For all the MAGAt Trumpeteers and Lie-brul commies to post their wearisome screeds.
The board admins are not responsible for any items posted from Biker's FaceBook feed.
The introduction to the Volume II of our report explains that decision. It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The department’s written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report, and I will describe two of them for you.
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 wrongdoing. 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.
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. That is the office’s final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the attorney general, as required by department regulations.
Pretty straightforward, he stated he hadn't cleared trump of obstruction and would have done if he could, then he explains that it wasn't open to him to indict, because it is congress's job to impeach.
Over to congress to investigate and impeach on the obstruction, and trump is already doing all he can to obstruct that process.
Biker wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 10:39 pm
He couldve also said that he couldnt find sufficient evidence to charge Trump
You lose, bitch. No collusion, no obstruction
Plenty of collusion actually, I keep offering to walk you trumpcucks through it but no takers.
Also solid obstruction - I don't think you understood what he said. Or you're pretending not to. He said he could not under any circumstances charge trump because justice department guidelines say a sitting president cannot be indicted. Charging him was not an available option. Can you comprehend that? Then he said he could not clear trump of obstruction and would if he could, and that the proper constitutional channel would be congress impeaching.
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 11:12 pm
Plenty of collusion actually, I keep offering to walk you trumpcucks through it but no takers.
Nope. If there were plenty there wouldve been a charge. In fact, RM cleared DJT of collusion
Keep waving that flag all the way to 2020
Collusion isn't a crime dumbass, what would the charge be? RM did not clear him of it, liar. I'd have thought you'd have been able to register collusion isn't actually a crime after trump's personal lawyer pointed it out after collusion was proved, many months back. Trump always brings everyone back to the fold pretty quick with no collusion tweets, but you must know the collusion isn't a crime line has been briefly switched to several times now since you parrot the daily line no matter what it is. Collusion really isn't a crime, but that's just too shameful and traitorous a line to stick to, even for you - and you'd glady suck trump's cock while Putin fucked your asshole and gave you a reacharound. What would the charge be for something that isn't a crime?
Your president and his campaign colluded with the russian GRU campaign to interfere in your election. Yet again, happy to take you through examples in the Mueller report. Yet again you will decline because you know I can.
And yet again, you dumbfuck, Mueller has just explained to you in a public statement today that he could not and would not have brought charges against trump for anything under any circumstances because a sitting president simply cannot be indicted. What part of that are you unable to grasp? In Mueller's view all an SC can do is what he did, lay out the criminal conduct for congress to impeach. Then give a fucking press conference explaining to you dimwits that's what he did.
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 11:12 pm
Plenty of collusion actually, I keep offering to walk you trumpcucks through it but no takers.
M
Nope. If there were plenty there wouldve been a charge. In fact, RM cleared DJT of collusion
Keep waving that flag all the way to 2020
No....Mueller said that a sitting President cannot be indicted. Mueller emphasized that he and his team “would not” make a decision about whether to charge President Donald Trump with the crime of obstruction of justice because of Department of Justice policy against indicting a sitting president.
He was even bending over backwards to be fair to Trump by not laying out charges that he couldn't defend against in a court room.
He said that impeachment is the constitutional way of accusing a President of wrong doing.
Wut wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 11:28 pm
Trump's statement on the issue was pretty weak:
"Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. "
Pretty much
There was not sufficient evidence of obstruction of justice of charges that were proven to be a hoax
You're misreading what he said. Mueller said:
"This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy."
What Mueller is saying is that there was a Russian effort to influence our election and a Trump campaign response to the effort. There is evidence of a conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign but not enough to charge with a conspiracy.
He does not say that their is insufficient evidence of obstruction..
Russian collusion has and will continue to be a circus side show; next act: 'investigating the investigation'.
Don't be surprised if its released just before the election- damning the dem front runner just in time to justify Trumps 2020 win.
“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither, the society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great deal of both.” --Milton Friedman
Your emotional obsessions cloud what is right in front of your face my friend.
You are so obsessed posting anti-trump rhetoric you are blind to your own parties true loyalties and agendas.
But then, that is exactly the point. You are being hoodwinked by design.
“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither, the society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great deal of both.” --Milton Friedman
Every day I think I've seen the most idiotic shit the GOP has to offer; but then one of these motherfuckers stands up, chugs a gallon of Trumpaid, and says "Fuck you, I am Spartacus".
DandyDon wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 2:56 am
Every day I think I've seen the most idiotic shit the GOP has to offer; but then one of these motherfuckers stands up, chugs a gallon of Trumpaid, and says "Fuck you, I am Spartacus".
Not only is this guy a lawyer but he is the Attorney General of Louisiana. scary
DandyDon wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 2:56 am
Every day I think I've seen the most idiotic shit the GOP has to offer; but then one of these motherfuckers stands up, chugs a gallon of Trumpaid, and says "Fuck you, I am Spartacus".
Cassandros wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 1:56 am
Your emotional obsessions cloud what is right in front of your face my friend.
You are so obsessed posting anti-trump rhetoric you are blind to your own parties true loyalties and agendas.
But then, that is exactly the point. You are being hoodwinked by design.
Its the Jews again huh?
Zionist, really. But yes, they are major players in US politics.
On Trump specifically:
If you think one party is immune to their influence while the other is not- you're delusional.
“When the chips are down, I have Israel's back.” — Barack Obama, AIPAC conference, March 4, 2012
Blue M&Ms right now are playing their part to make it look like there is push back. Its all part of the show.
“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither, the society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great deal of both.” --Milton Friedman