idiot democrats openly subverting our nation

a reply to: network dude



Do you need a hug?

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: xuenchen
Nancy Pelosi needs to provide 100% proof that she has never taken 2nd or 3rd hand dark money from illegal sources that support illegal immigration and smuggling 😎

Your understanding of the legal processes is.. failing.

We're learning the new legal process from Mueller.

You see we have no proof that she is not guilty, so there needs to be an investigation into the matter.

Until then she is not exonerated of the crime.

Simple, is it not?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude

Do you need a hug?

The real problem is how unhinged posters have tanked the discourse on ATS.

Don't ever change!
My god how you have been missed!!!

originally posted by: ManFromEurope

originally posted by: xuenchen
Nancy Pelosi needs to provide 100% proof that she has never taken 2nd or 3rd hand dark money from illegal sources that support illegal immigration and smuggling 😎

Your understanding of the legal processes is.. failing.

"Guilty till proven innocent" is on page one of the Democrat Handbook. .....Unless you use their own tactics against them and then it's not fair.
Right ?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude

Do you need a hug?

The real problem is how unhinged posters have tanked the discourse on ATS.

Don't ever change!
My god how you have been missed!!!

no doubt. fresh irony tastes so much better than the stale canned stuff we have had lately.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude

Do you need a hug?

The real problem is how unhinged posters have tanked the discourse on ATS.

Don't ever change!
My god how you have been missed!!!

Agreed.
It's really nice to finally see a Leftist around here with a brain.

well after a 22 month investigation into Pelosi ( spending 30 mil and using 20 repub lawyers) for taking money from (insert county here) then we will tell you what law she broke, and if she complains about it, then she is obviously guilty and guilty of obstruction.

So yeah she (will) belong in jail (when) we find crimes she has commited, just like the left did for Pesident Trump.

we have an accusation now we have to investigate ( does that sound familar?)

We have to imprison Pelosi first to see if she did anything illegal.

a reply to: network dude

Keeping in mind that after an almost 3 year investigation, it was found that Trump didn't break the law.

So much wrong. First off, it wasn't an "almost 3 year investigation" — Mueller was appointed in May of 2017 and the SC investigation ended in March — it wasn't even a two year investigation.

Secondly, Mueller didn't conclude that "Trump didn't break the law." Small children in Appalachian shacks without Internet access know that DOJ opinion is that sitting presidents can't be indicted.

And finally, talk to Michael Cohen. Some of the crimes he's doing time for now, Trump was 100% guilty of. In at least one case, Cohen's crimes were committed at the behest of Trump. But I'm not just referring to the campaign finance stuff with Stormy Daniels, from just what's publicly known, Trump is guilty of serial bank fraud.

For that alone, he could be in jail with Cohen and Manafort. Do you think that if you committed bank fraud and got caught, the feds wouldn't come after you?

a reply to: theantediluvian

I'll offer you a chance at being honest on your own.

Did Mueller tell Barr that he couldn't charge Trump because of that rule?

Remember, facts matter, lies make you look like a lying tool bag. Don't be a lying tool bag.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Small children in Appalachian shacks without Internet access

I'm from Hazard Kentucky.
Thanks for putting your elitist attitude on display.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Fail.

Mueller could have stated that Trump broke the law if Trump had broken the law. there is nothing prohibiting Mueller from stating that.

Indicting Trump is an entirely different matter.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude

Keeping in mind that after an almost 3 year investigation, it was found that Trump didn't break the law.

And finally, talk to Michael Cohen. Some of the crimes he's doing time for now, Trump was 100% guilty of.

Cohen is a convicted liar. Why talk to him?

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm trying to give him/her a chance at being honest. I have the link ready if needed.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: theantediluvian

Small children in Appalachian shacks without Internet access

I'm from Hazard Kentucky.
Thanks for putting your elitist attitude on display.

I'm sorry you can't afford Internet out there.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'll offer you a chance at being honest on your own.

Did Mueller tell Barr that he couldn't charge Trump because of that rule?

Remember, facts matter, lies make you look like a lying tool bag. Don't be a lying tool bag.

Facts matter now? Don't be a liar? Lmao. You're a Trump super supporter, what the hell are you talking about?

As far as what Mueller told Barr, who knows? Barr is a lying shill. What we can look at is what Mueller said in his public statement:

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing 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.

The 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 against charging a President 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:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

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 accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. 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.

Now I'm going to give you a chance to correct your misstatement about how Mueller found no evidence of any crimes. You don't want to be a "lying tool bag" after all.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: theantediluvian

Small children in Appalachian shacks without Internet access

I'm from Hazard Kentucky.
Thanks for putting your elitist attitude on display.

Cool. I grew up in rural Georgia. You want to swap stories about our redneck upbringings?

a reply to: network dude

Nowhere in your job description is there a part where your mission is to discredit the president at every move he makes.

I hate to tell you this but it also is no where in their job description saying they have to support the president or any of his ideas at all. Sorry.

a reply to: network dude

Why should Mrs. Pelosi be in jail pray tell?

Cuz you dont like what she says?

LOL...

bad night sweety?

a reply to: highvein

If stupid was a crime.... oh well