Mueller to make statement on Russia probe

WeToddDid2 said:
He already stated what he will do.

Furthermore, perhaps you libtards finally understand that a sitting President CANNOT be indicted after all of you argued otherwise. How many fake news articles did the libtards on the board post stating the opposite? All of you were 100% wrong. Idiots.
More...


tilt tilt tilt.

Your guy committed conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Can't be charged due to DOJ guidelines (not a legal determination) and you're still...

tilting.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
You think that the info that Barr will release will not speak for itself?

Good luck wit dat. Yeh, because everyone looked to Jeff Session's character to be able to evaluate Page's and Strzok's texts, for example.
More...

No, I absolutely have doubts about the information Barr May or may not release. He is a proven liar! And not talking about his weight, I’m talking about material facts critical to a DOJ investigation of the president.

Barr is a tool. We know he will lie to protect Trump.
 
UsualName said:
No, I absolutely have doubts about the information Barr May or may not release. He is a proven liar! And not talking about his weight, I’m talking about material facts critical to a DOJ investigation of the president.

Barr is a tool. We know he will lie to protect Trump.
More...



Okay well, Barr will be releasing lots of stuff from the other intel agencies. So for example, if there is an email or text or signed document by Brennan or Clapper and it is presented unredacted, then you can be the one to argue why that is Barr lying. If it is revealed that Samantha Powers signed off on X number of unmaskings and the documents are released, then again, you can be the one to explain that those documents are bogus because Barr is a liar. Be interesting to see how that works in your jonestown mind.

Come up with a good rap because there is going to be plenty of it coming.


believe-in-something-even-if-t-means-sacrificing-everything-jon-ustdoii-36073314.png
 
wjk said:
Then Mueller should have stated that Trump committed a crime(s) but can't be indicted because of constitutional restraints.
More...
WeToddDid2 said:
First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing. And beyond department policy we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially -- it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.
More...
 
Summing up Muller's statement. I did the best I could with the phony charges you gave me to work with, couldn't find anything but gave you tremendous help during the 2018 election, and now the best I can give you is that congress should continue the investigation that I have just wrapped up which found nothing. Fingers crossed for 2020, but it's all I got. Now I shall crawl back under the swamp rock from which I came.
 
CaptainObvious said:
Summing up Muller's statement. I did the best I could with the phony charges you gave me to work with, couldn't find anything but gave you tremendous help during the 2018 election, and now the best I can give you is that congress should continue the investigation that I have just wrapped up which found nothing. Fingers crossed for 2020, but it's all I got. Now I shall crawl back under the swamp rock from which I came.
More...
I hope, for your sake, you're joking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top