I N D I C T E D

[Jaxon]

Obviously the tape will stay under wraps as long as Trump decides to play ball with the Russians so you have a nice, neat, self-perpetuating conspiracy going for you there.

[DinoTriz2]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so we're just taking his word for it? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's in the report.

So I guess?

[DinoTriz2]

After reading a good chunk of the Report, I’m convinced now that the main goal was not to indict President Trump or his team but rather to sow doubt for the 2020 race and to cover up Hillary’s crimes. Here’s the rundown:

Sowing Doubt:

Mueller’s team complains on Page 10 about lack of evidence and claims it prevented them from reaching a verdict. This is completely baseless. After interviewing hundreds of witnesses and tens thousands of hours of work, no evidence was found. That indicates President Trump and his team are 100% innocent. They know this too, so they are pretending the goal was to prove innocence. That is never how a prosecution works.

There is no legal reason for Mueller to include the phrase on Page 78, “This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency.” That’s hearsay as it came from someone else and there is no legal justification for its inclusion in the document when the goal was to determine whether a crime was committed or not. It’s a salacious quote for the media and Democrats.

(incidentally, if you want to know how we know Trump’s team did NOT collude with the Russians, check out page 145 where Hope Hicks and Jared Kushner try rather ineptly and humorously to verify an email and phone call from Russian officials. We’re supposed to believe they were secretly colluding behind closed doors with the country? Give me a break).

Cover up:

On Page 36 the Report insists that the DNC was hacked by the GRU. There is no indication that Mueller or his team personally reviewed the physical DNC server or what kind of investigation was conducted. The DNC refused to show the FBI their server upon request. To date, the only people who are known to have had access to the server is a private company called CrowdStrike.

On Page 48 Mueller insists that Seth Rich is not the source of the emails but fails to produce any reason why Seth Rich is not the source. It was a mere namedrop.

Seymour Hersh is not mentioned at all. Hersh is a NYTimes reporter who named Seth Rich as the source of the Wikileaks emails.

On Page 25 Mueller’s team played up the influence of alleged Russian Facebook and Twitter ads while downplaying their pro-Hillary posts.

On Page 152, Mueller claimed Russian government officials and businessmen immediately went about to work with Trump after he won. What Mueller doesn’t appear to mention is that alleged Russian accounts worked against Trump as soon as he won. In fact, they were promoting Mueller and the Russian investigation (imagine that!). You can see evidence of the tweets here and here.

There’s not a single mention of Tony Podesta or Podesta Group

The Steele dossier appears to be mentioned only in passing. No detailed investigation into the veracity or origins. Remember this is supposedly a dossier with a source directly from the Kremlin. Seems relevant.

No apparent mention in the entire document about the State Department emails that were hacked in 2016. It seriously appears that Russia did hack those (the official who was hacked was tasked with studying Russia). Why no mention of this very real hack?

There you have it. I know this report vindicates Trump, but it’s also a massive coverup. They want to bury Seth Rich for good and they want to cement in the minds of every American that Russia hacked the election to help Trump while downplaying the anti-Trump activities of these other alleged Russian accounts.

[AenorVZ]

Originally Posted by Jaxon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not to job of law enforcement to prove that things didn't happen, because that's impossible. All they can do is look at the evidence there is and determine whether or not it's sufficient to prove conspiracy.

Law enforcement doesn't prove conspiracy. Law enforcement investigates and determines if there is sufficient evidence to recommend the case to a prosecutorial body for potential charges where the charges will then be proven or disproven in the appropriate venue. In this case, the venue is Congress. Haven't you ever watched Law & Order? As per the quote in my previous post, Mueller left it to the discretion of Congress to pursue it further, just as any decent investigator would.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by Jaxon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Obviously the tape will stay under wraps as long as Trump decides to play ball with the Russians so you have a nice, neat, self-perpetuating conspiracy going for you there.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[AenorVZ]

Originally Posted by DinoTriz2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

After reading a good chunk of the Report, I’m convinced now that the main goal was not to indict President Trump or his team but rather to sow doubt for the 2020 race and to cover up Hillary’s crimes.

LMAO nobody cares. Hillary isn't running for anything. If you coulda, you woulda. Impotence.

[DinoTriz2]

Originally Posted by AenorVZ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Law enforcement doesn't prove conspiracy. Law enforcement investigates and determines if there is sufficient evidence to recommend the case to a prosecutorial body for potential charges where the charges will then be proven or disproven in the appropriate venue. In this case, the venue is Congress. Haven't you ever watched Law & Order? As per the quote in my previous post, Mueller left it to the discretion of Congress to pursue it further, just as any decent investigator would.

Read Page 2 of the Report.

It proves you wrong.

[DMN]

Originally Posted by AenorVZ [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Law enforcement doesn't prove conspiracy. Law enforcement investigates and determines if there is sufficient evidence to recommend the case to a prosecutorial body for potential charges where the charges will then be proven or disproven in the appropriate venue. In this case, the venue is Congress. Haven't you ever watched Law & Order? As per the quote in my previous post, Mueller left it to the discretion of Congress to pursue it further, just as any decent investigator would.

Congress doesn't have any prosecutorial powers, you fuckng retard.

[AenorVZ]

Originally Posted by DinoTriz2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Read Page 2 of the Report.

"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts." - Page 2

[AenorVZ]

Originally Posted by DMN [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Congress doesn't have any prosecutorial powers, you fuckng retard.

This is what I mean when I say smattering of dimwits. This vegetable apparently skipped school they day civics class talked about impeachment.