If trump were innocent he wouldn't be doing what hes now doing
If he was guilty Mewler would have said so.
BigMike wrote:
If he was guilty Mewler would have said so.
Now wait a minute here. Muler only said there was no evidence of guilt. That doesn't mean he isn't guilty!
I've read that argument (if you can call it that) more times than I can count.
Personally, I think everyone who uses that argument is, either a serial baby rapist, or, a serial killer. There is no evidence to support my claims, but, at the same time, there is no evidence to refute them.
Lonewolf is a dog rapist.
Mueller said their was evidence of guilt
Lonewolf wrote:
obstructing justice
How so? Is he destroying documents, devices, and hard drives?
Sorry wolf, tables have turned, and he's gone to war. Good luck!
Lonewolf wrote:
obstructing justice
You have a very twisted idea of justice.
Lonewolf wrote:
Mueller said their was evidence of guilt
If and when you come out of your political coma, maybe we can explain to you that a Special Counsel cannot, by law, pronounce anyone guilty or innocent of anything. All an SC can do is investigate and if sufficient evidence exists to charge someone for a crime, he must, by law, return an indictment that he must turn over to a grand jury or a federal court for prosecution. If the SC investigation fails to find sufficient evidence to file a formal charge, he must, by law, decline.
Since Mueller did not indict President Trump, and no indictments are forthcoming, it is reasonable to conclude he failed in his mission to overthrow a presidential election and disenfranchise 63 million American voters. So, what did Mueller really do? He wrote a case for impeachment for the HOR (which, BTW, he is not legally or constitutionally authorized to do).
If I were you, I'd be concerned about the investigation now underway into the origins of the Russia collusion investigation and Mueller's role in the greatest political scandal in American history.
Gatsby wrote:
You have a very twisted idea of justice.
Just wishful thinking on his part. In a liberals mind if they want something to be true then it is true. An example is their practice of guilt by accusation. Facts are irrelevant.
archie bunker wrote:
How so? Is he destroying documents, devices, and hard drives?
Sorry wolf, tables have turned, and he's gone to war. Good luck!
Rumors have it he's destroyed 5 boxes holding campaign documents
Lonewolf wrote:
Rumors have it he's destroyed 5 boxes holding campaign documents
Rumor has it that you murdered your neighbor over a 1/2 lb of crack cocaine.
archie bunker wrote:
Rumor has it that you murdered your neighbor over a 1/2 lb of crack cocaine.
Trump used to sell cocaine
Blade_Runner wrote:
If and when you come out of your political coma, maybe we can explain to you that a Special Counsel cannot, by law, pronounce anyone guilty or innocent of anything. All an SC can do is investigate and if sufficient evidence exists to charge someone for a crime, he must, by law, return an indictment that he must turn over to a grand jury or a federal court for prosecution. If the SC investigation fails to find sufficient evidence to file a formal charge, he must, by law, decline.
Since Mueller did not indict President Trump, and no indictments are forthcoming, it is reasonable to conclude he failed in his mission to overthrow a presidential election and disenfranchise 63 million American voters. So, what did Mueller really do? He wrote a case for impeachment for the HOR (which, BTW, he is not legally or constitutionally authorized to do).
If I were you, I'd be concerned about the investigation now underway into the origins of the Russia collusion investigation and Mueller's role in the greatest political scandal in American history.
If and when you come out of your political coma, m... (
show quote)
Did you mean oranges or origins... talk about a stable genius or is it TDS...
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.