on notes from White House aides
A day after the special counsel��s report offered a portrayal of President Trump��s protracted campaign to thwart the Russia investigation, Trump directed much of his ire at former White House counsel Donald McGahn, whose ubiquity in the report��s footnotes laid bare his extensive cooperation in chronicling the president��s actions.
Some of the report��s most derogatory scenes were attributed not only to the recollections of McGahn and other witnesses, but also to the contemporaneous notes kept by several senior administration officials �� the kind of paper trail that Trump has long sought to avoid leaving.
the bloke is angry and explosive...... NEVER taking responsibility for anything......... NOT fit for the job. Don't think he is fit for any job....He simply cannot work WITH others. He has to rule them and then discard them if they don't comply to his pathological whims and wishes. his disciples seem to like that. They certainly overlook his pathological lying.as if it is the "new normal"
I can see how when I said "coward," you thought I was talking to you, but I really wasn't.You tell me , I don’t know or care .
Trump's brainwashing tactics are rather successful with some. Regurgitating Trump slogans is not independent thinking.Drain the swamp .
So, pretty much what you'd expect from somebody who isn't independent and doesn't think, is it not?Trump's brainwashing tactics are rather successful with some. Regurgitating Trump slogans is not independent thinking.