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

[Deranged Rhino 52,309]

 Troller in Chief

 

 

[McGee Return TD 136]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 Troller in Chief

 

 

 

Liberals suck at trolling.

 

[Koko78 7,613]

3 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Also, who won that arm wrestling match on Facebook? 

 

Jesus did, but only because he colluded with the misogynistic Russians to have Comey shine a really bright light in Satan's eyes during the competition. He wrote a book about it.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce 10,441]

I'm sure this is FAKE News too

 

 

 

2 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Didn't he also say he didn't have enough to convict in court? He spent 2 years looking. He was never going to prove innocence, that wasn't his job, but he seems to believe that what he did find would result in not guilty.

 

Evidence showed that he was clearly not innocent of all charges (forget the collusion crap) of obstruction

 

You can't indict a sitting pres so basically his hands are tied.  

 

[Dante 588]

4 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I'm sure this is FAKE News too

 

 

 

Of course, it is. After 2.5 years you guys still haven't figured it out you never will. Blinded by hate.

[Deranged Rhino 52,309]

10 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I'm sure this is FAKE News too

 

 

 

 

Anything Bill Kristol puts his name to is, almost by definition, fake news. He's a disgraced neocon who's been wrong on nearly everything he's claimed to be an expert on over the past 20 years. 

 

The left embracing people like Kristol just because of TDS, is one of the more insane developments of the past three years. 

11 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Evidence showed that he was clearly not innocent of all charges (forget the collusion crap) of obstruction

 

First, that's NOT how the legal system works. At all. 

 

Second, "forget the collusion crap"? You can't brush that off so easily. Not after three years of every MSM, establishment politician and pundit claiming this not only happened but they had evidence it happened and it constituted treason. 

[Joe in Winslow 13,883]

32 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

8 days between the firing of Comey vs more than half a year from when Trump got elected.

 

Deny it all you want, but the Comey firing was the catalyst for the hiring of the Speicial Counsel.

 

 

And you call Trump supporters delusional?

 

 

[B-Man 33,904]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Dershowitz: Mueller Just Put His Elbow On The Scale And Revealed His Partisan Bias

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/29/dershowitz-mueller-just-put-elbow-scale-favor-impeachment/

 

 

 

FTA:

 

No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict.

 

Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor, and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation.

 

They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.

 

 

 

[Buffalo_Gal 22,355]

Quid pro quo?
 

Interesting speculation here. Sounds plausible. That damn Barr-guy. 😡
 

</snip>
 

Here's the real story, in my opinion, with Mueller's press conference: Mueller doesn't want to be called by Nadler to testify before the House Judiciary because he doesn't want to answer tough questions under oath. Nadler doesn't want to call Mueller because he doesn't want Mueller answering questions that undermine the Democrats' plan to keep a cloud of suspicion floating over Trump until 2020. Mueller and Nadler are communicating because Nadler was pretending to negotiate a Mueller appearance before his committee. Basically, Nadler was like, "I need you to give me something if you don't want to be called to testify." And of course, Mueller was more than happy to hold a press conference where he could recapture his rightful status on all those prayer candles after failing to seal the deal against Trump with his report. I should mention that the Senate Republicans can call Mueller to testify, but I have little faith they will do that because they are sad, weak little men.
 

A compromise had to be made because the Democrats' planned narrative was derailed with Barr's cut-to-the-chase press conference. But this time, Mueller delivered for the Democrats by insinuating that his team could not charge Trump because of DoJ's regulations not to bring charges against a sitting president...but would have if not for the regulation.
 

AG Barr testified under oath otherwise about the DoJ regulation. Barr said that Mueller told him three times it was not the case that the OLC regulation prevented him from bringing charges. I believe Barr, who made this assertion under oath, over Mueller, who does not want to make any statements under oath. There were also witnesses to this conversation. I wonder what they have to say.
 

</snip>

[keepthefaith 2,074]

39 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

8 days between the firing of Comey vs more than half a year from when Trump got elected.

 

Deny it all you want, but the Comet firing was the catalyst.

 

Trump would have been better served to fire Comey just after inauguration.  Certainly the guy deserved to be fired for what has been made public regarding both the Clinton and Trump investigations. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd 3,146]

11 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I'm sure this is FAKE News too

 

 

 

 

Evidence showed that he was clearly not innocent of all charges (forget the collusion crap) of obstruction

 

You can't indict a sitting pres so basically his hands are tied.  

 

Recognizing the collusion angle was "crap" means you're halfway there. 

 

You need to do some work on the fundamentals of our justice system to understand why your comment below makes you appear unprepared to engage in serious debate on this issue: 

 

 

Evidence showed that he was clearly not innocent of all charges (forget the collusion crap) of obstruction

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man 33,904]

27 minutes ago, McGee Return TD said:

 

Liberals suck at trolling.

 

 

 

You know that that is a fake meme........................I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are just stupid.

 

The above-reproduced image and quote attributed to Donald Trump began appearing in our inbox in mid-October 2015. The format is easily recognizable as one wherein questionable or offensive words are attributed to the individual pictured, and in this case image claims that Donald Trump made the following statement in a 1998 interview with People magazine:

 

Despite People‘s comprehensive online content archive, we found no interview or profile on Donald Trump in 1998 (or any other time) that quoted his saying anything that even vaguely resembled the words in this meme. Trump appeared somewhat regularly in the magazine’s pages before he came to star on The Apprentice, but the bulk of the magazine’s celebrity-driven coverage of him back then centered on his marriages to, and divorces from, Ivana Trump and Marla Maples.

 

False

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1998-trump-people-quote/

 

 

But hey.............................keep posting.

[Buffalo_Gal 22,355]

24 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I'm sure this is FAKE News too

 

 

 

 

Evidence showed that he was clearly not innocent of all charges (forget the collusion crap) of obstruction

 

You can't indict a sitting pres so basically his hands are tied.  

 

Head of the SS Never Trump? 🛳️ 🛳️ 🛳️

Bill went down with the ship. 😉

[BuffaloHokie13 3,427]

27 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

Evidence showed that he was clearly not innocent of all charges (forget the collusion crap) of obstruction

 

You can't indict a sitting pres so basically his hands are tied.

There are two choices. Guilty or not guilty. Clearly not innocent sounds nice and all, but means absolutely nothing. 

[Buftex 661]

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

You know that that is a fake meme........................I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are just stupid.

 

The above-reproduced image and quote attributed to Donald Trump began appearing in our inbox in mid-October 2015. The format is easily recognizable as one wherein questionable or offensive words are attributed to the individual pictured, and in this case image claims that Donald Trump made the following statement in a 1998 interview with People magazine:

 

Despite People‘s comprehensive online content archive, we found no interview or profile on Donald Trump in 1998 (or any other time) that quoted his saying anything that even vaguely resembled the words in this meme. Trump appeared somewhat regularly in the magazine’s pages before he came to star on The Apprentice, but the bulk of the magazine’s celebrity-driven coverage of him back then centered on his marriages to, and divorces from, Ivana Trump and Marla Maples.

 

False

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1998-trump-people-quote/

 

 

But hey.............................keep posting.

I thought Snopes was some liberal concoction...we should trust their verdict?

 

And if you are mad at somebody for posting BS... look in the mirror...you insane fool.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Buftex

[Koko78 7,613]

9 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

You know that that is a fake meme........................I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are just stupid.

 

The above-reproduced image and quote attributed to Donald Trump began appearing in our inbox in mid-October 2015. The format is easily recognizable as one wherein questionable or offensive words are attributed to the individual pictured, and in this case image claims that Donald Trump made the following statement in a 1998 interview with People magazine:

 

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1998-trump-people-quote/

 

 

But hey.............................keep posting.

 

[Buffalo_Gal 22,355]

1 minute ago, Buftex said:

I thought Snopes was some liberal concoction...we should trust their verdict?

 

And if you are mad at somebody for posting BS... look in the mirror...you insane fool.

Pretty sure the point is ... If even snopes reports it is false, well, imagine how ***** stupid it must be to repeat. 🙂 

[DC Tom 16,874]

33 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I'm sure this is FAKE News too

 

 

 

 

Evidence showed that he was clearly not innocent of all charges (forget the collusion crap) of obstruction

 

 

"Clearly not innocent" is whack-a-doodle bull####.  That's Title IX abuse "preponderance of evidence" nonsense. Quote me the statute, criminal procedure, or case law where that means something.

 

34 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

You can't indict a sitting pres so basically his hands are tied.  

 

 

No, you can't.  You impeach him first.  How's that going?  Where's the "preponderance of evidence" standard codified for that?

[B-Man 33,904]

7 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Pretty sure the point is ... If even snopes reports it is false, well, imagine how ***** stupid it must be to repeat. 🙂 

 

 

Absolutely right.

 

Even though Buftex doesn't grasp it.

 

You read some sites (like Snopes) knowing they lean left.

 

In this case , there was no choice but to give it a FALSE.

[Deranged Rhino 52,309]