leh-nerd skin-erd Posted August 17 Posted August 17 10 hours ago, SectionC3 said: What does this mean to you? "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. These are weasel words, designed to target influence low information voters. It worked. 1
SectionC3 Posted August 17 Posted August 17 5 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: These are weasel words, designed to target influence low information voters. It worked. Hoax. He forgot more about law than you'll ever know. And, any lawyer who does even a little bit of work in the area knows exactly what Mueller was saying. There is legally sufficient evidence that Trump committed obstruction of justice. You can stick your head in the sand or come up with whatever warped Twitter view you want, but the reality of those words is inescapable. 1 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted August 17 Posted August 17 13 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Hoax. He forgot more about law than you'll ever know. And, any lawyer who does even a little bit of work in the area knows exactly what Mueller was saying. There is legally sufficient evidence that Trump committed obstruction of justice. You can stick your head in the sand or come up with whatever warped Twitter view you want, but the reality of those words is inescapable. But the collusion story was fake. Made up by Clinton's campaign. Used to provide agencies probable cause to investigate. In short a hoax. So what did he obstruct? A real investigation of a fake and manufactured hoax? Who cares? Now investigate the people that concocted the hoax. Let's discuss that. 1 2
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted August 17 Posted August 17 32 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Hoax. He forgot more about law than you'll ever know. And, any lawyer who does even a little bit of work in the area knows exactly what Mueller was saying. There is legally sufficient evidence that Trump committed obstruction of justice. You can stick your head in the sand or come up with whatever warped Twitter view you want, but the reality of those words is inescapable. I’m not a lawyer, nor have I claimed to work on obstruction cases. I do believe that lawyers have different opinions, different motivations and justice isn’t always just. What do you think these words mean? “After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.” Spoiler alert: They are not from “Twitter”, which hasn’t been “Twitter” in quite some time. 1
SectionC3 Posted August 17 Posted August 17 1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: I’m not a lawyer, nor have I claimed to work on obstruction cases. I do believe that lawyers have different opinions, different motivations and justice isn’t always just. What do you think these words mean? “After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.” Spoiler alert: They are not from “Twitter”, which hasn’t been “Twitter” in quite some time. Exactly what I said. There is legally sufficient evidence to establish a charge of obstruction of justice under whatever part of the USC is applicable here. Enough, as a threshold matter, to indict and enough, were this evidence adduced following a trial, to convict. It's not a hoax, it's not political, it's the truth. There's meaningful evidence your boy committed an obstruction crime around, such that he could not be exonerated and such that he could have been indicted (had Barr not squelched it to protect him). You can say hoax this or political that, but the truth is the truth. Any lawyer who does this stuff knows exactly what was communicated, and Twitter goofs like you spout off without having a clue what they're talking about in this area. 57 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: But the collusion story was fake. Made up by Clinton's campaign. Used to provide agencies probable cause to investigate. In short a hoax. So what did he obstruct? A real investigation of a fake and manufactured hoax? Who cares? Now investigate the people that concocted the hoax. Let's discuss that. Collusion efforts weren't "fake," and even if they were (which, again, they were not), he still can't obstruct the investigation. The law is the law, and even the President is not above it. Until now, apparently. 6 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: These are weasel words, designed to target influence low information voters. It worked. Give me a break. It's way too sophisticated for that. Low information voters don't have a clue what that means. They're as clueless as you are in this area. Which maybe makes you a low information voter. 1
JDHillFan Posted August 17 Posted August 17 16 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: The law is the law, and even the President is not above it. Until now, apparently. Lol Hur’s report stated that his investigation “uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice-presidency when he was a private citizen.
Wolfgang Posted August 17 Posted August 17 25 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: Exactly what I said. There is legally sufficient evidence to establish a charge of obstruction of justice under whatever part of the USC is applicable here. Enough, as a threshold matter, to indict and enough, were this evidence adduced following a trial, to convict. It's not a hoax, it's not political, it's the truth. There's meaningful evidence your boy committed an obstruction crime around, such that he could not be exonerated and such that he could have been indicted (had Barr not squelched it to protect him). You can say hoax this or political that, but the truth is the truth. Any lawyer who does this stuff knows exactly what was communicated, and Twitter goofs like you spout off without having a clue what they're talking about in this area. Collusion efforts weren't "fake," and even if they were (which, again, they were not), he still can't obstruct the investigation. The law is the law, and even the President is not above it. Until now, apparently. Give me a break. It's way too sophisticated for that. Low information voters don't have a clue what that means. They're as clueless as you are in this area. Which maybe makes you a low information voter.
B-Man Posted August 17 Author Posted August 17 Why Trump’s Alaska Summit Was a Masterstroke of Leadership And Why the Left Can’t Handle It by Yassin Fawaz In a world where the mainstream media and radical left thrive on lies and misinformation, it’s no surprise that President Trump’s recent diplomatic efforts in Alaska are being twisted and ridiculed. Their agenda is clear: to undermine any success Trump achieves. In today’s political landscape, these forces have perfected the art of distortion, weaponizing every word and action to portray genuine leadership as a failure. No matter what President Trump does, they will twist it into failure. The recent Alaska Summit is no exception. They say Trump “left no deal struck,” “made no progress,” or worse, that he “failed.” But here’s the reality they don’t want you to see: Donald Trump showed what real leadership looks like—he took the first steps toward peace in a world desperate for it, put the ball firmly in Russia’s court, and sent a message that America under Trump means business. Let’s get one thing crystal clear: this war in Ukraine did not start under Trump’s watch. It started under Joe Biden’s watch, and Biden was a weak, indecisive president who couldn’t keep America safe or respected on the world stage. Biden’s failed policies and feckless approach invited chaos. While Biden played politics and hid behind empty slogans, Trump was out there putting American interests first, rebuilding alliances, and making the tough calls that the radical left couldn’t stomach. Alaska Summit wasn’t a press conference or a reality TV stunt; it was real diplomacy. Trump went to extend a hand of peace, and open a door that the Biden administration ignored. He didn’t come with ultimatums or force deals. Instead, he put the responsibility where it belongs: on Russia, Ukraine, NATO, and Europe. Do you want peace? It’s on you to make it happen. No one is forcing anything; no deals are being imposed. That is leadership, not weakness. More at the link: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/08/why_trump_s_alaska_summit_was_a_masterstroke_of_leadership_and_why_the_left_can_t_handle_it.html 2
CoudyBills Posted August 17 Posted August 17 6 hours ago, SectionC3 said: Hoax. He forgot more about law than you'll ever know. And, any lawyer who does even a little bit of work in the area knows exactly what Mueller was saying. There is legally sufficient evidence that Trump committed obstruction of justice. You can stick your head in the sand or come up with whatever warped Twitter view you want, but the reality of those words is inescapable. Legally sufficient evidence and the inability to conclude he committed a crime are contradictory, tardcart.
All_Pro_Bills Posted August 17 Posted August 17 6 hours ago, SectionC3 said: Collusion efforts weren't "fake," and even if they were (which, again, they were not), he still can't obstruct the investigation. The law is the law, and even the President is not above it. You're ignoring the law. The government must follow the law too. They can't give knowingly false testimony to a Grand Jury to produce indictments by lying to the court. They can't secure warrants by providing false probable cause to a judge. That's what they did. So please stop with this nobody is above the law routine. At the time the FBI acted above the law while colluding with a specific politcal campaign and I hope every single person involved does a long stretch in Levenworth. It's time for consequences.
SectionC3 Posted August 17 Posted August 17 1 hour ago, CoudyBills said: Legally sufficient evidence and the inability to conclude he committed a crime are contradictory, tardcart. You're way out of your depth and, in this instance, you have even less knowledge of what you're talking about. The Mueller report was blunt: no exoneration, and legally sufficient evidence to proceed. Done and done. The guy who spent months looking at the evidence refused to conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish an obstruction crime. 21 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: You're ignoring the law. The government must follow the law too. They can't give knowingly false testimony to a Grand Jury to produce indictments by lying to the court. They can't secure warrants by providing false probable cause to a judge. That's what they did. So please stop with this nobody is above the law routine. At the time the FBI acted above the law while colluding with a specific politcal campaign and I hope every single person involved does a long stretch in Levenworth. It's time for consequences. Quite the contrary. Unlike you and the rest of the Trump sycophants on this board, I actually know what I'm talking about. Nobody is above the law. And Mueller refused to exonerate, and similarly refused to conclude that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish a crime of obstruction. 7 hours ago, JDHillFan said: Lol Hur’s report stated that his investigation “uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice-presidency when he was a private citizen. What's your point? Somebody else did something wrong, so Trump's sin is excused? Dumb, even for you. And, besides, unless there's a statute of limitations that I'm not aware of, there's nothing that says that the Trump AG's office couldn't prosecute now. So go for it. Call Pam, or better yet go to law school, take the bar, go to work for Pam, and take the case. You got this! 16 hours ago, JDHillFan said: Everything. What better time to move than when there is no one at the helm? One could say the same about the current occupant of the White House. He thought the friggin summit was in Russia. 1 1
JDHillFan Posted August 17 Posted August 17 (edited) 12 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: One could say the same about the current occupant of the White House. He thought the friggin summit was in Russia. One could, but it would make one look like a complete dumbass. Chin up, big guy. You will have plenty to complain about no matter which way it goes. 12 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: I actually know what I'm talking about. Hoax. YUGE hoax. 12 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: What's your point? Somebody else did something wrong, so Trump's sin is excused? My point is that you want people to believe the “nobody is above the law” bit is something new and unique to Trump. Idiotic. 7 hours ago, SectionC3 said: The law is the law, and even the President is not above it. Until now, apparently. Until now, apparently. Brilliant work. Edited August 17 by JDHillFan
SectionC3 Posted August 17 Posted August 17 1 hour ago, JDHillFan said: One could, but it would make one look like a complete dumbass. Chin up, big guy. You will have plenty to complain about no matter which way it goes. Hoax. YUGE hoax. My point is that you want people to believe the “nobody is above the law” bit is something new and unique to Trump. Idiotic. Until now, apparently. Brilliant work. What's your point? Other than your usual deflections because you and the rest of the Trump sycophants are out of your depth. But Biden did something wrong! And Bill Barr looked at the Mueller report for as long as it takes to snap a deuce and decided not to pursue it! So Trump definitely never ever did something wrong! And he definitely doesn't have dementia, even though he thought Alaska was part of Russia! Puh-leeze. You guys spend so much time defending his BS that you forget about inflation, the Epstein files, the declining job market, and the crappy consumer confidence. The forest has been lost through the trees. 1
Albwan Posted August 17 Posted August 17 I find it hilarious the lefty commies and their parrots are saying it's a complete failure, they rather the US go the biden rout and keep feeding(and laundering) money to Ukraine. 1
Wolfgang Posted August 17 Posted August 17 35 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: What's your point? Other than your usual deflections because you and the rest of the Trump sycophants are out of your depth. But Biden did something wrong! And Bill Barr looked at the Mueller report for as long as it takes to snap a deuce and decided not to pursue it! So Trump definitely never ever did something wrong! And he definitely doesn't have dementia, even though he thought Alaska was part of Russia! Puh-leeze. You guys spend so much time defending his BS that you forget about inflation, the Epstein files, the declining job market, and the crappy consumer confidence. The forest has been lost through the trees.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted August 17 Posted August 17 9 hours ago, SectionC3 said: Exactly what I said. There is legally sufficient evidence to establish a charge of obstruction of justice under whatever part of the USC is applicable here. Enough, as a threshold matter, to indict and enough, were this evidence adduced following a trial, to convict. It's not a hoax, it's not political, it's the truth. There's meaningful evidence your boy committed an obstruction crime around, such that he could not be exonerated and such that he could have been indicted (had Barr not squelched it to protect him). You can say hoax this or political that, but the truth is the truth. Any lawyer who does this stuff knows exactly what was communicated, and Twitter goofs like you spout off without having a clue what they're talking about in this area. Of course, if AG Barr had written all that, we wouldn’t need you to create your own painfully flawed analysis of what he actually wrote. In the meantime, we can just roll with what he shared publicly. He is, after all, a “lawyer who does this stuff” on quite a high level. 9 hours ago, SectionC3 said: Give me a break. It's way too sophisticated for that. Low information voters don't have a clue what that means. They're as clueless as you are in this area. Which maybe makes you a low information voter. Yet, here we are, the good and decent people of the country having access to information rejected just about all you claim to know and think, the heavy-handed politicization of the type of government you support, and the silliness of the Russian narrative. No obstruction. No coordination. No collusion. 1 1 1
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted August 17 Posted August 17 8 minutes ago, Albwan said: I find it hilarious the lefty commies and their parrots are saying it's a complete failure, they rather the US go the biden rout and keep feeding(and laundering) money to Ukraine. I'm happy. If Trump really is going to get the United States of America behind the full and total defense of Ukraine that is wonderful! I'm been calling for that from the beginning. I'll even say "Go Trump" if that is the final deal. And Trump deserves Nobel Peace Prize if he pulls it off. 1
JDHillFan Posted August 17 Posted August 17 1 hour ago, SectionC3 said: What's your point? Other than your usual deflections because you and the rest of the Trump sycophants are out of your depth. But Biden did something wrong! And Bill Barr looked at the Mueller report for as long as it takes to snap a deuce and decided not to pursue it! So Trump definitely never ever did something wrong! And he definitely doesn't have dementia, even though he thought Alaska was part of Russia! Puh-leeze. You guys spend so much time defending his BS that you forget about inflation, the Epstein files, the declining job market, and the crappy consumer confidence. The forest has been lost through the trees. You seem upset. I think it’s TRUMP related. All my best. I do thank you for getting back to Epstein though. I was afraid you had lost the plot. 3
Recommended Posts