Trump and Russia

[Deranged Rhino]

22 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

It might take an hour to explain how clueless your statement is.  

 

 

It's all he has left. He can't make a valid (or coherent) legal argument. He does not know the basic facts of the case. He, in fact, knows next to nothing about this matter as he continue to proves each and every post. 

 

[Reality Check]

Flynn is not going to jail, and Trump will be re-elected. It isn't complicated. Elections have consequences. Arguing about it changes nothing.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Doc]

The funniest part of this whole thing is that with all the left's talk about Russian disinformation, they got hoodwinked by it the most.  That Steele dossier could be seen-through by a high schooler.  That the American IC used it is frightening in that they're either employing those who are idiots or politically-biased, neither of which is a good look.

[Foxx]

55 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

It might take an hour to explain how clueless your statement is.  The bottom line, though, is that Mueller concluded that there was legally insufficient evidence of a crime with respect to the collusion question.  He could have reached the same conclusion with respect to obstruction, but he didn't.  And since he couldn't present the case to a grand jury per DOJ policy, the question whether Trump committed obstruction of justice will await the end of Trump's presidency.  He absolutely, unequivocally, did not conclude that "there was not an acceptable level proven."

lol, clueless is saying the exact same thing i said only with word salad and then claiming it clueless. you are the one who claimed, exoneration' not i. 

 

55 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

From Bob Mueller's typewriter to your deluded eyes:

 

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.

again there is a legal argument that argues whether or not one can be guilty of obstruction if one is not guilty of the crime being investigated. as for intent, lol... the investigation found no collusion.

 

tell me you have enough brian cells to be able to put two and two together.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Foxx

[Doc]

Let me amend the above.  They weren't hoodwinked by Russian disinformation: they intentionally (and probably fabricated the seeds of it and) disseminated it.

[SectionC3]

36 minutes ago, Foxx said:

lol, clueless is saying the exact same thing i said only with word salad and then claiming it clueless. you are the one who claimed, exoneration' not i. 

 

again there is a legal argument that argues whether or not one can be guilty of obstruction if one is not guilty of the crime being investigated. as for intent, lol... the investigation found no collusion.

 

tell me you have enough brian cells to be able to put two and two together.

 

Let's see your "argument that argues."  It seems dubious to me given that obstruction theoretically defeats the ability to prove guilt of the underlying crime, but I'll look at anything you have on that front. 

[Deranged Rhino]

☝️

Still running away like a coward. 

[SectionC3]

42 minutes ago, Foxx said:

lol, clueless is saying the exact same thing i said only with word salad and then claiming it clueless. you are the one who claimed, exoneration' not i. 

 

again there is a legal argument that argues whether or not one can be guilty of obstruction if one is not guilty of the crime being investigated. as for intent, lol... the investigation found no collusion.

 

tell me you have enough brian cells to be able to put two and two together.

 

And, I'll add, that if your "argument that argues" held water here, Mueller necessarily would have exonerated Trump based on Mueller's failure to identify a crime related to collusion.  

 

Sounds like Foxxy is talking out of his rear end again. 

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

If I'm homophobic that must mean you are the h o m o. Go to your death knowing that you will never get my "honey". 

 

Not classy.  Not classy at all. 

[3rdnlng]

8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Not classy.  Not classy at all. 

So, I post here that I'm not comfortable with your obsession with my genitalia and what seems like your desire to do something about it and you call me homophobic. If I'm homophobic about your advances then what does that make you? If I was the type to make lists what lists do you think I'd put you on, 3rd Chair?

Edited May 15, 2020 by 3rdnlng

[Foxx]

45 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Let's see your "argument that argues."  It seems dubious to me given that obstruction theoretically defeats the ability to prove guilt of the underlying crime, but I'll look at anything you have on that front. 

you actually argued the premise, motive. if you are not guilty of the underlying crime, what then is your motive for obstructing your innocence?

 

46 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

And, I'll add, that if your "argument that argues" held water here, Mueller necessarily would have exonerated Trump based on Mueller's failure to identify a crime related to collusion.  

 

Sounds like Foxxy is talking out of his rear end again. 

there you go again, arguing a standard that doesn't exist, exoneration.

[Albwan]

35 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

So, I post here that I'm not comfortable with your obsession with my genitalia and what seems like your desire to do something about it and you call me homophobic. If I'm homophobic about your advances then what does that make you? If I was the type to make lists what lists do you think I'd put you on, 3rd Chair?

that's got to be warrengaryzevon ..he is also obsessed with Trumps genitalia.

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, Albwan said:

that's got to be warrengaryzevon ..he is also obsessed with Trumps genitalia.

That's why he made it to my ignore list... dancing male genitalia. There's something wrong with that boy. SMH

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

[Prickly Pete]

17 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

Not that it isn't fair play at this point, but that seemed like a planted question, because she has notes ready to go.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, 32ABBA said:

Not that it isn't fair play at this point, but that seemed like a planted question, because she has notes ready to go.

 

I don't think it was planted as much as it's a sign of how prepared she is. She's made that a bit of a tell, when they start asking a question and she begins shuffling papers in her binder, you know she's lining up a kill shot. She did it in her first press briefing when they tried to box her in about her comments on Trump before she joined his administration. And then again another time but I forget the specifics of that one.  

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

11 minutes ago, 32ABBA said:

 

 

Not that it isn't fair play at this point, but that seemed like a planted question, because she has notes ready to go.

She is always ready to go. The press is nothing if not predictable. She has a binder, and she's not afraid to use it.

[Prickly Pete]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

She is always ready to go. The press is nothing if not predictable. She has a binder, and she's not afraid to use it.

 

 

I'm a bit skeptical, but at this point any way to get the MSM to report on Obamagate is fair game. It's not a big deal, and is surely a tactic used by any administration.