it looks like somebody in this story doesn't understand the difference between strategy and tactics, which definitely seems like quite an important distinction in this case
so you waded into a conversation about the rioters to ask an unrelated question?
cool thank you for the valuable discourse
pretending that there's a question posed by these riots about immigration is just pretending that that's the question far right rioters are asking, which is just an attempt to rehabilitate blatant racism in the eyes of an uninformed observer, and by doing it you're just being a useful idiot
i'm sure the far-right rioters are concerned mainly with the detailed cost-benefit analysis of how current and future immigration strategy could impact the uk's fiscal outlook, and not with anything else at all
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
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"
thinking tactically is short term, thinking strategically is long-term, especially with the "plan ahead" in the title
nothing about the test described in the article implies that horses are capable of doing that though
it looks like somebody in this story doesn't understand the difference between strategy and tactics, which definitely seems like quite an important distinction in this case
i'm not saying you're deliberately constructing the argument
i'm saying you're a useful idiot carrying water for the far right without realising it
👀
the booth is constructed around them and then raised into the air with a crane, and the support built below
big "i'm just asking questions" energy
this is just borderline sealioning
so you waded into a conversation about the rioters to ask an unrelated question?
cool thank you for the valuable discourse
pretending that there's a question posed by these riots about immigration is just pretending that that's the question far right rioters are asking, which is just an attempt to rehabilitate blatant racism in the eyes of an uninformed observer, and by doing it you're just being a useful idiot
i'm sure the far-right rioters are concerned mainly with the detailed cost-benefit analysis of how current and future immigration strategy could impact the uk's fiscal outlook, and not with anything else at all
f35 is like a bee if you tell it it can't fly it will drop out of the sky
what about the winter games?
mueller released the report in 2 volumes, one talking about russian interference and collusion, and one talking about obstruction
it seems pretty clear from the quote and rest of the source that he's not talking about obstruction there
the memory hole
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
"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:
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
he still makes the horse carry him on the sleigh though
RFK determined to win
from here
maybe he did but that's the only definitive statement i can find from him on the matter
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
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