SectionC3

I don't fear you. I do, however, expect you to be respectful of others when in public. Whether you agree with, or like, that position is your choice.

Two points. First, you've taken the sentence fragment completely out of context. Second, you have received your explanation. DOJ policy precluded Mueller from indicting a sitting president. Consistent with that policy, Mueller refused to say (that is, to conclude) that the President committed a crime. Mueller did have the latitude to say that the facts showed that the President did not commit a crime. As noted in the part of the sentence that you (intentionally) omitted, Mueller declined to conclude as much. It's surprising that you -- someone who normally is fairly level-headed -- would ascribe to such logic. What was the result of Part I of the Mueller report? Insufficient evidence with respect to collusion. Mueller said it in these words: "Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election." So why wouldn't Mueller say the same thing with respect to obstruction in Part II of the report? He easily could have said "the evidence was not sufficient to charge [Trump] with any crime related to obstruction of justice." But he didn't. And that, sir, when coupled with the conclusion to Part II, is a pretty big clue as to what special counsel really thought of the obstruction part of the investigation.

Or they (and you) could show a little decency. Either one.

No, Barr didn't exonerate the president. And no, Mueller didn't violate the terms of his appointment. In point of fact Mueller believed that he lacked legal authority to charge a sitting president, which is why the report left open the question whether a criminal action against Trump with respect to this conduct should be pursued once Trump leaves that office.

Fake logic, bro. In point of fact, your statement reflects that you don't know what you're talking about and that you're well out of your depth. Mueller indicated that, for reasons unrelated to his criminal liability, the president could not be charged at this juncture. Mueller specifically declined to say that, based on his review of the evidence, the president should not be charged. The president still may be held liable for such criminal conduct once DOJ policy permits his indictment.

I didn't say Trump is guilty. I merely pointed out that the DOJ has reserved judgment on the issue whether Trump obstructed justice. Mueller could have said that there was legally insufficient evidence to support an obstruction charge. But he didn't. And he specifically noted that he did not "exonerate" the president. The fact that the Mueller report doesn't say what you would like it to say doesn't make me (or Mueller, or anyone else, for that matter) "disingenuous" or a "***** idiot." What is your experience in matters of this nature?

That's nice, and it is your choice. It's also my choice to tell you that I think you're being selfish to the extent that you come into close proximity with another person on the trail or in your neighborhood. I have some ignorant people in my neighborhood; an adult member of one household had COVID-19 and was down and out for almost two months, and this person's spouse closely associated during that time period with others in the neighborhood. None of those congregants has worn a mask, and some of those people have come too close to my kids since then. They have quickly learned of my views on the matter.

Sometimes in addition to breathing people cough. Including people with COVID-19. And discharge from a cough spreads more widely than does discharge from breathing.

Then surely you know the the report concludes with this paragraph: Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

It is that contagious. Hence the call to wear masks not to prevent acquisition, but to prevent transmission.

Yup. We're fighting an "invisible enemy." Our president imagines himself as a "wartime" leader. And yet his followers can't contribute to the effort with respect to those things by simply wearing a bandana over their faces. Unreal.

You obviously did not read the Mueller report.

That would be something if you could wrap the entirety of your self in plastic. Kind of like the time Brian's replacement on Family Guy killed himself, chopped himself up, and put himself in the trash. Impressive.

Hoax. Those masks do limit the spread of the wearer's discharge.

You are principled believer in the rule of law. I can tell.

And these are the people who think everyone else is dumb.

Either you believe him to have performed well or you support a mediocre president. (And mediocre probably is a compliment.). Your choice.

The thumbnail sketch of this one (from what little I understand) is that Trump is trying to extend the concept of presidential immunity to a third-party accounting firm to defeat a subpoena served not on Trump, but on that firm. We're talking about a leap from a "no indictment" rule with respect to a sitting president to a "no subpoena" rule with respect to a sitting president to a "no subpoena upon a third party that may somehow affect a sitting president" rule. Bottom line: the prez wants to be above the law, and the rule of law crowd is completely cool with him getting his way.

He's not the guy with the tiny baby hands problem. So I'm not so sure about the laughingstock thing. Maybe you should brush up on the serial comma before you put on the grammar police badge tonight. Obstruction of justice was a hoax?

Someone who thinks Donald Trump has performed well as president calling me easily impressed. Now that is something.

Let me see if I can unpack this one. To engage in the affirmative act of putting on and wearing a mask is lazy. But, if I understand correctly, you have also intimated that not wearing a mask is never lazy, and instead is always a statement of some sort. That sounds like alternative logic.

Who are those leftists? Ladies and gentlemen, Q-baby has won the Internet tonight.

Of course the flu has claimed more than COVID. COVID has been around for what, six months? An absurd point if ever there was one. I’ll translate the message: they’re inept, and their response to the virus has been a fiasco.

How is it a large thing?

I actually get their reasoning, too. I genuinely do. I just think it’s the wrong spot to take the stand. I guess it’s the way America works;. They can do something which I disagree, and I have the right to tell them how much I do not appreciate their behavior.