BREAKING: Robert Mueller is speaking right now, for the first time since the report was released

What is the best way to introduce evidence of the Deep State crimes than in a public forum like an impeachment? Every camera in America rolling and no way to stop the evidence from pouring in.

 

If you think the democrat controlled house would allow FBI subpoena's you are only fooling yourself. That will be up to Barr.

 

Wrong again...

He claimed he could not indict. That does NOT mean he could not provide evidence which he did not do.

 

And this is where your (and yours) silly argument goes right off the f*cking rails. The deep state just had in in for trump, riiiight? Why?
I find the premise retarded on its face.

 

Well, except for everything known at this point, you might have something.

 

Other than Volume 2, Zero evidence provided....

WTF do you people consider evidence?? He provided witness statements, phone call records, EMAIL records, and media reports...

I suggest you try reading it before you falsely claim no evidence provided... He just couldn't formally indict and decided it was unfair to formally accuse...

Try this for 3 minutes.... Page 1 of the Mueller Report says 'Trump committed 11 acts of OOJ' Have a nice day'

What happens then?

 

What better way for Barr to release declassed info?

 

Let me be clear:
The idea that the Meuller investigation was a deep state mission to remove trump from office is retarded. It's patently stupid on its face. You don't even have a gdamn motive, unless you believe trumps substandard intelligence to be a valid reason.

 

Evidence.. I want the cold hard evidence the Dems said they saw.. Not implications.. Evidence.

He thought it was "unfair".. Hah.....

 

Barr is in a fight with another FBI director that is stonewalling giving requested information. They protect their own.

 

Lots of talk of evidence,, but no evidence.
Strange how that works

 

The 'evidence' of collusion was the hoax dossier. Mueller and his team were all part of the beginning of this before the investigation. The same FBI that were investigating the hoax dossier were part of Mueller's team. The highly biased Strzok was in charge of the investigation where he was more interested in accusing Trump than he was for actually doing his job.

 

Dont worry, House congress critters will find the evidence Mueller has failed to produce

 

I do realize that and that could get settled before the impeachment hearings start.

 

So now they want to talk about obstruction, obstruction of an illegally conceived malicious prosecution

 

And he explained why

 

Not really....

Quiz time:

What is the first known example of Trump obstructing justice and explain what it has to do with Russian election interference??

 

Hoax dossier?? WTF are you talking about? Have you followed this story, like, at all?

And Strzok is a about a f*ckton short of showing any kind of deep state conspiracy existed for removing a dumbass president who can't even string together two coherent sentences.

 

Politically inspired opinion since the OLC is opinion and not law and others disagree like Barr and even a democrat lawyer in the House.

 

Your ignorance of the facts is not my problem.

 

It seems that ignorance is your problem, not mine. The dossier was oppo research, initially funded by a conservative group!
The document was not a hoax. Do you have any idea wtf you are talking about?

 

I listened intently to what he said and he did not give any plausible explanation as to why he couldn't give an opinion that trump obstructed justice. Feel free to give me the relevant quote explaining why you believe he couldn't present evidence of guilt. It was interesting though how he completely glossed over any Russian collusion charges like that wasn't even part of the investigation. Somehow obstruction suddenly became the focus of the investigation all along which makes no sense at all.

 

There are facts, RW facts, and bullshit... They peddle exclusively in the final 2 categories...

 

No it doesn't. A person does not give up their 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures just because the become President. If a sitting President can be subject to the concept of "digging for dirt until we find some", then where does that leave the rest of us? Do we dig up dirt on Congress-people next? Then maybe ALL Government employees? Maybe Law Enforcement? After that, anybody we do not like or say things we disagree with?

The only unique thing about your thoughts that a President needs to be held to a higher standard of investigation is that it takes away rights by starting at the top. Most people want to remove our freedoms by starting at the bottom and then working up.