Hillary and the Democrats did what? trump's son, son-in-law, and campaign members literally meet with russian agents. Then lied about the meeting. And trump said he saw nothing wrong with the meeting then, and would take such a meeting again. And... the Mueller report didn't clear trump of false accusations. The above just covers meetings with russians... the report covers obstruction as well. And we don't know what parts were farmed out to state prosecution, nor do we know what covered counter intelligence. And... financial crimes are still out there. So, pretty much, you whiffed on every point...
What about Trump. Despite what he said to Stephanopoulos (sp?) in the interview yesterday, there is no record of Trump accepting information from a foreign source in 2016 the election. This was confirmed by Mueller. That being said, it is good to see you recognize Hillary is guilty of what Trump was falsely accused of and should in fact face justice.
You are confusing "no evidence" with "not enough evidence for a criminal conviction" where the bar for a criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt". The bar for removal from office is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" because the office of the Presidency is a privilege. A criminal conviction means a a form a punishment. A punishment on a citizen requires evidence that is "beyond a reasonable doubt" because in common law it is better to let a criminal be set free than punish an innocent human. Also, Don Jr literally accepted a meeting from an email with a subject line that explicitly stated support of the Trump campaign by the Putin Regime with information of a political opponent.
You do realize that Natalia Veselnitskaya was working with Fusion GPS and met with Glenn Simpson before and after the infamous Trump Tower meeting. In case you do not realize it Fusion GPS is the firm that paid Steele for the bogus dossier with money laundered through the Perkins Coie law firm. The investigation into the investigation will likely show the Trump Tower meeting was a setup from the beginning
It look like you are the confused one. Mueller completed exonerated Trump from any collusion / conspiracy. It was obstruction that he punted on the decision.
The vast majority of of the Dossier's contents have been confirmed minus one or two details such as Cohen being in Prague.
No he did not exonerate him. In fact, he explicitly stated that if he was confident that Trump committed no crime, he would have explicitly stated it. Again, you are either being purposefully obtuse about common law lingo or you genuinely don't understand it. "not sufficient evidence" is not the same as "no evidence".
You can convince me with actual explicit details of the inaccuracies in the Dossier. The pee tapes have not been confirmed and the location of Cohen during a specific time was incorrect. But other than that can you point to other parts that are inaccurate or not confirmed? Also, I don't have a cable subscription.
Also what are your thoughts on Christopher Steele and his work experience as a MI6 agent with expertise in Russian intelligence? Do you think his work experience is credible? Do you think he's an honest actor or an enemy of US interests similar to Putin?
Yes, I know the russian lawyer met with Glenn Simpson re: money laundering... that has been reported since 2017. The "so-called" set up is simply right wing conspiracy stuff.
you need to stop lying, making up crap u must have just crawled out of urcave, never reading the Mueller report nor listening to the Mueller public announcement. under both scenarios, Mueller steadfastly maintained. "if the evidence collected throughout the 22-month-long probe cleared President Donald Trump from any criminal wrongdoing, he would have stated. He didn't
to say that 750 is confused would be understating it u must have just crawled out of urcave, never reading the Mueller report nor listening to the Mueller public announcement. under both scenarios, Mueller steadfastly maintained. "if the evidence collected throughout the 22-month-long probe cleared President Donald Trump from any criminal wrongdoing, he would have stated. The honorable life-long Republican, and a decorated Viet Nam war hero, didn't
You do realize that a Republican publication initially got the whole thing started. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html
The DOJ office of Legal Counsel has determined that Congress has no right to see President Trump's tax returns. DOJ Says House Can't Force IRS to Provide Trump's Tax Returns The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel released a memo Friday supporting the Treasury Department's position that Congress is not entitled to see President Trump's tax returns. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin refused to comply with a House subpoena for Mr. Trump's federal tax returns in May, saying members of Congress did not have a "legitimate purpose" to review the returns. "Under the facts and circumstances, the Secretary of the Treasury reasonably and correctly concluded that the Committee's asserted interest in reviewing the Internal Revenue Service's audits of presidential returns was pretextual and that its true aim was to make the President's tax returns public, which is not a legitimate legislative purpose," the Office of Legal Counsel said in the memo. This is the House Democrats engaging in the most naked hyper-partisan political hackery that we have seen in this country since FDR tried to stack the US Supreme Court back in 1937. The TDS is truly out of control with this group and their followers, including not just a few here on this board.
the DoJ was unable to offer any legal argument against the House subpoena; the DoJ attorneys could only offer their personal opinion w no legal grounding. while the memo by the former attorney for the IRS put forth a legal argument