Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That has zero bearing, on whether he states whether evidence supported an obstruction charge.
The whole of volume II. You should read it.What exactly in the whole of volume II stands out as solid evidence of obstruction?
Probably because of the solid evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report.If there is so much solid evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report then why is Nadler investigating for obstruction of justice?
The whole of volume II. You should read it.
Maybe Nadler should read the whole thing so he wouldn't have to put forth the effort to find evidence of obstruction. Would save a lot of time I think. And taxpayer money who already shelled out $40 million for Mueller's report.
I wish that were true, but in this case per DOJ policy there's no level of evidence would have supported an obstruction charge.
Doesnt change my original point, which i think you missed.
Bolding mine ... Found your answer for you.Also, someone is lying about the impact the olc opinion had on muellers decision to not conclude on obstruction. Barr stated
Probably because of the solid evidence of obstruction in Mueller's report.
I'm not sure that he can - has the justice department released the unredacted report? At any rate, I'm sure that members of Congress will have their own questions for witnesses that have not yet been answered.Maybe Nadler should read the whole thing so he wouldn't have to put forth the effort to find evidence of obstruction. Would save a lot of time I think.
The money spent on the investigation was more than recouped by the seizure of Paul Manafort's assets. As has been reiterated many, many times now. The net bill to the taxpayers was zero.And taxpayer money who already shelled out $40 million for Mueller's report.
No, I get it. You're either falling for or playing along with the whole "but if Mueller didn't bring charges on something he couldn't bring charges on, that means Donald is innocent" narrative. It isn't convincing.
Bolding mine ... Found your answer for you.
No, I get it. You're either falling for or playing along with the whole "but if Mueller didn't bring charges on something he couldn't bring charges on, that means Donald is innocent" narrative. It isn't convincing.
Bolding mine ... Found your answer for you.
Probably?
So far there hasn't been any press concerning exactly what "evidence" is being interpreted as solid... just "read the report"
That plus the special prosecutor appointed to investigate interference into our elections by a foreign power dedicated an entire volume of his report to the evidence of a sitting president working to obstruct that investigation. Don't forget that part.Yeah, I believe that's all this is for... separate Trump's supporters from him.
Your level of digging, seems to be like this; this person i agree with so i believe, this person i disagree with, so they must be lying.
I'm not sure that he can ....
Probably because they understand what is contained in Volume II of Mueller's report.Then how do some readers come to the conclusion there is solid evidence of obstruction?
If there is a solid case then show the solid evidence to support it. But after these years of investigation with nothing but political opinion as a result I suppose letting go of the dream to overturn the legal vote of the people can be difficult.
.
Not to mention the posts trying to manufacture a big deal over the fact that a guy prevented from his boss from saying there's a fire isn't explicitly saying there's a fire. As if that means anything other than he's bound by policy.In the meanwhile there is so much smoke we are crawling on our bellies coughing to the exit, astonished that some are breathing the noxious fumes and saying "Ain't no fire."
How foolish to ask for evidence when obstructing justice is the crime. The defendant to be (Individual 1) has refused to respond to subpoenas, forbidden employees and firmer employees to testify, tried to fire anyone who wasn't slavishly devoted to him, and engaged in media disinformation campaigns.
It is weaving through the courts, and when the defendant to be has lost, you will have the evidence you need.
In the meanwhile there is so much smoke we are crawling on our bellies coughing to the exit, astonished that some are breathing the noxious fumes and saying "Ain't no fire."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?