Does anybody see a trend here?
Jun 3, 2019 20:45:26 #
Jun 3, 2019 20:48:45 #
moldyoldy wrote:
He did not say his investigation was obstructed, though it was. There was lots of obstruction.
Of course. That's why he didn't say it, because it so obviously was. Just like he said that the investigation was not not obstructed. Keep fishing, Goober.
Jun 3, 2019 20:55:15 #
Larry the Legend wrote:
Where? Point them out, because I have it in front of me and see nothing of the sort. Now who's a liar?
I would say if Mueller says obstruction then it would not be him
Jun 3, 2019 22:19:58 #
moldyoldy wrote:
Trump said in an interview with Lester Holt "I fired Comey because of the Russia thing".
He also said the same thing to two Russian spies in the oval office and did high fives.
He also said the same thing to two Russian spies in the oval office and did high fives.
And Comey is now one of the many currently under Criminal Investigation, for "that Russia thing"!
Jun 3, 2019 22:30:23 #
herbie wrote:
so you are calling Mueller a liar ? 11 counts of obstruction it`s in the report.
That was not Mueller's determination, it is only yours.
It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what YOU think,
all that matters is what you can PROVE!
Jun 4, 2019 07:27:43 #
herbie wrote:
I would say if Mueller says obstruction then it would not be him
that's not an answer, and you know it. Now, specifics. Where? I want you to point out one single entry where the Mueller report cites a single instance of Presidential obstruction of his investigation. Put up or shut up, or be 'outed' for the specious liar that you are.
Jun 4, 2019 13:18:03 #
Larry the Legend wrote:
that's not an answer, and you know it. Now, specifics. Where? I want you to point out one single entry where the Mueller report cites a single instance of Presidential obstruction of his investigation. Put up or shut up, or be 'outed' for the specious liar that you are.
If you had bothered to read the report, you would know. An attempt to obstruct, even should it fail miserably, is still an attempt and still a crime. Would you let bank robbers off because they failed miserably during their attempt to rob a bank? An attempt at committing a crime is still a crime, regardless of success or failure.
Jun 4, 2019 18:52:25 #
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
If you had bothered to read the report, you would know. An attempt to obstruct, even should it fail miserably, is still an attempt and still a crime. Would you let bank robbers off because they failed miserably during their attempt to rob ra bank? An attempt at committing a crime is still a crime, regardless of success or failure.
Mueller clearly stated that he was unable to establish INTENT to obstruct justice.
Mueller also found that there was NO underlying crime, NO COLLUSION!
The majority of Americans are tired of your constant whining!
After listening to your insane rants about collusion for the past two years,
you have lost any and all credibility, deal with that!
Jun 4, 2019 21:13:01 #
Gatsby wrote:
Mueller clearly stated that he was unable to establish INTENT to obstruct justice.
Mueller also found that there was NO underlying crime, NO COLLUSION!
The majority of Americans are tired of your constant whining!
After listening to your insane rants about collusion for the past two years,
you have lost any and all credibility, deal with that!
Mueller also found that there was NO underlying crime, NO COLLUSION!
The majority of Americans are tired of your constant whining!
After listening to your insane rants about collusion for the past two years,
you have lost any and all credibility, deal with that!
Read it again, this time with an open, non-defensive mind.
Jun 5, 2019 04:36:51 #
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
Read it again, this time with an open, non-defensive mind.
You need to read it again, without the presumption of guilt!
Mueller clearly recognized "Reasonable Doubt".
Jun 5, 2019 17:07:14 #
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
If you had bothered to read the report, you would know. An attempt to obstruct, even should it fail miserably, is still an attempt and still a crime. Would you let bank robbers off because they failed miserably during their attempt to rob a bank? An attempt at committing a crime is still a crime, regardless of success or failure.
The question was, specifics. "Where? I want you to point out one single entry where the Mueller report cites a single instance of Presidential obstruction of his investigation."
You didn't. Of course you didn't, because there isn't one to point to. That didn't deter you from making the assertion in the first place or from deflecting when I called you out on it. Now the whole world knows what you are, and so do you.
Jun 5, 2019 17:14:57 #
Larry the Legend wrote:
The question was, specifics. "Where? I want you to point out one single entry where the Mueller report cites a single instance of Presidential obstruction of his investigation."
You didn't. Of course you didn't, because there isn't one to point to. That didn't deter you from making the assertion in the first place or from deflecting when I called you out on it. Now the whole world knows what you are, and so do you.
You didn't. Of course you didn't, because there isn't one to point to. That didn't deter you from making the assertion in the first place or from deflecting when I called you out on it. Now the whole world knows what you are, and so do you.
If you had bothered to read it, you would have seen it for yourself. If you are going to be too lazy and/or thickheaded to read it, why should I have to hold your hand. Get off your ass and go read the thing already, stop being so lazy.
Jun 5, 2019 17:17:38 #
Gatsby wrote:
You need to read it again, without the presumption of guilt!
Mueller clearly recognized "Reasonable Doubt".
Mueller clearly recognized "Reasonable Doubt".
He recognized that the DOJ holds the viewpoint that a sitting president can NOT be indicted, NOT that Trump was innocent and even reasonable doubt goes out the window with the sheer extent to which Trump went to obstruct the investigation.
Jun 5, 2019 19:45:41 #
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
If you had bothered to read it, you would have seen it for yourself. If you are going to be too lazy and/or thickheaded to read it, why should I have to hold your hand. Get off your ass and go read the thing already, stop being so lazy.
I see. Having read it and not seen said reference, I then asked you to provide the evidence of your assertion that it exists, but you are incapable of issuing said information because it doesn't exist. You, however, would prefer a painful death to the prospect of actually admitting that you lied about said reference so you continue to deflect and redirect ad nauseum. You lied. I knew it, you know it and the rest of humanity knows it now thanks to your last few posts. When will you learn?
Jun 5, 2019 21:27:52 #
Larry the Legend wrote:
I see. Having read it and not seen said reference, I then asked you to provide the evidence of your assertion that it exists, but you are incapable of issuing said information because it doesn't exist. You, however, would prefer a painful death to the prospect of actually admitting that you lied about said reference so you continue to deflect and redirect ad nauseum. You lied. I knew it, you know it and the rest of humanity knows it now thanks to your last few posts. When will you learn?
If you have read it, and I seriously doubt you have, and you don't see it, there is nothing I can do to help you see the light. You are obviously too ignorant to understand. Either that or you can go ahead and admit that you have never read it.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.