Trump and Russia

[SectionC3]

Just now, Reality Check said:

The Mueller report will ultimately prove to be an indictment on the Mueller team itself. Be patient grasshopper.

 

Maybe, maybe not.  But the question is whether the Mueller report exonerates Trump with respect to obstruction of justice.  It does not. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Bull sh it! 

 

You're wrong. Again. Trump Tower wasn't collusion per Mueller's own report. (let alone the facts)

[3rdnlng]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Or they perform a truth-seeking function more critical now than ever.  Either or. 

Mr. Penis Envy thinks a truth-seeking function would be to ignore the egregious and scandalous actions of the Obama administration and his cohorts in the deep state. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Maybe, maybe not.  But the question is whether the Mueller report exonerates Trump with respect to obstruction of justice.  It does not. 

 

Still running away. 

 

Continually proving you're a dishonest coward is no way to go through life, 3rdChair. 

[Reality Check]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Or they perform a truth-seeking function more critical now than ever.  Either or. 

 

 

Lawyers have many rolls in life, seeking the truth is seldom one of them, especially when they become politicians.

[SectionC3]

I have to go do something productive.  It's been fun arguing on the Internet today.  Before I leave I'll recap what I learned:

 

3rdnlng has a suspected case of penis envy.  

 

Deranged Rhino has not read the Mueller report and still hasn't discovered that Trump may have obstructed justice.  

 

Foxx is into name calling today.  

 

Cheers! 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

 

 

He's of the "if I repeated it enough it might come true" school of politics. 

Yup. He relies on the fact most people have not read the report to just make up whatever he wants 

 

FYI, Mueller stated clearly collusion is not a crime and that he wasn't looking at that. Mueller said he could not PROVE a full conspiracy and then went after the cover up which Congress decided to ignore 

[SectionC3]

Just now, Reality Check said:

Lawyers have many rolls in life, seeking the truth is seldom one of them, especially when they become politicians.

 

Hoax.  I gave up bread a long time ago. 

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Still running away. 

 

Continually proving you're a dishonest coward is no way to go through life, 3rdChair. 

 

Hoax.  And now I'm done.  Cheers!

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Still running away. 

 

Continually proving you're a dishonest coward is no way to go through life, 3rdChair. 

 

Just now, SectionC3 said:

I have to go do something productive.  It's been fun arguing on the Internet today.  Before I leave I'll recap what I learned:

 

3rdnlng has a suspected case of penis envy.  

 

Deranged Rhino has not read the Mueller report and still hasn't discovered that Trump may have obstructed justice.  

 

Foxx is into name calling today.  

 

Cheers! 

 

Comments he made when I posted the words of the report themselves, and the DOJ already ruled on obstruction -- yet he claims that he knows more about this case than anyone else? 

 

Dishonesty on display, coupled with cowardice. It's a good show, completely on brand for 3rdChair -- and why he should be on everyone's ignore list.

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're wrong. Again. Trump Tower wasn't collusion per Mueller's own report. (let alone the facts)

Yes, could not prove CONSPIRACY, but they did collude with Russia. Trump Tower proves that. 

 

And if there had not been an open cover up, they would have proved more. That's why Stone went to jail. Manafort, too. They kept quiet 

 

Words matter DR 

[Reality Check]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Maybe, maybe not.  But the question is whether the Mueller report exonerates Trump with respect to obstruction of justice.  It does not. 

In the mind of the hard line leftist, the fact that Trump defended himself is evidence of obstruction. Again, your grasp of reality and current trends is abysmal. Curious how you come to argue everyday as if that day is the day everything works out the way you want it too. You really do fail to see how the left on a global level are collapsing, and they won't be coming back.

4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I have to go do something productive.  It's been fun arguing on the Internet today.  Before I leave I'll recap what I learned:

 

3rdnlng has a suspected case of penis envy.  

 

Deranged Rhino has not read the Mueller report and still hasn't discovered that Trump may have obstructed justice.  

 

Foxx is into name calling today.  

 

Cheers! 

I hope you don't chip a tooth on that ambulance bumper.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  I gave up bread a long time ago. 

What with the way his conversations go RC, that's probably a segue into letting you know that he'd prefer your meat. 

[Reality Check]

The funny thing about "Russian collusion" is, as an example, was it collusion when we used their rocket engines to launch our satellites for roughly twenty years? Was it collusion when Kennedy or Reagan negotiated with the Russians when it came to nukes? Is it collusion when both of our respective militaries communicate on a daily basis when it comes to the age old practice of "deconfliction" in various theaters around the world?  What a joke these people are, and even worse, the people that bought into this BS.

[Deranged Rhino]

Will provide the link when it's done uploading -- but this is going to be a good listen for those who are interested: 

 

[njbuff]

I see leftist shills in here are still grasping at straws.

 

Hey Trump haters, try this little game.................

 

Trump and his transition team were guilty before proven innocent in the whole Russian collusion delusion elusion bullshyt, now the players in #Obamagate are guilty as charged. Prove your innocence????????

 

See how fun this game is????????

[Foxx]

33 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Maybe, maybe not.  But the question is whether the Mueller report exonerates Trump with respect to obstruction of justice.  It does not. 

exoneration is not a legal standard. a level of presumed guilt is however and because there was not an acceptable level proven,  it is determined that he is therefore innocent.

[SectionC3]

42 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

What with the way his conversations go RC, that's probably a segue into letting you know that he'd prefer your meat. 

 

I'm a vegetarian.  Out of the two of us, you're the only one who likes meat. 

[3rdnlng]

12 minutes ago, Foxx said:

exoneration is not a legal standard. a level of presumed guilt is however and because there was not an acceptable level proven,  it is determined that he is therefore innocent.

Be careful or he might start tapping the floor in the stall next to you. Once he starts it's like Biden on hair sniffing.

[SectionC3]

14 minutes ago, Foxx said:

exoneration is not a legal standard. a level of presumed guilt is however and because there was not an acceptable level proven,  it is determined that he is therefore innocent.

 

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."  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.

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Be careful or he might start tapping the floor in the stall next to you. Once he starts it's like Biden on hair sniffing.

 

In addition to being homophobic you're not very funny.  You really should try the whole "honey" approach to get some more friends.  

[3rdnlng]

5 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."  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.

 

In addition to being homophobic you're not very funny.  You really should try the whole "honey" approach to get some more friends.  

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". 

Edited May 15, 2020 by 3rdnlng

[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.