Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh puhleeze. If he wasn't supposed to prosecute, then why did he indict Manafort and Popodopulous?Who said anything about him deciding guilt? His job is to decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute. He decided there wasn't any. You Trump hating turds keep trying to imply we believe Mueller is authorized to determine somone's guilt. Only the left believes idiocies like that.What you don't seem to understand is that, even if true, the existence of that rule didn't prevent Mueller from rendering a decision on obstruction.It is quite simple and concise. There is nothing difficult to understand about it, yet so many people on this forum don't get it after 2 years. There is a DOJ policy to not indict a sitting President, because it is Congress's job to provide oversight. Mueller was quite clear he would follow that policy, yet here we are, 2 years later and Trump supporter after Trump supporter continue to say Trump is innocent because Mueller didn't recommend charges.
Feel free to explain to me why that is so difficult to understand, and why the repetition of correcting posters here works on no one. Repetition is exactly what Trump has done with "No collusion, no obstruction" over and over and over and over... to get his supporters to believe it.
Yes, it does, because it isn't MUELLER'S job to decide guilt. That's up to Congress.
No, it isn't. It was his job to investigate and provide the final report. TWO YEARS and you still don't understand what the fuck is going on?
Yes, I do understand what's going on. You're coup failed. No collusion. No obstruction.
You're the forum's biggest dumb fuck.
It is a legitimate power only when it is used to help fashion legislation or in the case of an impeachment hearing.Again, oversight is not an enumerated power of Congress and the SC has held its only legitimate use is to assist Congress in enacting legislation. Since these are criminal investigations and not efforts to enact legislation, Congress has no oversight power to compel the administration to do anything. If the Democrats are still in control of the House when the next budget negotiations come up, they could try to defund the DoJ.It is Mueller's job to provide his final report to the AG, and it is the AG's job to decide if any of it should be released to Congress or the public.No, it isn't. It was his job to investigate and provide the final report. TWO YEARS and you still don't understand what the fuck is going on?
The AG doesn't have oversight of the President, Congress does. Congress will get the full report, otherwise they can decide to stop the funding of the DOJ until they do get it.
Yeah, no. It is literally called congressional oversight. The powers of oversight, even when not spelled out clearly in the Constitution, have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be implied. It is a vital piece to the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.
Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances
Oh puhleeze. If he wasn't supposed to prosecute, then why did he indict Manafort and Popodopulous?Who said anything about him deciding guilt? His job is to decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute. He decided there wasn't any. You Trump hating turds keep trying to imply we believe Mueller is authorized to determine somone's guilt. Only the left believes idiocies like that.What you don't seem to understand is that, even if true, the existence of that rule didn't prevent Mueller from rendering a decision on obstruction.
Yes, it does, because it isn't MUELLER'S job to decide guilt. That's up to Congress.
No, it isn't. It was his job to investigate and provide the final report. TWO YEARS and you still don't understand what the fuck is going on?
Yes, I do understand what's going on. You're coup failed. No collusion. No obstruction.
You're the forum's biggest dumb fuck.
WillHaftawaite see? 2 years and how many times did I post in this thread, and this dumbass still thinks Mueller not indicting Trump means he's innocent.
Mueller passed the information he gained about Papadopolous and Manafort to the grand jury, and Mueller didn't actually go to court to prosecute them.
Obstruction has nothing to do with collusion. But to the POINT Mueller SPECIFICALLY SAID NO COLLUSION. God you morons are dumb as rocks. Now be specific and show us where Trump Obstructed Mueller in any way......
Actually, that's not what they said.
They said they could not find definitive evidence to prove members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian GOVERNMENT. This is on top of the several cases that have been sent on by Mueller's team, but not made public.
They could not find definitive meaning there was not enough or not any evidence at all...
So in the end the Collusion argument is dead and should be dropped but alas the left need it Benghazi...
No, it means what it says, and in order to pursue charges it takes a mountain of evidence, which is hard to find when dealing with governments who can use people that is extremely hard to tie back to them.
For example, Erik Prince may not be considered part of Trump's campaign team, but he was busted for meeting with Russians... and is Trump's Sec. of Education Betsy Devos' brother.
So Mueller's team could not find enough definitive evidence to prove conspiracy, but also said they could not exonerate Trump's team either.
He could not exonerate Trump when it came to the Obstruction of Justice but it is clear the Collusion nonsense is just nonsense...
lol So what you are saying is there are no grounds for impeachment now so the Democrats have to scrounge around to try to find some. That's what is called a fishing expedition, not an investigation.It is a legitimate power only when it is used to help fashion legislation or in the case of an impeachment hearing.Again, oversight is not an enumerated power of Congress and the SC has held its only legitimate use is to assist Congress in enacting legislation. Since these are criminal investigations and not efforts to enact legislation, Congress has no oversight power to compel the administration to do anything. If the Democrats are still in control of the House when the next budget negotiations come up, they could try to defund the DoJ.It is Mueller's job to provide his final report to the AG, and it is the AG's job to decide if any of it should be released to Congress or the public.
The AG doesn't have oversight of the President, Congress does. Congress will get the full report, otherwise they can decide to stop the funding of the DOJ until they do get it.
Yeah, no. It is literally called congressional oversight. The powers of oversight, even when not spelled out clearly in the Constitution, have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be implied. It is a vital piece to the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.
Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances
You have to have an investigation in order to gather the information for impeachment.
It is a legitimate power only when it is used to help fashion legislation or in the case of an impeachment hearing.Again, oversight is not an enumerated power of Congress and the SC has held its only legitimate use is to assist Congress in enacting legislation. Since these are criminal investigations and not efforts to enact legislation, Congress has no oversight power to compel the administration to do anything. If the Democrats are still in control of the House when the next budget negotiations come up, they could try to defund the DoJ.It is Mueller's job to provide his final report to the AG, and it is the AG's job to decide if any of it should be released to Congress or the public.
The AG doesn't have oversight of the President, Congress does. Congress will get the full report, otherwise they can decide to stop the funding of the DOJ until they do get it.
Yeah, no. It is literally called congressional oversight. The powers of oversight, even when not spelled out clearly in the Constitution, have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be implied. It is a vital piece to the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.
Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances
You have to have an investigation in order to gather the information for impeachment.
Obstruction has nothing to do with collusion. But to the POINT Mueller SPECIFICALLY SAID NO COLLUSION. God you morons are dumb as rocks. Now be specific and show us where Trump Obstructed Mueller in any way......
Actually, that's not what they said.
They said they could not find definitive evidence to prove members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian GOVERNMENT. This is on top of the several cases that have been sent on by Mueller's team, but not made public.
They could not find definitive meaning there was not enough or not any evidence at all...
So in the end the Collusion argument is dead and should be dropped but alas the left need it Benghazi...
No, it means what it says, and in order to pursue charges it takes a mountain of evidence, which is hard to find when dealing with governments who can use people that is extremely hard to tie back to them.
For example, Erik Prince may not be considered part of Trump's campaign team, but he was busted for meeting with Russians... and is Trump's Sec. of Education Betsy Devos' brother.
So Mueller's team could not find enough definitive evidence to prove conspiracy, but also said they could not exonerate Trump's team either.
He could not exonerate Trump when it came to the Obstruction of Justice but it is clear the Collusion nonsense is just nonsense...
Since when does a man, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, need to be exonerated during an investigation by his own prosecutor?
lol So what you are saying is there are no grounds for impeachment now so the Democrats have to scrounge around to try to find some. That's what is called a fishing expedition, not an investigation.It is a legitimate power only when it is used to help fashion legislation or in the case of an impeachment hearing.Again, oversight is not an enumerated power of Congress and the SC has held its only legitimate use is to assist Congress in enacting legislation. Since these are criminal investigations and not efforts to enact legislation, Congress has no oversight power to compel the administration to do anything. If the Democrats are still in control of the House when the next budget negotiations come up, they could try to defund the DoJ.The AG doesn't have oversight of the President, Congress does. Congress will get the full report, otherwise they can decide to stop the funding of the DOJ until they do get it.
Yeah, no. It is literally called congressional oversight. The powers of oversight, even when not spelled out clearly in the Constitution, have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be implied. It is a vital piece to the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.
Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances
You have to have an investigation in order to gather the information for impeachment.
He actually did go to court. He submitted their indictments. He prosecuted Manafort and Popodopolous, moron. Did he interrogate witnesses? No. He's the guy in charge. He doesn't do they busy work.Oh puhleeze. If he wasn't supposed to prosecute, then why did he indict Manafort and Popodopulous?Who said anything about him deciding guilt? His job is to decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute. He decided there wasn't any. You Trump hating turds keep trying to imply we believe Mueller is authorized to determine somone's guilt. Only the left believes idiocies like that.What you don't seem to understand is that, even if true, the existence of that rule didn't prevent Mueller from rendering a decision on obstruction.
Yes, it does, because it isn't MUELLER'S job to decide guilt. That's up to Congress.
No, it isn't. It was his job to investigate and provide the final report. TWO YEARS and you still don't understand what the fuck is going on?
Yes, I do understand what's going on. You're coup failed. No collusion. No obstruction.
You're the forum's biggest dumb fuck.
WillHaftawaite see? 2 years and how many times did I post in this thread, and this dumbass still thinks Mueller not indicting Trump means he's innocent.
Mueller passed the information he gained about Papadopolous and Manafort to the grand jury, and Mueller didn't actually go to court to prosecute them.
It is a legitimate power only when it is used to help fashion legislation or in the case of an impeachment hearing.Again, oversight is not an enumerated power of Congress and the SC has held its only legitimate use is to assist Congress in enacting legislation. Since these are criminal investigations and not efforts to enact legislation, Congress has no oversight power to compel the administration to do anything. If the Democrats are still in control of the House when the next budget negotiations come up, they could try to defund the DoJ.The AG doesn't have oversight of the President, Congress does. Congress will get the full report, otherwise they can decide to stop the funding of the DOJ until they do get it.
Yeah, no. It is literally called congressional oversight. The powers of oversight, even when not spelled out clearly in the Constitution, have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be implied. It is a vital piece to the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.
Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances
You have to have an investigation in order to gather the information for impeachment.
Motherfucker! If the prosecutor finds that during the course of the investigation, there was not enough evidence to charge anyone, it's over, you stupid fuck! Next!
lol So what you are saying is there are no grounds for impeachment now so the Democrats have to scrounge around to try to find some. That's what is called a fishing expedition, not an investigation.It is a legitimate power only when it is used to help fashion legislation or in the case of an impeachment hearing.Again, oversight is not an enumerated power of Congress and the SC has held its only legitimate use is to assist Congress in enacting legislation. Since these are criminal investigations and not efforts to enact legislation, Congress has no oversight power to compel the administration to do anything. If the Democrats are still in control of the House when the next budget negotiations come up, they could try to defund the DoJ.
Yeah, no. It is literally called congressional oversight. The powers of oversight, even when not spelled out clearly in the Constitution, have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be implied. It is a vital piece to the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.
Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances
You have to have an investigation in order to gather the information for impeachment.
No, that isn't at all what I said. I said in order to go for impeachment the Congress needs to have all the relevant information to proceed which includes the Mueller report. What is the purpose of appointing a Special Counsel to do an investigation for 2 years, if when it is done Trump can appoint an AG that just says Congress can't have it?
If Trump did nothing wrong, then he should have asked Barr to turn it over right away and get his name cleared as fast as possible.
What the fuck does "turn it over" mean, moron? What is that legal process called?lol So what you are saying is there are no grounds for impeachment now so the Democrats have to scrounge around to try to find some. That's what is called a fishing expedition, not an investigation.It is a legitimate power only when it is used to help fashion legislation or in the case of an impeachment hearing.Again, oversight is not an enumerated power of Congress and the SC has held its only legitimate use is to assist Congress in enacting legislation. Since these are criminal investigations and not efforts to enact legislation, Congress has no oversight power to compel the administration to do anything. If the Democrats are still in control of the House when the next budget negotiations come up, they could try to defund the DoJ.
Yeah, no. It is literally called congressional oversight. The powers of oversight, even when not spelled out clearly in the Constitution, have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be implied. It is a vital piece to the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.
Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances
You have to have an investigation in order to gather the information for impeachment.
No, that isn't at all what I said. I said in order to go for impeachment the Congress needs to have all the relevant information to proceed which includes the Mueller report. What is the purpose of appointing a Special Counsel to do an investigation for 2 years, if when it is done Trump can appoint an AG that just says Congress can't have it?
If Trump did nothing wrong, then he should have asked Barr to turn it over right away and get his name cleared as fast as possible.
He actually did go to court. He submitted their indictments. He prosecuted Manafort and Popodopolous, moron. Did he interrogate witnesses? No. He's the guy in charge. He doesn't do they busy work.Oh puhleeze. If he wasn't supposed to prosecute, then why did he indict Manafort and Popodopulous?Who said anything about him deciding guilt? His job is to decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute. He decided there wasn't any. You Trump hating turds keep trying to imply we believe Mueller is authorized to determine somone's guilt. Only the left believes idiocies like that.Yes, it does, because it isn't MUELLER'S job to decide guilt. That's up to Congress.
No, it isn't. It was his job to investigate and provide the final report. TWO YEARS and you still don't understand what the fuck is going on?
Yes, I do understand what's going on. You're coup failed. No collusion. No obstruction.
You're the forum's biggest dumb fuck.
WillHaftawaite see? 2 years and how many times did I post in this thread, and this dumbass still thinks Mueller not indicting Trump means he's innocent.
Mueller passed the information he gained about Papadopolous and Manafort to the grand jury, and Mueller didn't actually go to court to prosecute them.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That the fundamental principle of the American legal system, dumb fuck. Do you actually believe Trump has to prove his innocence? You're dumber than I ever imagined.It is a legitimate power only when it is used to help fashion legislation or in the case of an impeachment hearing.Again, oversight is not an enumerated power of Congress and the SC has held its only legitimate use is to assist Congress in enacting legislation. Since these are criminal investigations and not efforts to enact legislation, Congress has no oversight power to compel the administration to do anything. If the Democrats are still in control of the House when the next budget negotiations come up, they could try to defund the DoJ.
Yeah, no. It is literally called congressional oversight. The powers of oversight, even when not spelled out clearly in the Constitution, have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be implied. It is a vital piece to the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.
Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances
You have to have an investigation in order to gather the information for impeachment.
Motherfucker! If the prosecutor finds that during the course of the investigation, there was not enough evidence to charge anyone, it's over, you stupid fuck! Next!
You might be dumber than Bripat.
WillHaftawaite another idiot saying Trump is innocent because Mueller didn't recommend Trump be indicted...
Obviously I didn't spam enough.
lol So what you are saying is there are no grounds for impeachment now so the Democrats have to scrounge around to try to find some. That's what is called a fishing expedition, not an investigation.It is a legitimate power only when it is used to help fashion legislation or in the case of an impeachment hearing.Yeah, no. It is literally called congressional oversight. The powers of oversight, even when not spelled out clearly in the Constitution, have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be implied. It is a vital piece to the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.
Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances
You have to have an investigation in order to gather the information for impeachment.
No, that isn't at all what I said. I said in order to go for impeachment the Congress needs to have all the relevant information to proceed which includes the Mueller report. What is the purpose of appointing a Special Counsel to do an investigation for 2 years, if when it is done Trump can appoint an AG that just says Congress can't have it?
If Trump did nothing wrong, then he should have asked Barr to turn it over right away and get his name cleared as fast as possible.
You do realize it has already been turned over, right, fuckstick?
What you are saying again is that there are no grounds for impeachment now, and that means Congress has no legitimate oversight power. You don't seem to understand the difference between the Democrats wanting to impeach and the Democrats having grounds to impeach. Once the Democrats open formal impeachment hearings, they will have the power to compel all the documents and testimony they want, but until that happens, this is all just political posturing.lol So what you are saying is there are no grounds for impeachment now so the Democrats have to scrounge around to try to find some. That's what is called a fishing expedition, not an investigation.It is a legitimate power only when it is used to help fashion legislation or in the case of an impeachment hearing.Again, oversight is not an enumerated power of Congress and the SC has held its only legitimate use is to assist Congress in enacting legislation. Since these are criminal investigations and not efforts to enact legislation, Congress has no oversight power to compel the administration to do anything. If the Democrats are still in control of the House when the next budget negotiations come up, they could try to defund the DoJ.
Yeah, no. It is literally called congressional oversight. The powers of oversight, even when not spelled out clearly in the Constitution, have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be implied. It is a vital piece to the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.
Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances
You have to have an investigation in order to gather the information for impeachment.
No, that isn't at all what I said. I said in order to go for impeachment the Congress needs to have all the relevant information to proceed which includes the Mueller report. What is the purpose of appointing a Special Counsel to do an investigation for 2 years, if when it is done Trump can appoint an AG that just says Congress can't have it?
If Trump did nothing wrong, then he should have asked Barr to turn it over right away and get his name cleared as fast as possible.
What does that mean, he didn't interrogate the witnesses himself? He has 19 other lawyers to do that, shit for brains. What do you imagine it means to "got to court?" Do you actually believe that if he doesnt't appear in the trial himself, that he hasn't gone to court?He actually did go to court. He submitted their indictments. He prosecuted Manafort and Popodopolous, moron. Did he interrogate witnesses? No. He's the guy in charge. He doesn't do they busy work.Oh puhleeze. If he wasn't supposed to prosecute, then why did he indict Manafort and Popodopulous?Who said anything about him deciding guilt? His job is to decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute. He decided there wasn't any. You Trump hating turds keep trying to imply we believe Mueller is authorized to determine somone's guilt. Only the left believes idiocies like that.
No, it isn't. It was his job to investigate and provide the final report. TWO YEARS and you still don't understand what the fuck is going on?
Yes, I do understand what's going on. You're coup failed. No collusion. No obstruction.
You're the forum's biggest dumb fuck.
WillHaftawaite see? 2 years and how many times did I post in this thread, and this dumbass still thinks Mueller not indicting Trump means he's innocent.
Mueller passed the information he gained about Papadopolous and Manafort to the grand jury, and Mueller didn't actually go to court to prosecute them.
Mueller did not go to court to prosecute them. Holy fuck. Show me one court transcript that shows Mueller presenting to the court. Just one.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That the fundamental principle of the American legal system, dumb fuck. Do you actually believe Trump has to prove his innocence? You're dumber than I ever imagined.It is a legitimate power only when it is used to help fashion legislation or in the case of an impeachment hearing.Yeah, no. It is literally called congressional oversight. The powers of oversight, even when not spelled out clearly in the Constitution, have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be implied. It is a vital piece to the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.
Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances
You have to have an investigation in order to gather the information for impeachment.
Motherfucker! If the prosecutor finds that during the course of the investigation, there was not enough evidence to charge anyone, it's over, you stupid fuck! Next!
You might be dumber than Bripat.
WillHaftawaite another idiot saying Trump is innocent because Mueller didn't recommend Trump be indicted...
Obviously I didn't spam enough.
And YET Mueller was clear on the fact he was NOT reporting to Congress under the law NOTHING he wrote had to be delivered to CONGRESS. A Law the democrats created.What you don't seem to understand is that, even if true, the existence of that rule didn't prevent Mueller from rendering a decision on obstruction.Lewdog Starting to look like Spam. Cut it down to one paragraph
I wouldn't even need to say it, if some of the dipshits on here could understand a simple principle.
The sledgehammer action works on NO ONE on this board.
It is quite simple and concise. There is nothing difficult to understand about it, yet so many people on this forum don't get it after 2 years. There is a DOJ policy to not indict a sitting President, because it is Congress's job to provide oversight. Mueller was quite clear he would follow that policy, yet here we are, 2 years later and Trump supporter after Trump supporter continue to say Trump is innocent because Mueller didn't recommend charges.
Feel free to explain to me why that is so difficult to understand, and why the repetition of correcting posters here works on no one. Repetition is exactly what Trump has done with "No collusion, no obstruction" over and over and over and over... to get his supporters to believe it.
Yes, it does, because it isn't MUELLER'S job to decide guilt. That's up to Congress.
Oh puhleeze. If he wasn't supposed to prosecute, then why did he indict Manafort and Popodopulous?Who said anything about him deciding guilt? His job is to decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute. He decided there wasn't any. You Trump hating turds keep trying to imply we believe Mueller is authorized to determine somone's guilt. Only the left believes idiocies like that.What you don't seem to understand is that, even if true, the existence of that rule didn't prevent Mueller from rendering a decision on obstruction.
Yes, it does, because it isn't MUELLER'S job to decide guilt. That's up to Congress.
No, it isn't. It was his job to investigate and provide the final report. TWO YEARS and you still don't understand what the fuck is going on?
Yes, I do understand what's going on. You're coup failed. No collusion. No obstruction.
You're the forum's biggest dumb fuck.
WillHaftawaite see? 2 years and how many times did I post in this thread, and this dumbass still thinks Mueller not indicting Trump means he's innocent.
Mueller passed the information he gained about Papadopolous and Manafort to the grand jury, and Mueller didn't actually go to court to prosecute them.
