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.
"potential" is not a proven fact to call anyone guilty.No guilty means innocentActually Muller concluded innocentYes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.
Nope, he did neither.
Who said not guilty?
the ONE source you choose to use hides behind disclaimers and you eat that shit up with a double spatula.
he's not been proven guilty at this point so by our laws and rights within this country he's innocent.
innocent TIL PROVEN guity OF WHICH has not happened. ergo, suck on it.
so what? move forward. what are you waiting for, we're waiting!!! ready set go!! why do you drag your feet liar? too fking funny. you're a subservient sheep
Lakhota is now more well versed in the law than Alan Dershowitz? This is fantastic.
Dershowitz thought OJ was innocent too. Just like with O.J., Dershowitz has been a Trump defender and he is only one voice among many. There have been hundreds of prosecutors who have gone on record to say Trump committed crimes.
I think you'e on the wrong board, weirdo.
And?No guilty means innocentActually Muller concluded innocentYes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.
Nope, he did neither.
Who said not guilty?
Trump is innocent. post where anyone said he was guilty of anything? I'll wait poacher man.he can say he's guilty, Ken Star said it eleven times for Slick Willie. you've been lied to as usual. and you believed it.
That Ken Starr talking point has been debunked because Starr was appointed by Congress under the Independent Counsel Act and was not subject to the DOJ rule.
Ah, thank you!
It's like shoot'in fish in a barrel.
They parrot good sounding propaganda though!
He is of course considered innocent until proven guilty, but as president he can't be charged with a crime.
"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice," according to the letter
I think that letter now has over a thousand former federal prosecutors signing it.
Thanks for the net Popeye.
Lakhota is now more well versed in the law than Alan Dershowitz? This is fantastic.
Dershowitz thought OJ was innocent too. Just like with O.J., Dershowitz has been a Trump defender and he is only one voice among many. There have been hundreds of prosecutors who have gone on record to say Trump committed crimes.
He defended the law and never opined on guilt or innocence of OJ. Dershowitz has been a constitutional defender. He defended HRC as well when it came to the emails.
The Grand JuryNo guilty means innocentActually Muller concluded innocentdude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!
and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.
Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.
Nope, he did neither.
Who said not guilty?
The Grand JuryNo guilty means innocentActually Muller concluded innocentYes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.
Nope, he did neither.
Who said not guilty?
That's what happens when you do not have sufficient evidence to indict someone, or even recommend indictment.
In a criminal trial that renders a verdict of Not Guilty.
Don't You Know Nothin 'Bout The Law?
Trump is innocent. post where anyone said he was guilty of anything? I'll wait poacher man.That Ken Starr talking point has been debunked because Starr was appointed by Congress under the Independent Counsel Act and was not subject to the DOJ rule.
Ah, thank you!
It's like shoot'in fish in a barrel.
They parrot good sounding propaganda though!
He is of course considered innocent until proven guilty, but as president he can't be charged with a crime.
"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice," according to the letter
I think that letter now has over a thousand former federal prosecutors signing it.
Thanks for the net Popeye.
Why is Congress not impeaching? You realize that one can only obstruct if there is a crime and there was no crime.
But it’s trump and he doesn’t get that, Orangemanbad"potential" is not a proven fact to call anyone guilty.No guilty means innocentActually Muller concluded innocentYes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.
Nope, he did neither.
Who said not guilty?
the ONE source you choose to use hides behind disclaimers and you eat that shit up with a double spatula.
he's not been proven guilty at this point so by our laws and rights within this country he's innocent.
innocent TIL PROVEN guity OF WHICH has not happened. ergo, suck on it.
Nope, a lie. I’ve added why earlierThe Grand JuryNo guilty means innocentActually Muller concluded innocent
Nope, he did neither.
Who said not guilty?
That's what happens when you do not have sufficient evidence to indict someone, or even recommend indictment.
In a criminal trial that renders a verdict of Not Guilty.
Don't You Know Nothin 'Bout The Law?
Trump was never going to be indicted because of DOJ policy, not sure what that has to do with a Grand Jury.
Nope, a lie. I’ve added why earlierThe Grand JuryNo guilty means innocentNope, he did neither.
Who said not guilty?
That's what happens when you do not have sufficient evidence to indict someone, or even recommend indictment.
In a criminal trial that renders a verdict of Not Guilty.
Don't You Know Nothin 'Bout The Law?
Trump was never going to be indicted because of DOJ policy, not sure what that has to do with a Grand Jury.
He’s a but but but guy sheepalgood god you're a 1 man circle jerk.then why are you based off his "evidence" that even he won't use?dude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!That's simply not true. There are multiple instances of obstruction documented in the Mueller report. Whether the Democrats choose to impeach or not does not change that fact.
Just curious, do you think Obama committed any crimes?
and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.
Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.
He as in Mueller? What would he use the evidence for?
i'm out.
I know, you don’t care what mueller wrote or Barr. You got it all, impeach foolNope, a lie. I’ve added why earlierThe Grand JuryNo guilty means innocent
Who said not guilty?
That's what happens when you do not have sufficient evidence to indict someone, or even recommend indictment.
In a criminal trial that renders a verdict of Not Guilty.
Don't You Know Nothin 'Bout The Law?
Trump was never going to be indicted because of DOJ policy, not sure what that has to do with a Grand Jury.
I don't care what you wrote. Mueller has already spelled it out for you.
Why is Congress not impeaching?
You realize that one can only obstruct if there is a crime and there was no crime.
You aren't concerned with any opinion from a legal scholar who knows far more about the law than you.
Lakhota is now more well versed in the law than Alan Dershowitz? This is fantastic.
Dershowitz thought OJ was innocent too. Just like with O.J., Dershowitz has been a Trump defender and he is only one voice among many. There have been hundreds of prosecutors who have gone on record to say Trump committed crimes.
He defended the law and never opined on guilt or innocence of OJ. Dershowitz has been a constitutional defender. He defended HRC as well when it came to the emails.
Neat. I'm not concerned with Dershowitz' opinion, it's only one of hundreds.
Only he countsThe Grand JuryNo guilty means innocentActually Muller concluded innocentYes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.
Nope, he did neither.
Who said not guilty?
That's what happens when you do not have sufficient evidence to indict someone, or even recommend indictment.
In a criminal trial that renders a verdict of Not Guilty.
Don't You Know Nothin 'Bout The Law?
He’s a but but but guy sheepalgood god you're a 1 man circle jerk.then why are you based off his "evidence" that even he won't use?dude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!
and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.
Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.
He as in Mueller? What would he use the evidence for?
i'm out.
But there’s no evidence! In my country, you need that and intentWhy is Congress not impeaching?
If I were a betting man I'd put my money on the optics of the impeachment of President Clinton.
You realize that one can only obstruct if there is a crime and there was no crime.
"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice," according to the letter"
At least with that Starr listed 11 Crimes Clinton Committed, and it was criminal activity that started the investigation.Why is Congress not impeaching?
If I were a betting man I'd put my money on the optics of the impeachment of President Clinton.
You realize that one can only obstruct if there is a crime and there was no crime.
"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice," according to the letter"
Barr answered this, I posted the link. Go read his answerHe’s a but but but guy sheepalgood god you're a 1 man circle jerk.then why are you based off his "evidence" that even he won't use?Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.
He as in Mueller? What would he use the evidence for?
i'm out.
Maybe you can answer the question. Mueller gathered evidence, put it in his report, established that he was following DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president. So, I ask the question, what is Mueller supposed to do with the evidence now?
