SERIOUS question for all Trump acolytes on this forum....

[Geaux4it]

WHERE......for sanity sake......do you Trump acolytes that Trump was EXONERATED by the Mueller report???

Seriously, you can say that Barr "exonerated" Trump

You can say that Trump, exonerated Trump
You can say that KellyAnn has exonerated Trump
You can say that Hannity has exonerated Trump

BUT, when you state that Mueller has exonerated Trump you are either a fucking idiot.....You did not read the redacted report, or you're beyond sanity in discussing this issue...

READ THE DAMN REPORT and you CANNOT conclude that Mueller "exonerated" Trump.......

READ, COMPREHEND and LEARN, for God's sake.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Meister]

You going down those rabbit trails do nothing to further the conversation and you're entirely wrong on the one item that was part of this conversation.

I am the one who is right. Try reading the report. For you're the one going down trails trying to pretend the report says what you want to believe.

I have no question you think your right, IM2.
That does not make it right.

It does when I am reading the report.

Of course it does...I would never question that you don't think that.

Gaslighting doesn't work here Meister and that's all you got.

Read the report.

Nobody is gaslighting, when you're wrong you're wrong. You go back and read the report
and look at the precise wording, not what you want it to be.
Have a good day, IM2.

 

[Aponi]

There are THREE ways to interpret Mueller's report (with its Barr redactions)

LEGALLY........Trump cannot be indicted based on DOJ policy (NOT law)

POLITICALLY...........Trump is as guilty as OJ Simpson

MORALLY.........Trump is as guilty as Charlie Manson

Guilty of what you lug nut

 

[nat4900]

Guilty of what you lug nut

Oh, Nothing......nothing....Sorry to have disturbed your nap........Go back to bed...................................lol

 

[IM2]

I am the one who is right. Try reading the report. For you're the one going down trails trying to pretend the report says what you want to believe.

I have no question you think your right, IM2.
That does not make it right.

It does when I am reading the report.

Of course it does...I would never question that you don't think that.

Gaslighting doesn't work here Meister and that's all you got.

Read the report.

Nobody is gaslighting, when you're wrong you're wrong. You go back and read the report
and look at the precise wording, not what you want it to be.
Have a good day, IM2.

I have. And that's why I know I am right. So you go read the actual report and learn what is being said.

You are trying to dismiss 14 potential crimes because of the word potential. Had this been Hillary Clinton or any democrat you'd ignore the word potential. Now as you read the actual report:

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.

The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information — such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media — in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or “taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well — numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign-deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.

None of these facts allow what you say to be credible and the 14 crimes outsourced by Mueller doesn't change the facts contained in this report.

 

[nat4900]

I have no question you think your right, IM2.
That does not make it right.

It does when I am reading the report.

Of course it does...I would never question that you don't think that.

Gaslighting doesn't work here Meister and that's all you got.

Read the report.

Nobody is gaslighting, when you're wrong you're wrong. You go back and read the report
and look at the precise wording, not what you want it to be.
Have a good day, IM2.

I have. And that's why I know I am right. So you go read the actual report and learn what is being said.

You are trying to dismiss 14 potential crimes because of the word potential. Had this been Hillary Clinton or any democrat you'd ignore the word potential. Now as you read the actual report:

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.

The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information — such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media — in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or “taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well — numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign-deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.

None of these facts allow what you say to be credible and the 14 crimes outsourced by Mueller doesn't change the facts contained in this report.

Good synopsis....Well stated.

 

[playtime]

Trump: 'Don’t believe what you’re reading or seeing'

Giuliani: 'Truth isn't truth'

Kellyanne Conway : "You're saying it's a falsehood, and they're saying Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that."

that's the world they live in.

But, they were right.

All the people on the left said this was going to be a smoking gun. They all said there was collusion. They all said Trump is a puppet of Russia, which there are people on this forum still saying it to this day.

They all said "here's the truth! Trump is (insert accusation after accusation)"

And now we know for a fact...... Truth isn't truth. Giuliani was right. 'Don't believe what you're reading and seeing', and Trump was right.

So you can say that's the world we live in.... because it's the world you live in too. Jessie Smollett anyone? Don't believe what you see and hear, because the left is full of liars.

oh bullshit.

the only reason mueller wrote a declination on 'collusion' was because 'documentary' evidence had been destroyed AND he couldn't get trump to do an interview. he didn't have enough to recommend charging him with conspiracy although itprobably would have gone that way. hence the obstruction... hence he wants congress to take it up per DOJ policy.

Really? I seem to remember an email server where the information was wiped by professional data wiping software, and that didn't stop you from saying Hillary was innocent, when her only 'alibi' was that she didn't know what classified information was... you know... after being in high office for decades she couldn't tell what was classified.

Now suddenly, because "the information was destroyed" is grounds to claim he was guilty? What information are we talking about? What document proving collusion did he destroy?

Hypocrites all of you.

a small 'c' within chainmails is not the standard 'classified' markings on materials. & ummmm... panty waist jared has been outed for using 'what's app' , & couldn't get a security clearance if his life depended on it - yet donny granted one to him whilst lying that he did just that.

lol... next?

I'm confused...... what does this have to do with Hillary professionally wiping data, to prevent an investigation of it?

Nothing. So what point do you have? None. So.... lol.... next?

prove what was wiped was actually governmental data. you can't. another thing you can't do is blast & chastise hillary for using a personal server when trump's son in law uses what's app & trump's own twitter usage among other communication is done on an unsecured phone.

lol.... yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa............................ NEXT.

 

[playtime]

lol... it all depends on the circumstances. liberals do join the military & have gone to war...

That’s why I said most. If you folks were truly as bloodthirsty as we Conservatives are there would have been an armed insurrection in January of 2017.

lol.... 'bloodthirsty'.... you don't even talk a good game.

 

[playtime]

Mueller wrote that his office “cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.”

This has to be the stupidest statement ever uttered by an investigator.

"We don't have any evidence, but if we did we'd have more."

except that's not what he wrote. making shit up does nothing for you, incel.

 

[Leo123]

prove what was wiped was actually governmental data. you can't. another thing you can't do is blast & chastise hillary for using a personal server when trump's son in law uses what's app & trump's own twitter usage among other communication is done on an unsecured phone.

lol.... yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa............................ NEXT.

Hillary destroyed it. She learned well from White Water where the shredding machines were working overtime. Today all you gotta do is just 'bleach' your hard drive, remove the Sim cards from your phones, destroy the Sims and take a hammer to your phones. Brilliant really, commit a crime and cover your tracks. Like any criminal would do. There is no classified information that Trump is giving out on Twitter or what's app. P.S.......Hey Nat, nice funnyface so....you got nothin'...as usual.

 

[Aponi]

Guilty of what you lug nut

Oh, Nothing......nothing....Sorry to have disturbed your nap........Go back to bed...................................lol

just answer the fucking question lug nut

 

[Meister]

I have no question you think your right, IM2.
That does not make it right.

It does when I am reading the report.

Of course it does...I would never question that you don't think that.

Gaslighting doesn't work here Meister and that's all you got.

Read the report.

Nobody is gaslighting, when you're wrong you're wrong. You go back and read the report
and look at the precise wording, not what you want it to be.
Have a good day, IM2.

I have. And that's why I know I am right. So you go read the actual report and learn what is being said.

You are trying to dismiss 14 potential crimes because of the word potential. Had this been Hillary Clinton or any democrat you'd ignore the word potential. Now as you read the actual report:

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.

The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information — such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media — in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or “taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well — numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign-deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.

None of these facts allow what you say to be credible and the 14 crimes outsourced by Mueller doesn't change the facts contained in this report.

What do you have Trump guilty of? That's my entire point. Nice big font though...cool.

 

[nat4900]

Guilty of what you lug nut

Oh, Nothing......nothing....Sorry to have disturbed your nap........Go back to bed...................................lol

just answer the fucking question lug nut

I don't "answer" moronic questions by Trump ass kissers........AND, I abide with what G.B. Shaw once stated.....lol

 

[nat4900]

Hey Nat, nice funnyface so....you got nothin'...as usual.

True.......I have "nothing"........

But hell, what the House committees have and will have is going to feel like a painful kick in your little gonads......LMAO.

 

[TemplarKormac]

WHERE......for sanity sake......do you Trump acolytes that Trump was EXONERATED by the Mueller report???

It wasn't the purpose of the report to exonerate him. The appropriate parts of our justice system do that.

 

[Markle]

donny still hasta worry about multiple investigations re: his inauguration, campaign finance violations, & tax problems...

You mean like this?

Obama 2008 campaign fined $375,000
By MAGGIE HABERMAN
01/04/2013 03:48 PM EST
Obama 2008 campaign fined $375,000

 

[Markle]

A) nixon released his taxes whilst being audited, so capt crazy pants has no exuse

B) it is required for the IRS to actually make sure any 'president' not be a tax cheat. have they done their jobs the last 2 years & have actually taken a looksey into fat donny 2 scoops' taxes? that is a question that the chair wants to know & constitutionally has a right to find out. sucks there are checks & balances on the big fat orange man baby, huh?

You ignored my questions. Why? Would you care to try again?

"How many years in a row do you think President Donald Trump's tax returns have been audited? My guess is that if there was a year in which he was NOT audited, he would call them and ask them where's the love, have they forgotten him?"

 

[Markle]

DOJ policy would not allow Mueller to indict. The congress can indict.

My, my....good friend.........That simple explanation (above) is too damn "difficult" for Trump cultists to comprehend.

Do you have any pictures and cartoons to help them?

NO COLLUSION. Is that enough help for you?

 

[Leo123]

Hey Nat, nice funnyface so....you got nothin'...as usual.

True.......I have "nothing"........

But hell, what the House committees have and will have is going to feel like a painful kick in your little gonads......LMAO.

Ya, 'any day now' Mr. TDSer. LOL

 

[nat4900]

It wasn't the purpose of the report to exonerate him.

Convey the above to Trump and his sycophants

Trump Declares Exoneration, and a War on His Enemies