The Mueller report

[grean]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Really? Link where Nunes is involved? If they want the full report they can go to a secured room. That's part of the issue. Nobody wants to read to full report. They want the full report so they can get a lackey to read it so they have ammo (real or fake) to load up on and prolong it.

I read where the Senate wants Don Jr to testify so he can describe the differences between what he said and what Michael Cohen said. Michael Cohen just went to jail. If they needed to level accounts, why did the Senate wait until Cohen was in jail? The Senate already said no conspiracy before Mueller did.

As requested
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sch...g-on-documents

[gnadfly]

Thanks. Both Nunes and Schiff are part of the "gang of eight" that can go into a secure room and read the unredacted portions. Don't know if they have access to the underlying evidence. Though.

Nunes has wanted documents for some time and the DOJ has drug it feet for years.

[eccieuser9500]

Judge demands unredacted Mueller report in Roger Stone case





https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ueller-1313624

Stone’s attempt to see the redacted Mueller report is one of a handful of legal bids working their way through the courts dealing with the special counsel’s work.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Sure. Just keep lying to yourself. Keep those blinders on. Maybe stick your head in the sand.

[URL=https://pimpandhost.com/image/108807681][/URL

]

No lie. You cannot cite a precedent where the Founding Fathers used the emoluments clause to persecute a sitting president for business operations that existed before and continued through a sitting president's term in office -- even when those business transactions involved foreigners.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Like the Chicago P.D.: the evidence is there, somebody just doesn't want to prosecute.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

you are aware Warren has not seen the less redacted report? that she's not one the 6 Democrats authorized to do so, yeah??


So what does that mean? it means Warren is full of shit.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/10/polit...ort/index.html


No Democrats have read the less-redacted Mueller report. But five Republicans have.

You'll love this. really it's great. it's clear the DOJ under Obama was corrupt to the max and used false info to get those FISA warrants. that means the Special Counsel never should have been appointed.


witch hunt.





now the witches are gonna get burned alive.


BAHHAHAAAAAAA

[eccieuser9500]

Trump lashes out at former White House counsel Don McGahn


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ueller-1317612

According to the redacted version of the special counsel’s report released by the Justice Department in April, Trump instructed McGahn to inform Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that Mueller must be removed. McGahn refused Trump’s subsequent request to refute press reports of the president’s directive, according to Mueller’s report.

There was already enough evidence in the redacted report. Now you're desperately reaching back to question the foundation of the investigation.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Trump lashes out at former White House counsel Don McGahn


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ueller-1317612

There was already enough evidence in the redacted report. Now you're desperately reaching back to question the foundation of the investigation.

Now you're desperately reaching for an impeachment Mueller couldn't justify.

[eccieuser9500]

Then the argument goes: (if foundation is sound) question the evidence.

When the evidence is clear, just deny that it's enough.


Same old memes and GIFs.

If the Executive owns the judiciary, then it's up to the House to rule. And in the end, the house always wins. But his majesty, who bankrupts casinos, can't even manage that. Even though the house always wins, it doesn't mean you didn't have fun.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Then the argument goes: (if foundation is sound) question the evidence.

When the evidence is clear, just deny that it's enough.


Same old memes and GIFs.

If the Executive owns the judiciary, then it's upto the House to rule. And in the end, the house always wins. But his majesty, who bankrupts casinos, can't even manage that. Even though the house always wins, it doesn't mean you didn't have fun.

speaking of evidence ..










we aren't laughing with you ... we are laughing at you.

[eccieuser9500]

Fakes news is this administration's voice box. You can do better than that. I have faith in you. Two in a row? I should have let you strike out with a third stupid fake video.

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2548698&highlight=

Nobody's laughing at you. Just feel sorry for you.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Fakes news is this administration's voice box. You can do better than that. I have faith in you. Two in a row? I should have let you strike out with a third stupid fake video.









Nobody's laughing at you. Just feel sorry for you.

fake? how so? and of course you expect everyone else to take your sources as unbiased and accurate?

FOX is biased. but it doesn't mean that video is inaccurate .. unless you can prove otherwise, Captain?

find it in the Mueller report. show where anything of substance in the Steele dossier was actually validated as true by Mueller's team.

we all know that Cohen didn't go to Prague after all. were those many news reports claiming so fake news? or just partisan hack jobs for political purposes?


BBAHAHAHAAAAAA

[eccieuser9500]

Here's some real news:

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Here's some real news:

Bad news, friend. first you lost the debate by resorting to insults rather than any actual reply. second you violated forum rules by making a insulting and off-topic post. third it's been over an hour so your ability to edit it has expired. forth ...


RTM


thank you valued poster!

[eccieuser9500]

You take it as an insult? Oh, it wasn't a debate.