whenthebigonefinallyhitsla

joined 3 months ago
[–] whenthebigonefinallyhitsla@kbin.run 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

But, the report said, “because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.

i presume you're pulling that from volume 2 of the report, since you didn't link anything

volume 1 deals with election interference

volume 2 deals with obstruction of justice

or in other words, your quote isn't relevant to evidence for conspiracy with russia

 

the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russia offers of assistance to the Campaign.

"establishing multiple links" isn't the same thing as concluding they conspired, but even if it was, the second line of my initial comment addresses this:

Even if the report had concluded they conspired, concluding they conspired isn't the same thing as having "sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges"

 

Investigators “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.”

this is talking about obstruction again, not collusion

 

your linked article doesn't support the statement "mueller found enough evidence to convict trump" at any point, which means the journalist was correct

[–] whenthebigonefinallyhitsla@kbin.run 14 points 3 months ago (3 children)

he still makes the horse carry him on the sleigh though

RFK determined to win

[–] whenthebigonefinallyhitsla@kbin.run 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.

from here

maybe he did but that's the only definitive statement i can find from him on the matter

[–] whenthebigonefinallyhitsla@kbin.run 18 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Concluding that Russia interfered with an election to Trump's benefit isn't the same thing as concluding that Trump conspired with the Russians

Even if the report had concluded they conspired, concluding they conspired isn't the same thing as having "sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges"

reporting like this probably helps trump more than it harms him, because it just further entrenches his supporters against mainstream media

[–] whenthebigonefinallyhitsla@kbin.run 2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

given the spanking doctor strange received for requiring audience participation in a tv series, i don't think disney are going to do that again

you actually have seen the second one, because it's somehow the same movie as the first one but wetter

view more: ‹ prev next ›