No, this just illustrates that if you don't understand something or it looks bad for you then it must be a lie.
You are steadfastly refusing to acknowledge why a decision was not made even after I explicitly detailed it for you.
Also, ignoring the documented ties to Russia that Trump had even before the election, ignoring that part of the indictment included a Russian company that interfered with the express purpose of getting Trump elected, ignoring the ties of Donald Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Roger Stone, Rex Tillerson, Felix Sater, and Sergey Kislyak, you still have the fact that the investigation was not about Russian collusion, it was about if Trump abused his power as President by trying to obstruct the investigation into Russian collusion. And one of the things we do know from the redacted Mueller report is that there were at least 10 points where Trump could have done just that and the question was left up to Congress to decide.
The entire first volume of the Mueller report can be summarized as "we can't prove collusion with Russia because too much information was withheld or lied about, but here's a comprehensive list of all Trump's ties to the Russian government." Volume two is "we can't say there was obstruction because we can't put the President on trial so making legal conclusions would be prejudicial. Therefore we'll only say that here's all the where's and how's about the times he may have obstructed justice and Congress can investigate and take appropriate action."
You think the wrong people are lying to you, guartz.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
General Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to Mueller investigators about communications with Russians that he tried to hide. He is currently in court over this.
So I answered your question. Will you change your mind or continue with your shit?
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
or maybe I just don't ignore other aspects of the case. For example, Archi brought up trump tower meeting. It looks pretty damning that Jr talked with an oligarch and met with russian lawyer. Until you find out that that lawyer met before and after the meeting with Fusion GPS leadership. Now I can't say it looks like collusion, because now it looks like setup.
Same with current whistlerblower and same with Mueller investigation.
Bruh who cares who the lawyer met with before and after. The lawyer met WITH THE TRUMPS for the express purpose of talking about how russia wants trump to be president, and how russia might have a way of helping gain access to oppo research.
And Jr said "if it's what you say it is, I love it"
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
The trumps might be treasonous traitors, or useful idiots, I dont give a damn which, but the facts are the Trumps knew Russia was trying to influence the election to their favor, and they lied about knowing and encouraging it. The Mueller report makes this clear.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Guartz is just holding out hope, like many folks with Nixon, that his favorite guy is actually innocent.
Hey Nixon was really good at the job.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Yeah he got a puppy for his hard work
See your painting a narrative. People from other countries who may or may not be state actors buy ads and lobby our country routinely. It's status quo. You are saying it's somehow exceptional. The only exceptional thing that happened was hacking of Clinton's private email server, which a tech company that was paid by DNC claimed russia did it. Nobody else examined that server to verify that claim.
That's not a narrative, that's the truth you dolt. Every western allied intelligence agency agrees the Russian State orchestrated the interference campaign, and the Mueller report makes it clear the Trumps knew and encouraged it. This isnt narrative, its fact.
You are now saying they all got it wrong. They didn't investigate, and you're saying this with zero evidence.
You're batshit crazy my guy.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Gredival translations:
"...And 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." - President committed a crime.