These morons will buy anythingLaughable, I am sorry but that is laughable.
These morons will buy anythingLaughable, I am sorry but that is laughable.
These morons will buy anything
For the 800th time contact=/= collusion. And in and of itself is NOT illegal
Cuntry doesn't understand this. Its comedy watching him think otherwise.
While at the same time, seeing the Dems ignore Fusion GPS (aka Hillary campaign) who appears to have been more connected to Russia during the campaign/election than anyone else.
However, Pelosi and other Dem Congressional leadership appear to be extremely hesitant about impeachment
Did they meet with Russians in trump tower? Did they exchange emails with Russians? Did they have telephone calls with Russians? Did they attempt to have a back channel set up for communicating with Russians? Did they fly to Russia to meet with them? Did they have the Democratic National Platform changed because their candidate was in love with Russia? Did they believe Putin over the National Intelligence Agencies? Did they ask Russians/Wikileaks to release emails? Did they know the campaign was hacked by Russians and not saying anything? Did they lie about continued contacts regarding working a trump tower project in Moscow? Did they have frequent meetings with Kislyak, Deripaska and Kilimnik? Did they lie about their contacts with Russians?
Now why would they lie about contacts with Russians if nothing illegal was occurring? Was anyone from the Clinton campaign indicted? Arrested? Convicted? Work any plea deals? Currently sitting in prison? Awaiting trial?
Trump says Russia helped elect him – then quickly backtracks
Theguardian.com
CASE CLOSED - ORGANIZE THE FIRING SQUADS
^^^More evidence you're delusional^^ Here. Let me help you when actually reading the Mueller report...…….
Repeat after me.....
From the mueller report:
the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities
You poor idiot.
"At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
"The evidence concerning this sequence of events could support an inference that the President used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate, and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or undermine Cohen's credibility once Cohen began cooperating."
"The evidence could support an inference that the President was aware of these facts at the time of Cohen's false statements to Congress."
"But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President's conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events - such as advance notice of WikiLeaks's (sic) release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians - could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family."
"Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges."
"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."
"Finally, although the evidence of contacts between Campaign officials and Russia affiliated individuals may not have been sufficient to establish or sustain criminal charges, several U.S. persons connected to the Campaign made false statements about those contacts and took other steps to obstruct the Office's investigation and those of Congress. This Office has therefore charged some of those individuals with making false statements and obstructing justice."
"The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra. The Office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent ("knowing" and "willful"), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." Justice Manual§ 9-27.220."
Why is the word "evidence" used in the report? In fact, it is used 277 times. I thought you said there was "no evidence?"
You poor idiot.
"At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
"The evidence concerning this sequence of events could support an inference that the President used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate, and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or undermine Cohen's credibility once Cohen began cooperating."
"The evidence could support an inference that the President was aware of these facts at the time of Cohen's false statements to Congress."
"But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President's conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events - such as advance notice of WikiLeaks's (sic) release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians - could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family."
"Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges."
"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."
"Finally, although the evidence of contacts between Campaign officials and Russia affiliated individuals may not have been sufficient to establish or sustain criminal charges, several U.S. persons connected to the Campaign made false statements about those contacts and took other steps to obstruct the Office's investigation and those of Congress. This Office has therefore charged some of those individuals with making false statements and obstructing justice."
"The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra. The Office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent ("knowing" and "willful"), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." Justice Manual§ 9-27.220."
Why is the word "evidence" used in the report? In fact, it is used 277 times. I thought you said there was "no evidence?"
Where is the evidence? I see a lot of “inferences” of activities that couldn’t be proven to be illegal (NO EVIDENCE) Thank god this country doesn’t convict individuals on “inferences”.
But you on the other hand...we could simply “infer” that you prostitute yourself on Friday nights in Htgn in order to earn $$ to buy your weekly opioid supply. When did you start working the streets?? After you were unable to collect the $100???
Yes. I believe “inferences” are proof of criminal activity.
Please. Keep embarrassing yourself.
evidence of contacts between Campaign officials and Russia affiliated individuals may not have been sufficient to establish or sustain criminal charges
I see a lot of “inferences” of activities that couldn’t be proven to be illegal (NO EVIDENCE) Thank god this country doesn’t convict individuals on “inferences”.
Well here is the full transcript of the voicemail. Surprisingly the mueller report left out a lot.I did and yes, I knew. The story just broke last night. Which part did you struggle with? Dherd's headline matched the headline of the story that broke last night. Need any more help?
LEFT: this proves obstructionWell here is the full transcript of the voicemail. Surprisingly the mueller report left out a lot.
Nader was a key govt witness for the mueller report. The fbi found the kiddie porn over a year ago still let him keep his passport and leave the country. All so he’d give mueller the “goods”TRUMP PAL ARRESTED FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (LITTLE BOYS)
BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER
George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman who acted asan informal adviserto the United Arab Emirates’ powerful crown prince, was arrested on Monday after he landed at Kennedy International Airport in New York, according to a Justice Department news release. The child pornography charges were unsealed after his arrest.
According to the court documents, Mr. Nader was caught early last year with iPhones containing sexually explicit videos of young boys. Mr. Nader had traveled to the United States to attend a party at Mar-a-Lago celebrating President Trump’s first year in office.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/...ml?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage
MUST HAVE BEEN A HELL OF A PARTY. WONDER HOW MUCH TRUMPS LITTLE BOY FESTIVAL COST ME?
How come you trumpsters are posting in dherd's thread?
it's called a drive by. sometimes it's fun to take a quick peak at what the libiots are doing here, and especially king libiot dtard.
it's like going to the zoo...….you walk by and take a look.
now, go back to sleep moron.
How come you trumpsters are posting in dherd's thread?
i did, it's called a rivals subscription.If you're going to "drive by" on average once per day, you should have to buy a season pass.
I KNOW, I'VE BANNED THEM 3 OR 4 TIMES.
YOU DITTO HEADS STAY OFF OF HERE.
THIS PAGE IS FOR PEOPLE WHO LOVE AMERICA AND THE TRUTH.
STAY OFF MY PAGE!!!!!!!!!!