Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nanker

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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

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." 

 

 

 

It also fails to take into account all the "testing" that has been done already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the FBI refuses to police its own, then they shouldn't be allowed to police the rest of us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

the protection of the DNC is so vile....

 

maybe that's why Nixon wanted to break into HQ....  :D

 

 

he didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

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? 

 

 

No, I would ask why they cannot make a definitive determination and ask what other date they would need in terms of testing etc.  Then I'd make sure I got that so they'd have the data they need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nadler at the podium now -- begins by praising Mueller's service. 

Just now, oldmanfan said:

No, I would ask why they cannot make a definitive determination and ask what other date they would need in terms of testing etc.  Then I'd make sure I got that so they'd have the data they need.

 

This is why your analogy doesn't work. That's not how our legal system works, or is designed to work. At all.

 

Nadler is only focused on obstruction -- funny how he doesn't want to talk about Volume One at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

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.

 

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. 

 

 

Furthering this, he specifically said that others around 45 could have had charges of obstruction brought against them had Mueller's office found evidence of it.  They brought 0 obstruction of the investigation charges to those around the President.

 

He also said that because his office couldn't bring charges against the President for obstruction that his office specifically didn't make a determination EITHER way. 

 

There is, if it's possible for 45 to have obstructed the investigation completely on his own, the possibility that he may have obstructed the investigation.  But, really having a hard time figuring out how he could have done that with NOBODY around him having assisted him in the obstruction of the investigation.  If somebody can explain HOW he'd've actually obstructed the investigation without any assistance and not merely thought about obstructing the investigation, it would be really interesting to hear/ read how that might have happened.

 

And, back to the elephant in the room, nobody in Trump 's campaign conspired with Russians to corrupt the election.  And to the smaller elephant in the room, Clinton's campaign (read Podesta) was hacked but there was no mention that the DNC was hacked.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nadler is now filling in blanks -- because he's a liar -- and spinning it as Mueller wanted to bring charges but could not.

 

Nadler says Trump is lying about being exonerated on collusion. That's untrue. Per Mueller today. Nadler is really really slimy. 

 

:lol: 

 

Immoral. 

 

(When you can't argue facts or legal findings, go with "immoral")

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Nadler at the podium now -- begins by praising Mueller's service. 

 

This is why your analogy doesn't work. That's not how our legal system works, or is designed to work. At all.

 

Nadler is only focused on obstruction -- funny how he doesn't want to talk about Volume One at all. 

My analogy is fine.  You just don't want to accept it.

 

You tried to shut down another thread by saying the subject is being discussed in other threads..  I jump in here from time to time, but it is clear there are no real discussions here.  This side of the board is you and persons of your ilk all just propping each other up with your conspiracy theories.

 

For me, investigate everything.  Impeach Trump so you get all the data out, bring Clinton, Comey, whomever you want up for investigation.  Throw all of them in jail and maybe then we can get people in Washington thata ctually want to work together for the good of the country vs. this incessant nonsense that we have to deal with all the time.

  • Meh 1
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Pelosi and Schumer after Nadler's ranting press conference

 

Related image

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


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

My analogy is fine.  You just don't want to accept it.

 

It's not. It completely bungles what Mueller's role/job is. It's not to exonerate anyone. That's not what prosecutors do in our system of law. It's not to "prove" innocence either. That's not how our system works. 

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

You tried to shut down another thread by saying the subject is being discussed in other threads..  I jump in here from time to time, but it is clear there are no real discussions here.  This side of the board is you and persons of your ilk all just propping each other up with your conspiracy theories.

 

There's plenty of room for discussion. And I engage with EVERYONE, so long as its done honestly and with evidence/fact/something to provoke conversation. Not bombs thrown which are factless, baseless and partisan. 

 

I shut down the other thread because we have five threads already, and we cross post in them all already. Adding a new one dilutes the discussion, it does not add to it. 

 

So who's really afraid of conversations? 

 

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

For me, investigate everything.  Impeach Trump so you get all the data out, bring Clinton, Comey, whomever you want up for investigation.  Throw all of them in jail and maybe then we can get people in Washington thata ctually want to work together for the good of the country vs. this incessant nonsense that we have to deal with all the time.

 

So you favor a soviet style system of justice where you investigate people without basis in order to SEE if they committed a crime?

 

That's an upending of our system of justice. 


You must realize that, no?

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Nadler is now filling in blanks -- because he's a liar -- and spinning it as Mueller wanted to bring charges but could not.

 

Nadler says Trump is lying about being exonerated on collusion. That's untrue. Per Mueller today. Nadler is really really slimy. 

 

:lol: 

 

Immoral. 

 

(When you can't argue facts or legal findings, go with "immoral")

 

Maybe all this ends with Dems coming to the very final conclusion that Trump is a jerk, the only theory of their many that they can prove.  We knew that long before he was President. 

  • Haha (+1) 2
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's not. It completely bungles what Mueller's role/job is. It's not to exonerate anyone. That's not what prosecutors do in our system of law. It's not to "prove" innocence either. That's not how our system works. 

 

There's plenty of room for discussion. And I engage with EVERYONE, so long as its done honestly and with evidence/fact/something to provoke conversation. Not bombs thrown which are factless, baseless and partisan. 

 

I shut down the other thread because we have five threads already, and we cross post in them all already. Adding a new one dilutes the discussion, it does not add to it. 

 

So who's really afraid of conversations? 

 

 

So you favor a soviet style system of justice where you investigate people without basis in order to SEE if they committed a crime?

 

That's an upending of our system of justice. 


You must realize that, no?

So they should not investigate Comey, etc in your view?

Share this post


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

So they should not investigate Comey, etc in your view?

 

Not without a proper predicate. 

 

And there is one. 


There never was one with Trump/Russia. That's the whole point.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

So they should not investigate Comey, etc in your view?

 

How do you reach that conclusion from what DR wrote?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


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

 

Not without a proper predicate. 

 

And there is one. 


There never was one with Trump/Russia. That's the whole point.

Well I disagree with that premise.  The Russians interfered with our election, there is no question about that.  And his campaign had contacts with folks in Riussia.  So that has to be examined.  And to be fair and open, look at the other side as well if such data exists.

Share this post


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

 

How do you reach that conclusion from what DR wrote?

 

 

He has already reached his conclusions, no matter what we post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GG said:

 

How do you reach that conclusion from what DR wrote?

Investigate people without the basis of a crime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...