[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/news/ - Current News

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 31 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



Breitbart shills are absolutely seething

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/483119-doj-wont-charge-former-fbi-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe#

The Department of Justice (DOJ) will no longer pursue criminal charges against former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, closing a high-profile case against the former official whose conduct during the 2016 election came under intense scrutiny.

"We write to inform you that, after careful consideration, the Government has decided not to pursue criminal charges against your client, Andrew G. McCabe, arising from the referral by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to our Office of conduct,” wrote two officials from the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office. "Based on the totality of the circumstances and all of the information known to the Government at this time, we consider the matter closed."
>>
Glad to know that despite the bluster and conspiratorial nonsense going around in this administration that we’re at least not to the point of charging people for imaginary crimes yet.
>>
>>550839
Lawyers for McCabe — Michael Bromwich and David Schertler — celebrated the news, saying that McCabe and his family "can go on with their lives without this cloud hanging over them.”

“We learned this morning through a phone call from the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office that was followed by a letter that the Justice Department's criminal investigation of Andrew McCabe has been closed," they said.
>>
>>550844
I got ten bucks says the investigation of Hunter Biden is going to go fucking nowhere.
>>
>>550851
I am sure magapedes will be lining up to avoid that bet.
>>
>>550851
It will just be silently dropped without any announcement that they didn’t find anything, just like the probe into 2016 election fraud. That way retards can still pretend there’s some secret investigation and the trap is gonna spring any day now.
>>
>>550856
>A-A-ANY DAY NOW
remember when Hillary was the ringmaster of a criminal pedo ring and Trump was gonna LOCK HER UP?

Pepperidge farm remembers.
>>
>>550844
I dunno, I’d still give it like 1/5 odds Trump tries to jail Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, especially if he wins again.
>>
>McCabe decided to stop lying and stonewalling and start cooperating with the investigation instead
>>
>>550906
What kind of lying and stonewalling was he doing? Cite your sources, please.
>>
>>550839
propaganda opinion piece
>>
>>550912
What part of it is false, and what part of it is opinion? Is the DOJ lying? Are they actually pressing charges?
>>
>>550912
>>550906
cope
>>
>>550912
Sometimes it’s unclear if a reply is pure cope and sometimes it’s not. This is full cope.
>>
>>550912
There’s literally a DOJ memo now confirming that they are not pursuing charges.
>>
bump
>>
>>550912
>objective reality is propaganda!
Wanna know how I can tell you're a Trump supporter?
>>
>>550912
This post didn't age well.
>>
>>550839
McCabe is the entire focus of the Russian investigation. If McCabe is innocent then none of it was anything.
>>
>>551018
So why is Paul Manafort in jail? Why was Roger Stone found guilty?
>>
bump
>>
>>550914
Barr let MaCabe off because Barr had asked ORANGE MAN to stop tweeting about DoJ biz, but still ORANGE MAN persisted with his tweets, so Barr let MaCabe go as a way of reminding ORANGE MAN to stfu tweeting about DoJ biz. If that story is correct then it remains to be seen if ORANGE MAN is going to let Barr go or if he will stfu tweeting about DoJ biz. This is just the story that some rumor mill somewhere or other is spinning.
>>
>>551438
McCabe was going to be let off either way. Barr's job is to bend the law, not outright break it, and given the fact that the grand jury no-billed McCabe, there was no amount of torturous twisting of the law that would allow Barr to indict him.

So he was going to have to let him go and picked a good a time as any to tell Trump to fuck off and let him do his work in peace.
>>
>>551030
Crazy how “lock her up” worked out with bunches of trumpies in jail and no Dems.
>>
reminder bump
>>
>>551438
>Barr let MaCabe go as a way of reminding ORANGE MAN to stfu tweeting about DoJ biz
If that's true, Barr should resign immediately.
>>
>>551856
>should
There are lots of things that should happen but won't when it comes to Trump's administration.
>>
>>551934
it was her turn
>>
>>551939
Who?
>>
>>551448
This
>>
bump
>>
>>550856
The probe of the 2016 election lead to multiple arrests and the president was not at all exonerated, he was merely shielded from consequence by corruption.
You don't know how anything works, you don't have any grip on reality whatsoever, you are nothing but a tool.
And this is why you idiots will ultimately never get your way.
You finally get your big chance and you swat at phantoms of your own making like imbeciles.
>>
>>551959
Corrupt's a better word than crazy.
>>
>>552196
Bruh, that was so well said
>>
>>551856
He's not going to resign. If complete goddamn monsters stopped what they were doing on their own, we wouldn't need to give guns and licenses to kill to gangs so that they go and arrest people like him.

The head of the DoJ is corrupting his position. He doesn't need to be begged to resign, he needs to be made an example of to all the other would-be-nobles placing themselves above the rule of law.
>>
>>552341
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/barr-mulls-resigning-trumps-tweets-sources/story?id=69060616
>>
>>552196
>The probe of the 2016 election lead to multiple arrests
None of which had anything to do with collusion or electoral inference

> the president was not at all exonerated,
Collusion was debunked, so, he kinda was

>he was merely shielded from consequence by corruption
Consequence for... doing nothing that carries criminal penalties?

>You don't know how anything works, you don't have any grip on reality whatsoever, you are nothing but a tool.
Is this where you tell us to wait for SDNY to finally deliver on Mueller time in 5 years?

>And this is why you idiots will ultimately never get your way.
Trump is President, Mueller time failed, the whole Avenatti/Daniels saga failed, impeachment failed, and Trump is about to win his second term. Who's not getting their way again?

>You finally get your big chance and you swat at phantoms of your own making like imbeciles.
Russia. Russia! Russia russian russia! Russians? Russia!
>>
>>552427
>collusion
Is not a legal thing so what point did you have? You still have not read the report it seems.
>>
>>552428
>Is not a legal thing so what point did you have?
Doesn't have to be a legal thing for people to have made endless accusations about it. Where are they now?

Wrong and pretending no one remembers how vocal they were about it, that's where.
>>
>>552427
>None of which had anything to do with collusion
collusion: n - secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
Sessions, Manafort, Flynn and others were caught lying under oath in an effort to hide all the "secret or illegal cooperation" going on, so yeah, collusion.

> or electoral inference
Yes, there was a shit-ton of electoral inference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report#Russian_interference
> the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law".

See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report#Conspiracy_or_coordination
>While conspiracy/coordination was not proven, Mueller's report left many unanswered questions, such as whether the myriad secret contacts between Trump associates and Russians, which they lied about, constituted, using Mueller's words, "a third avenue of attempted Russian interference with or influence on the 2016 presidential election"?

>Put another way, what is the story these contacts tell if it's not one of active coordination? They surely aren't, in the aggregate, innocent. They aren't normal business practice for a presidential campaign. When Mueller asks whether they constituted some sort of third avenue for Russian interference, he's really asking, in the prosecutorial language available to him, what to make of them.... To my mind, anyway, that's the story Mueller told in this section. It may not be a crime, but it is a very deep betrayal.[87]

cont...
>>
>>552435

...cont
And just like the transcript of the "perfect call", the Muller report is incomplete, Trump redacted large sections of the report, invoking executive privilege.
So we still don't know everything that's in there, but we do know how Trump reacted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report#Trump's_reaction_to_Mueller_appointment
>upon learning that Mueller had been appointed as Special Counsel, Trump said "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked", to Jeff Sessions when they were having a meeting in the Oval Office.[93][94] "You were supposed to protect me", Sessions recalled Trump telling him.
>>
>>552435
>Sessions, Manafort, Flynn and others were caught lying under oath in an effort to hide all the "secret or illegal cooperation" going on, so yeah, collusion.
Separate cases from criminal acts at different points in time with little or no direct connection, certainly not with Russia,, as originally charged. So, no.
Goal post shift status: failed

>Yes, there was a shit-ton of electoral inference.
No votes were altered, no voter roles were changed, nothing prevented people from voting any way they wanted. More importantly, memes are not electoral interference and if you people didn't suck at memes you wouldn't have to invent a boogeyman to blame it on.

>While conspiracy/coordination was not proven
I.E: it remains unproven because people failed to prove it.
I.E: it's a debunked conspiracy theory.

>Trump redacted a part of the report that was not actually redacted and showed his reaction to a special counsel impeading his administration
You're devolving into schizo posting again anon.

How does it feel to know that your debunked conspiracy theory will never be taken seriously and the number of people who believe in it only dwindles as time goes on?
>>
>>552440
It isn't a conspiracy theory if it was proven correct (much less in a court or before Congress), and saying it was debunked over and over doesn't actually mean it was debunked.
>>
>>552441
>It isn't a conspiracy theory if it was proven correct
It wasn't proven correct, there was no Russian collusion as originally charged.

>and saying it was debunked over and over doesn't actually mean it was debunked.
Failing to prove it happened despite constant claims of readily available proof always about to drop, kind of points towards a debunking.
>>
>>552442
It WAS, in fact, proven correct, and you are a part of a shrinking minority who still is desperately holding on to your denial of reality around you.
>>
>>550839
Wtf
>>
>>552442
Read it and weep

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
>The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials—hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government—began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.
>>
>>552443
>It WAS, in fact, proven correct
It WAS, not in fact, proven correct

>and you are a part of a shrinking minority who still is desperately holding on to your denial of reality around you
Hey, this is what I just said except changed slightly and directed towards me! Nice try!
>>
>>552445
>no votes changed
>no voter roles changed
>no systems shut down or made inoperable to prevent voting
>no one forced to vote incorrectly or for someone they didn't want
>DNC still blaming Russia for Seth Rich/Wikileaks leaking emails showing how they rigged the primary
>>"sweeping and systematic fashion"
It just gets funnier and funnier every time you people try to double down, cause each time there's another piece of info missing that was debunked in the last round of debate.
>>
>>552447
What's it like railing against things you refuse to believe are true when the rest of society around you moves on as though they were true all along?
>>
>>552454
Good thing the report I just quoted says exactly the opposite of what your post does. But I get it, you think if you don't read the report then it didn't happen. I wish you good luck in life with that strategy.
>>
>>552454
>2020
>still clinging to Seth Rich conspiracies
Holy fucking doubledown, batman!
>>
>>552456
>What's it like railing against things you refuse to believe are true when the rest of society around you moves on as though they were true all along?
Yeah, society is completely uniform and of one thought, there's no disagreements between anyone except me. This is a completely normal way of thinking and doesn't make you sound schizo in the slightest.

>>552457
>Good thing the report I just quoted says exactly the opposite of what your post does.
Really? So the report has evidence of:
>no votes changed
>no voter roles changed
>no systems shut down or made inoperable to prevent voting
>no one forced to vote incorrectly or for someone they didn't want
Being false? Because if so, feel free to post evidence showing otherwise.

Or are you referring to the Seth Rich/Wikileaks thing? It's okay, I know independent thought scares you.

>But I get it, you think if you don't read the report then it didn't happen.
Is this how you cope with people who think differently than you?

>>552458
>still clinging to Russian boogeyman conspiracies
Holy fucking schizoprojection, batman!
>>
>>552445
>The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.
>The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.
>The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.
Bit of extra emphasis for all the brainlets ITT who only believe our intelligence agencies when it's convenient to them.
>>
>>552460
Hey Goebbels, hows it hanging?
>>
>>552461
Fuck off, Ivan, you're not changing reality.
>>
>>552454
Nobody ever claimed votes were changed. Nobody ever claimed voter roles were changed or voting systems shut down. Nobody claimed anyone forced anyone to vote incorrectly.
The DNC blaming Russia for it is secondary to the all of our intel agencies, and also the rest of the world's intel agencies blaming Russia for it. Do you know what a social media campaign is? Do you know what Cambridge Analytica was?
>you people
What majority are you pretending to represent today?
>>552459
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html
Prove them wrong. Oh wait, you can't!
>>552460
If they witnessed it happen personally with their own eyes they still wouldn't believe it.
>>
>>552464
Now THIS is schizo posting

>Nobody ever claimed votes were changed. Nobody ever claimed voter roles were changed or voting systems shut down. Nobody claimed anyone forced anyone to vote incorrectly.
Sure Jan, just pretend it never happened like you keep accusing me of doing.

>The DNC blaming Russia for it is secondary to the all of our intel agencies, and also the rest of the world's intel agencies blaming Russia for it
These the same intel agencies that said Iraq had WMD's? The same ones that claimed for years not to be spying en mass on people? K.

>What majority are you pretending to represent today?
The majority of people who've had words put into their mouths by frothing MSM schizoids such as yourself.

>>552465
>no votes changed
>no voter roles changed
>no systems shut down or made inoperable to prevent voting
>no one forced to vote incorrectly or for someone they didn't want
Prove them wrong. Oh wait, you can't!

>If they witnessed it happen personally with their own eyes they still wouldn't believe it.
Did either of you witness it personally with your own eyes? No? Weird.
>>
>>552466
>the anon in total denial about what's happened in the last 4 years is calling other people MSM schizoids
Maybe you might want to watch a bit of the MSM so you will have clue #1 what's happening in the world instead of the made up bullshit you're spewing on the /news/ board. Tell me again about how Seth Rich hacked the DNC so I can have a laugh.
>>
>>552466
>Prove them wrong. Oh wait, you can't!
Why would I prove your false premises? Nobody ever said the Russians did any of those things, but they did hack the voter rolls to get names to microtarget on facebook. Prove that wrong. Oh wait, you can't!
>>
>>552466
>muh-muh-muh 3 letter
The moment you pick a crackpot conspiracy theory over the consensus of the entire US intelligence community is the moment you take off from the ground and rocket into space on a plume of your own bullshit.

No one sane believes you. Get a life. Go out into the world. Be a better person.
>>
>>552469
>Maybe you might want to watch a bit of the MSM so you will have clue #1 what's happening in the world
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>Tell me again about how Russia hacked the DNC so I can have a laugh.
FTFY. Don't forget to pay your TV license, oi

>>552470
>Why would I prove your false premises?
Well to be fair, first you'd have to start by proving your own false premises, which you can't do despite your schizoid screeching otherwise.

>Nobody ever said the Russians did any of those things
Yes they did. Recheck mainstream TV news from late 2016 all the way up until late 2018/early 2019.

>but they did hack the voter rolls to get names to microtarget on facebook
And yet none of those targets have come forward saying their opinions were unfairly influenced in a manner that effected the way they vote.

Amazing how it really does come down to "Russians made memes, this is literally worse than 9/11!", every single fucking time.
>>
>>552471
>The moment you pick a crackpot conspiracy theory
You mean like Iraq having WMDs?
Or the IC community being a trustworthy group that doesn't spy on people en mass?

>you take off from the ground and rocket into space on a plume of your own bullshit.
If I did that, would I be accused by the IC of having WMDs?

>No one sane believes you. Get a life. Go out into the world. Be a better person.
Stop projecting anon. If you truly believed any of the shit you spew on here you wouldn't feel the need to defend it against anonymous criticism. Instead, your insecurity is showing because deep down you have doubts you can't reconcile, and you can't do anything about it other than flail.

Now take what I said, change it slightly and send it back to me like the infant-brained boomer you are. Keep flailing.
>>
>>552477
Shouldn't you be preparing for your podcast instead of trolling libtards on a Trebizondian sheep-sheering forum?
>>
>>552482
>You mean like Iraq having WMDs?
No, that was 15 years ago under a much different administration.
>Or the IC community being a trustworthy group that doesn't spy on people en mass?
What does that have to do with them being right?

>If I did that, would I be accused by the IC of having WMDs?
The IC community didn't do that so much as Dick Cheney personally did.

>Stop projecting anon. If
Stop grasping at straws, Anon, you're wrong and you should probably stop embarrassing yourself.
>>
>>552484
>Shouldn't you be preparing for your podcast instead of trolling libtards on a Trebizondian sheep-sheering forum?
Can you think of a better way of warming up for a podcast?

>>552485
>No, that was 15 years ago under a much different administration.
Neocons is the same.

>What does that have to do with them being right?
It doesn't, it has to do with them constantly lying and being untrustworthy.

>The IC community didn't do that so much as Dick Cheney personally did.
The IC community absolutely did that, much like they absolutely lied about mass surveillance.


>Stop grasping at straws
Thats not grasping st straws, that's pointing out that you're projecting. What you are doing above is grasping st straws.

> Anon, you're wrong and you should probably stop embarrassing yourself.
What did I just say about projecting? Stop it. Get some help. Take your anti-psychotics.
>>
>>552460
The lengths at which MAGAts will go to only believe what is convenient is astounding.

According to the Trump and his worshipers, truth only matters when it's beneficial to them. And when it's not, just lie your fucking face off.
>>
>>552477
>Well to be fair, first you'd have to start by proving your own false premises, which you can't do despite your schizoid screeching otherwise.
Naah they've been proven not just by Mueller but by Congress. Good luck disproving them. I'm going to laugh when you try.

>Yes they did. Recheck mainstream TV news from late 2016 all the way up until late 2018/early 2019.
How they duck would you know when you don't watch any MSM news?

>And yet none of those targets have come forward saying their opinions were unfairly influenced in a manner that effected the way they vote.
What the fuck are you talking about? That's pretty much all they've done since 2016 is come forward and say they were influenced by the millions of fake news posts on Facebook about Hillary and the Saudis or Hillary and Uranium One or Hillary and Benghazi or all the other mountain of shit that turned out to be Russian disinformation.
>Amazing how it really does come down to "Russians made memes, this is literally worse than 9/11!", every single fucking time.
It comes down to that so much because the Russians really are as bad as they say they are. They really did do the things you're denying they did. And the more time that passes and the more you do it, the more you sound crazy.
>>
>>552488
>What did I just say about projecting? Stop it. Get some help. Take your anti-psychotics.
Anon you can just type NO U next time you don't have an argument instead of wasting keystrokes on tripe like your post.
>>
>>552492
>Naah they've been proven not just by Mueller but by Congress
Really? Because I don't see any proof, all I see are arguments to authority and "according to anonymous sources".

>How they duck would you know when you don't watch any MSM news?
Because I read articles. Not taking MSM seriously doesn't mean I'm disconnected, it means I don't have brain worms from watching TV all day.

>What the fuck are you talking about? That's pretty much all they've done since 2016 is come forward and say they were influenced by the millions of fake news posts on Facebook about Hillary and the Saudis or Hillary and Uranium One or Hillary and Benghazi or all the other mountain of shit that turned out to be Russian disinformation.
Name one person who has literally come forward claiming to be a victim such to the point that they had their minds changed enough to vote for Trump. One.

>It comes down to that so much because the Russians really are as bad as they say they are.
Of course! And they always were! Double plus ungood, eh?!

>>552496
>Anon you can just type NO U next time you don't have an argument instead of wasting keystrokes on tripe like your post.
Why would I do that, when I can keep ruining your day and wasting your time, making you so insecure about something thing you're so sure is true that you feel the need to constantly defend it to random anonymous people on a Vietnamese tunnel digging forum?
>>
>>552503
>when I can keep ruining your day and wasting your time
I'm sure the boogeyman liberals who live rent free in your head are cowering in fear at your awesome mental prowess. In the real world there are two or three Anons laughing at you sticking your head in the sand and denying what happened over the last 4 years.
>>
>If I deny literally everything put forth, then it's not true!
This is the calibur of trumpsters arguments? What a waste.
>>
>>552435
The problem really is that those legal definitions come from a time before television. Before social media.
Back then, conspiracy involved having to actually meet with the other party and set everything up.

NOW THOUGH? That's fucking gone. You can plaster your ideologies, wishes and needs across the world thanks to the internet and don't need the underground shadowy bunker round table around a globe to plan this sort of shit: Putin sees your request on TV and a few minutes later acts on it. Oligarchs and Saudi pedoprinces see your preferences and party platform online and just anonymously donate through some shell accounts to your campaign.
So while half of the reason no conspiracy could be proven is that everyone involved refused to testify or produce any documents WHILE USING THEIR AUTHORITY TO PREVENT DISCOVERY - which should be executably bad enough to begin with, it's also that the means of communication and planning now have additional layers of obfuscation from technologies that weren't even imaginable when these laws were written.
>>
>>552503
>Because I read articles.
No you don't. If you did you would know what happened. You don't seem to have a clue. Wikipedia's pages on the subject are nothing but articles as sources, yet you deny they are there.
>>
>>552503
Your statements are erroneous, and pretty much word for word the talking points of fox pundits.
Most of which were written for them... by Russia.
>>
>>552525
Lol,wikipedia
>>
>>553041
Lol, look at this shitter whose so BTFO'd he's not willing to read source pages linked on a wiki page.
>>
>>552430
You cannot be indicted for a crime that isn’t a thing even if many people riff about it.
Mueller handed out 34 indictments for actual crimes.
>>
>>552196
am i retarded or are you agreeing with him? or more likely you responded to the wrong post?
>>
>>552503
>I don't see any proof
russian confirmed
>>
>>550839
Every instance of action in furtherance of a conspiracy can be charged, statute of limitations extending a certain number of years there after, every single time.

'Lack of candor' is nothing. Perjuring 302 forms of a former general is quite something. This is all foreplay, pending 2020 Trumpslide.
>>
>>553285
Any

day

now
>>
>>552525
>No you don't. If you did you would know what happened.
It's not my fault you take everything you read as gospel truth and you don't think or ask questions. You trust the government? Pfft. Idiot.

>>552527
>I can't refute you're points so I'll just blame fox news and Russia
Thank you for conceding and admitting I was right

>>553100
>Mueller handed out 34 indictments for actual crimes.
None of which had anything to do with anything remotely related to collusion with Russia or any other power. So, yeah.

>>553249
>muh Russia!
Russia Russia Russia. Russia? Russian Russia Russians Russia!
>>
>>550860
Never go to Vegas, because you suck at predictions
>>
>>553314.
>It's a shoot the messenger argument
You are so tiresome.
>>
>>553417
>shoot the messenger argument
No, it's not anon, stop trying to invent reasons why you can't refute my points and start making better arguments yourself.
>>
>>553314
t. Ivan
>>
>>553463
t. Coping tranny
>>
>>553314
>None of which had anything to do with anything remotely related to collusion with Russia or any other power. So, yeah.
Criminal conspiracy cases are pretty hard to prove. It was pretty clear Mueller was going the ENRON route by uncovering unrelated crimes and using those charges to force people to flip to avoid jail time. This worked with Enron, but didn’t with the people in Trump’s campaign, possibly because Trump may have promised them pardons, or, as you have clearly concluded, there may have been nothing there in the first place.

I still struggle with the amount of lying to investigators and congress that the whole team did. Why would so many of them lie under oath if there was nothing to hide? There’s testimony from the Stone trial that also contradicts one of Trump’s written answers to Mueller now, but I doubt we’ll get any more answers for years down the road here.
>>
>>553314
>indictments for actual crimes
>b-b-but collusion
Again, one more time, let’s be very clear: “collusion” is not in the criminal code. One cannot be indicted for something that is not a crime.
So?



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.