Jump to content

The Mueller Report. BREAKING NEWS: AG’s Summary Report Released. NO COLLUSION!


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

Keep retweeting your Gods. 

 

or go outside sometime. It's going to be a great summer.

 

apparently it will be a lot of rain and cold this summer

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"The person who learned the most about the Mueller report today was Bob Mueller." Trey Gowdy just now   

did ANYBODY think we would ever witness a politically driven, orchestrated coup to overthrow a President in our lifetime?...seriously?....and the once bastians of our democracy, thought to be non-poli

Posted Images

35 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That's a dodge of the issue -- like your dodging of my response in the Barr thread.

 

If you buy Mueller's premise that he was prohibited from charging Trump, he could have charged anyone else, including Don Jr. But he didn't. Because there was no obstruction case they could make against anyone -- including Trump. 

 

(No case that could be made which would stand up in court. The court of public opinion is a different matter)

 

Considering the lengths they went through to charge people with totally unrelated crimes, you have to be the incredibly or willfully ignorant to think that Mueller & Team wouldn't have charged anyone in Trump's orbit if there was even a plausible hint of prosecutable obstruction.

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
37 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

If you buy Mueller's premise that he was prohibited from charging Trump, he could have charged anyone else, including Don Jr. But he didn't. Because there was no obstruction case they could make against anyone -- including Trump. 

 

(No case that could be made which would stand up in court. The court of public opinion is a different matter)

Thats a nonsequitor..cause Don Jr was not guilty of obstruction, and his father could not be charged with obstruction( even if he did obstruct) that means ipso facto Trump Sr did not obstruct? Does not make sense

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, plenzmd1 said:

Thats a nonsequitor..cause Don Jr was not guilty of obstruction, and his father could not be charged with obstruction( even if he did obstruct) that means ipso facto Trump Sr did not obstruct? Does not make sense

 

It does not make sense at all. Logic is tough for some of these folks.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The DNC thirst for impeachment suggests they think Trump wins in 2020. If they thought they had a fighters chance with Biden or someone else, they'd pivot to topics he or she could actually run on.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

It does not make sense at all. Logic is tough for some of these folks.  

 

If Trump is as stupid as people make him out to be, there's no way that he could obstruct justice on his own.  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Thats a nonsequitor..cause Don Jr was not guilty of obstruction, and his father could not be charged with obstruction( even if he did obstruct) that means ipso facto Trump Sr did not obstruct? Does not make sense

 

11 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

It does not make sense at all. Logic is tough for some of these folks.  

 

 

It makes sense.................if you don't just cherry pick part of his response

 

 

53 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That's a dodge of the issue -- like your dodging of my response in the Barr thread.

 

If you buy Mueller's premise that he was prohibited from charging Trump, he could have charged anyone else, including Don Jr. But he didn't. Because there was no obstruction case they could make against anyone -- including Trump. 

 

(No case that could be made which would stand up in court. The court of public opinion is a different matter)

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Thats a nonsequitor..cause Don Jr was not guilty of obstruction, and his father could not be charged with obstruction( even if he did obstruct) that means ipso facto Trump Sr did not obstruct? Does not make sense

 

It's not though. It's simple -- Don Jr was accused of helping him obstruct multiple times (even within Weissman's report) by Congress and leaks from Mueller's team. The charge was Trump told Don Jr to lie about the Trump tower meeting and what Trump knew or didn't know. If that were true, it's a slam dunk obstruction case to bring against Don Jr even if you were prohibited from bringing one against Trump directly. 

 

You could also do the same with Flynn (he lied to the FBI - to help Trump obstruct justice). 

You could also do the same with G-Pop (he lied to the FBI - to help Trump obstruct justice). 

You could also do the same with Manafort (he lied to the FBI and SCO - to help Trump obstruct justice). 

 

No one was charged with obstruction -- if there was a case to make against Trump that they would have brought if not for the DOJ policy, they would have charged multiple people with obstruction to make Congress's impeachment road easier. 

 

They didn't do that though. 

 

Because obstruction was never going to be proven in court. They had to invent legal theory to try to do that in the report after all.

10 minutes ago, GG said:

 

If Trump is as stupid as people make him out to be, there's no way that he could obstruct justice on his own.  

 

It makes total sense -- but that poster is not interested in truth or honest discussion. Just trolling and hiding because he lacks the mental bandwidth to make a cogent argument and lacks the testicular fortitude to stand by his words. 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Muller:
"And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness.  It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge." 

 

Nadler's expected response.
He's guilty. We need to impeach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A question:  if you went to your doctor, and he said "if we had confidence you don't have cancer, we would tell you so"  would you conclude you don't have cancer?  Or would you demand more testing, more information, etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oldmanfan said:

A question:  if you went to your doctor, and he said "if we had confidence you don't have cancer, we would tell you so"  would you conclude you don't have cancer?  Or would you demand more testing, more information, etc?

 

Has my doctor been sucking on sour grapes?

 

Also, that line that is circling as proof is so so so dumb.... If you change literally one word it flips the argument on it's head. "If we had confidence that you have cancer, we would tell you." 

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

A question:  if you went to your doctor, and he said "if we had confidence you don't have cancer, we would tell you so"  would you conclude you don't have cancer?  Or would you demand more testing, more information, etc?

 

What if they followed that up with,  “We did not determine whether you have cancer” - would you sign up for chemo and lopping off chunks of you to cure what they could not determine you have? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

No, he said they couldn't establish enough evidence to be used in court. There was a conspiracy, anyone saying there wasn't (Mueller isn't saying that) a conspiracy is lying 

so.... what? you want to convict him in the SJW forum of being #orangemanbad?

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...