Crixus
Gold Member
Yeah, that’s what you said about Russia and Stormy to. Y’all remind me of those people who go on about the world ending on March 25th. The 26th comes and y’all say you meant next year. Meh.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A "jury" of one.....Barr did what he was hired by Trump to do....
Yeah, that’s what you said about Russia and Stormy to. Y’all remind me of those people who go on about the world ending on March 25th. The 26th comes and y’all say you meant next year. Meh.
leftwinger
Diamond Member
MSLSD says it is White Privilege. Because no Black Family could avoid Jail under two years and 20 attorneys and FBI digging into them and crew.
- Moderator
- #103
Which is why he won the ny primary with overwhelming support
Nitwit...........republicans are less than 28% of NT's population.
Which is significantly higher than your claim of almost zero.
Did you embrace common core math or something?
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #104
The House voted unanimously that the report should be released to the publicSure he doesTrump said its Barr's call. I'll say its Barr's call. During his interview Barr said that he would release as much as possible.
Personally I would not release the report because the LAW says I don't have to.
The fucking dems don't deserve to see how their coup attempt played out.
Trump can cover up the report
It will only make it appear he is hiding something. If the report is as good as Barr said...why can’t we see it?
1. Trump has nothing to do with the report, its Barr's.
2. No collusion and no obstruction, means that there is nothing to hide.
3. The LAW says that the AG presents a summary, if you want the report next time change the law. (Hint: if its not indictable you don't say anything)
If Trump wants it released, it will be released
No collusion or obstruction means nothing meeting criminal thresholds. We can only assume the rest
Barr said he would release the report. If hi meant a personal summary, he should have said that at his confirmation
At his confirmation he said that "he would release as much as he could". So its up to Barr's interpretation.
Why are Republicans changing their mind. If the report exhonorates the President, wouldn’t they want everyone to see it?
because it's illegal to release information that would jeopardize ongoing cases. Like the ones with the Russian firms.
But I suppose breaking the law and allowing Russian firms to escape the consequences of t heir more risk crimes isn't important if you can play politics eh?
- Moderator
- #105
To Barr's credit, he DID state in his little letter that Mueller could NOT determine whether Trump was exonerated from the charge of obstructing justice.....
Since Trump openly (ans stupidly) stated to the Russian ambassador that he fired Comey because of the Russian probe.....and since Trump openly stated to Lester Holt that he wanted Comey gone because of that same on-going Russian probe.........Trump HIMSELF prompted a special counsel probe.
Now, based on Barr's memo as a private citizen that he felt that Trump should never have been investigated as a a president (which was basically a letter requesting Trump to appoint him as AG)....and based on the DOJ unofficial "policy" that a president is ABOVE the law, Barr WILL be called to testify before one or two House committees.
The questions that Barr will be asked will entail his "conclusion" that although Mueller openly stated that the president was NOT exonerated, WHY did Barr determine that there's no further need to investigate Trump?
Basically, based on Mueller's indecision on whether Trump did or did not obstruct justice, the questions for Barr will be interesting in how he answers:
a. Did Mueller hand off a final decision of Trump's obstruction to a jury of one; i.e., Barr???
OR
b. Did Mueller intend for Congress to be the ultimate "judge" on whether there WAS obstruction??
Of course, a close review of the entire Mueller report can best address the two above questions.....
(Go at it, Trump cultists.......but please try some objectivity.....lol)
Then explain why the signer of the last FISA warrant (Rosenstein) agree on the findings?
You people are screwed, you really are, and all your spinning is laughable, but predicted-)
Laugh all you want Nat, because very soon, we are going to be laughing even harder at you!
Why wait? Start laughing now
- Moderator
- #106
No collusion, no obstruction, game over.
Hey, not my place to fix fucked up stupidity and cult devotion.......Go have an enema.
Doesn't mean you need to embrace it
The House voted unanimously that the report should be released to the publicSure he doesTrump said its Barr's call. I'll say its Barr's call. During his interview Barr said that he would release as much as possible.
Personally I would not release the report because the LAW says I don't have to.
The fucking dems don't deserve to see how their coup attempt played out.
Trump can cover up the report
It will only make it appear he is hiding something. If the report is as good as Barr said...why can’t we see it?
1. Trump has nothing to do with the report, its Barr's.
2. No collusion and no obstruction, means that there is nothing to hide.
3. The LAW says that the AG presents a summary, if you want the report next time change the law. (Hint: if its not indictable you don't say anything)
If Trump wants it released, it will be released
No collusion or obstruction means nothing meeting criminal thresholds. We can only assume the rest
Barr said he would release the report. If hi meant a personal summary, he should have said that at his confirmation
At his confirmation he said that "he would release as much as he could". So its up to Barr's interpretation.
Why are Republicans changing their mind. If the report exhonorates the President, wouldn’t they want everyone to see it?
Because it's ALWAYS the AG's responsibility to assure the UNCHARGED people are respectively protected from having personal/private details in any FBI investigation or special council proceedings.. Nothing NEW here at all..
It's NOT a "party of one" like the OP Idiot offered up.. It's whatever group or commission Barr wants to put together to review and release what the public can see. Barr is not DOING THIS by himself, I guarandamntee. Because Rosenstein hung around probably JUST FOR this purpose...
Public has no expectations of getting "transcripts" of Presidential private meetings with world leaders.. And the public also has no expectations of reading every last bit of interviews, grand jury, actual Intel information, personal phone tapping, NSA spying or whatever ELSE might have been used in this Inquisition that ruined so many innocent people like PapaDopolous, Caputo and Flynn...
You brats need to stop at the boundaries of sanity... Pursuing FAMILY and FINANCES for no reason is Mafia tactics, intimidation and actually NOT any role of Congress that the Constitution recognizes.. If you want you party to cross that line -- your all gonna picking ass parts for decades....
- Aug 4, 2009
- 280,585
- 138,952
- 2,300
The House voted unanimously that the report should be released to the publicSure he doesTrump can cover up the report
It will only make it appear he is hiding something. If the report is as good as Barr said...why can’t we see it?
1. Trump has nothing to do with the report, its Barr's.
2. No collusion and no obstruction, means that there is nothing to hide.
3. The LAW says that the AG presents a summary, if you want the report next time change the law. (Hint: if its not indictable you don't say anything)
If Trump wants it released, it will be released
No collusion or obstruction means nothing meeting criminal thresholds. We can only assume the rest
Barr said he would release the report. If hi meant a personal summary, he should have said that at his confirmation
At his confirmation he said that "he would release as much as he could". So its up to Barr's interpretation.
Why are Republicans changing their mind. If the report exonerates the President, wouldn’t they want everyone to see it?
The LAW is the LAW. The law says what the law says. Whining about it is just whining.
If Barr doesn't follow the Law as written take it to court, otherwise stop fucking whining.
Right now Trump won and the game is over. If the House wants to take it to court, go for it.
No collusion, no obstruction, game over.
If Trump wants this thing to be over, he needs more in his defense than a summary from his attorney general
- Aug 4, 2009
- 280,585
- 138,952
- 2,300
The public has an expectation that a fair and thorough investigation was conducted. In the absence of actual facts, conspiracies will substituteThe House voted unanimously that the report should be released to the publicSure he doesTrump can cover up the report
It will only make it appear he is hiding something. If the report is as good as Barr said...why can’t we see it?
1. Trump has nothing to do with the report, its Barr's.
2. No collusion and no obstruction, means that there is nothing to hide.
3. The LAW says that the AG presents a summary, if you want the report next time change the law. (Hint: if its not indictable you don't say anything)
If Trump wants it released, it will be released
No collusion or obstruction means nothing meeting criminal thresholds. We can only assume the rest
Barr said he would release the report. If hi meant a personal summary, he should have said that at his confirmation
At his confirmation he said that "he would release as much as he could". So its up to Barr's interpretation.
Why are Republicans changing their mind. If the report exhonorates the President, wouldn’t they want everyone to see it?
Because it's ALWAYS the AG's responsibility to assure the UNCHARGED people are respectively protected from having personal/private details in any FBI investigation or special council proceedings.. Nothing NEW here at all..
It's NOT a "party of one" like the OP Idiot offered up.. It's whatever group or commission Barr wants to put together to review and release what the public can see. Barr is not DOING THIS by himself, I guarandamntee. Because Rosenstein hung around probably JUST FOR this purpose...
Public has no expectations of getting "transcripts" of Presidential private meetings with world leaders.. And the public also has no expectations of reading every last bit of interviews, grand jury, actual Intel information, personal phone tapping, NSA spying or whatever ELSE might have been used in this Inquisition that ruined so many innocent people like PapaDopolous, Caputo and Flynn...
You brats need to stop at the boundaries of sanity... Pursuing FAMILY and FINANCES for no reason is Mafia tactics, intimidation and actually NOT any role of Congress that the Constitution recognizes.. If you want you party to cross that line -- your all gonna picking ass parts for decades....
There is the court of law and the court of public opinion
If Trump supresses the actual report, the public can judge its content accordingly
What is he hiding?
Dale Smith
Platinum Member
To Barr's credit, he DID state in his little letter that Mueller could NOT determine whether Trump was exonerated from the charge of obstructing justice.....
Since Trump openly (ans stupidly) stated to the Russian ambassador that he fired Comey because of the Russian probe.....and since Trump openly stated to Lester Holt that he wanted Comey gone because of that same on-going Russian probe.........Trump HIMSELF prompted a special counsel probe.
Now, based on Barr's memo as a private citizen that he felt that Trump should never have been investigated as a a president (which was basically a letter requesting Trump to appoint him as AG)....and based on the DOJ unofficial "policy" that a president is ABOVE the law, Barr WILL be called to testify before one or two House committees.
The questions that Barr will be asked will entail his "conclusion" that although Mueller openly stated that the president was NOT exonerated, WHY did Barr determine that there's no further need to investigate Trump?
Basically, based on Mueller's indecision on whether Trump did or did not obstruct justice, the questions for Barr will be interesting in how he answers:
a. Did Mueller hand off a final decision of Trump's obstruction to a jury of one; i.e., Barr???
OR
b. Did Mueller intend for Congress to be the ultimate "judge" on whether there WAS obstruction??
Of course, a close review of the entire Mueller report can best address the two above questions.....
(Go at it, Trump cultists.......but please try some objectivity.....lol)
LMAO!!! Just one mega disappointment after another for Nattybooboo! Spin and spin again!
MAGAman
Pro-American Patriot
NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION,
You should know that the above was NOT what Mueller stated.......But, I know, since Hannity told you, what can a Trump ass licker do??? Correct.................LMAO
anynameyouwish
Gold Member
- Nov 28, 2018
- 5,919
- 1,478
- 170
Mmmmmmm, I love the smell of butthurt in the morning.
That is why you are a conservative. You enjoy hurting people, tormenting people, killing people....
nat4900
Diamond Member
- Mar 3, 2015
- 42,021
- 5,964
- 1,870
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #113
Paige been indicted for anything?
Moron......,Page was instrumental in sending one Russian spy to prison and the other had to sneak out of the country back to Russia.....He helped the FBI....THAT is why he wasn't indicted......STOP listening to Hannity.
Russian Spies Tried to Recruit Carter Page Before He Advised Trump ...
To Barr's credit, he DID state in his little letter that Mueller could NOT determine whether Trump was exonerated from the charge of obstructing justice.....
Since Trump openly (ans stupidly) stated to the Russian ambassador that he fired Comey because of the Russian probe.....and since Trump openly stated to Lester Holt that he wanted Comey gone because of that same on-going Russian probe.........Trump HIMSELF prompted a special counsel probe.
Now, based on Barr's memo as a private citizen that he felt that Trump should never have been investigated as a a president (which was basically a letter requesting Trump to appoint him as AG)....and based on the DOJ unofficial "policy" that a president is ABOVE the law, Barr WILL be called to testify before one or two House committees.
The questions that Barr will be asked will entail his "conclusion" that although Mueller openly stated that the president was NOT exonerated, WHY did Barr determine that there's no further need to investigate Trump?
Basically, based on Mueller's indecision on whether Trump did or did not obstruct justice, the questions for Barr will be interesting in how he answers:
a. Did Mueller hand off a final decision of Trump's obstruction to a jury of one; i.e., Barr???
OR
b. Did Mueller intend for Congress to be the ultimate "judge" on whether there WAS obstruction??
Of course, a close review of the entire Mueller report can best address the two above questions.....
(Go at it, Trump cultists.......but please try some objectivity.....lol)
I like what Stacy Abrams said…. “Its like having your brother summarize your report card for your parents."
- Sep 16, 2012
- 57,683
- 51,208
- 3,605
To Barr's credit, he DID state in his little letter that Mueller could NOT determine whether Trump was exonerated from the charge of obstructing justice.....
Since Trump openly (ans stupidly) stated to the Russian ambassador that he fired Comey because of the Russian probe.....and since Trump openly stated to Lester Holt that he wanted Comey gone because of that same on-going Russian probe.........Trump HIMSELF prompted a special counsel probe.
Now, based on Barr's memo as a private citizen that he felt that Trump should never have been investigated as a a president (which was basically a letter requesting Trump to appoint him as AG)....and based on the DOJ unofficial "policy" that a president is ABOVE the law, Barr WILL be called to testify before one or two House committees.
The questions that Barr will be asked will entail his "conclusion" that although Mueller openly stated that the president was NOT exonerated, WHY did Barr determine that there's no further need to investigate Trump?
Basically, based on Mueller's indecision on whether Trump did or did not obstruct justice, the questions for Barr will be interesting in how he answers:
a. Did Mueller hand off a final decision of Trump's obstruction to a jury of one; i.e., Barr???
OR
b. Did Mueller intend for Congress to be the ultimate "judge" on whether there WAS obstruction??
Of course, a close review of the entire Mueller report can best address the two above questions.....
(Go at it, Trump cultists.......but please try some objectivity.....lol)
LMAO!!! Just one mega disappointment after another for Nattybooboo! Spin and spin again!
Trump Derangement Worsens, Despite Mueller Report, Dems Still Think He Committed a Crime
Trump Derangement Worsens, Despite Mueller Report, Dems Still Think He Committed a Crime
"The highly anticipated cure for Trump Derangement Syndrome has failed.
The report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not, as some hoped, end the speculation that President Trump conspired with Russia to win the election and then obstructed justice to keep law-enforcement authorities from prosecuting him.
Instead, the Mueller report, which returned zero indictments for what Democrats have claimed is a conspiracy to destroy the American Republic, seems instead to have intensified TDS.
Democrats don’t believe Mueller’s report, and are still carrying on about crimes the president did not commit. . . ."
The House voted unanimously that the report should be released to the publicSure he does1. Trump has nothing to do with the report, its Barr's.
2. No collusion and no obstruction, means that there is nothing to hide.
3. The LAW says that the AG presents a summary, if you want the report next time change the law. (Hint: if its not indictable you don't say anything)
If Trump wants it released, it will be released
No collusion or obstruction means nothing meeting criminal thresholds. We can only assume the rest
Barr said he would release the report. If hi meant a personal summary, he should have said that at his confirmation
At his confirmation he said that "he would release as much as he could". So its up to Barr's interpretation.
Why are Republicans changing their mind. If the report exonerates the President, wouldn’t they want everyone to see it?
The LAW is the LAW. The law says what the law says. Whining about it is just whining.
If Barr doesn't follow the Law as written take it to court, otherwise stop fucking whining.
Right now Trump won and the game is over. If the House wants to take it to court, go for it.
No collusion, no obstruction, game over.
If Trump wants this thing to be over, he needs more in his defense than a summary from his attorney general
You think you have more cards to play? Go for it.
nat4900
Diamond Member
- Mar 3, 2015
- 42,021
- 5,964
- 1,870
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #117
To Barr's credit, he DID state in his little letter that Mueller could NOT determine whether Trump was exonerated from the charge of obstructing justice.....
Since Trump openly (ans stupidly) stated to the Russian ambassador that he fired Comey because of the Russian probe.....and since Trump openly stated to Lester Holt that he wanted Comey gone because of that same on-going Russian probe.........Trump HIMSELF prompted a special counsel probe.
Now, based on Barr's memo as a private citizen that he felt that Trump should never have been investigated as a a president (which was basically a letter requesting Trump to appoint him as AG)....and based on the DOJ unofficial "policy" that a president is ABOVE the law, Barr WILL be called to testify before one or two House committees.
The questions that Barr will be asked will entail his "conclusion" that although Mueller openly stated that the president was NOT exonerated, WHY did Barr determine that there's no further need to investigate Trump?
Basically, based on Mueller's indecision on whether Trump did or did not obstruct justice, the questions for Barr will be interesting in how he answers:
a. Did Mueller hand off a final decision of Trump's obstruction to a jury of one; i.e., Barr???
OR
b. Did Mueller intend for Congress to be the ultimate "judge" on whether there WAS obstruction??
Of course, a close review of the entire Mueller report can best address the two above questions.....
(Go at it, Trump cultists.......but please try some objectivity.....lol)
I like what Stacy Abrams said…. “Its like having your brother summarize your report card for your parents."
.......and from the Washington Examiner.....no less......lol
Trump attorney general pick wrote memo warning Mueller's investigation into obstruction of justice could do 'lasting damage to the presidency'
Trump attorney general pick wrote memo warning Mueller's investigation into obstruction of justice could do 'lasting damage to the presidency'
Olde Europe
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2014
- 6,025
- 4,523
- 2,065
.......and from the Washington Examiner.....no less......lol
You do as you please, of course, but why on earth would you not just read that crappy outfit, but also post a link to it?
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,917
- 1,600
your side lied.To Barr's credit, he DID state in his little letter that Mueller could NOT determine whether Trump was exonerated from the charge of obstructing justice.....
Since Trump openly (ans stupidly) stated to the Russian ambassador that he fired Comey because of the Russian probe.....and since Trump openly stated to Lester Holt that he wanted Comey gone because of that same on-going Russian probe.........Trump HIMSELF prompted a special counsel probe.
Now, based on Barr's memo as a private citizen that he felt that Trump should never have been investigated as a a president (which was basically a letter requesting Trump to appoint him as AG)....and based on the DOJ unofficial "policy" that a president is ABOVE the law, Barr WILL be called to testify before one or two House committees.
The questions that Barr will be asked will entail his "conclusion" that although Mueller openly stated that the president was NOT exonerated, WHY did Barr determine that there's no further need to investigate Trump?
Basically, based on Mueller's indecision on whether Trump did or did not obstruct justice, the questions for Barr will be interesting in how he answers:
a. Did Mueller hand off a final decision of Trump's obstruction to a jury of one; i.e., Barr???
OR
b. Did Mueller intend for Congress to be the ultimate "judge" on whether there WAS obstruction??
Of course, a close review of the entire Mueller report can best address the two above questions.....
(Go at it, Trump cultists.......but please try some objectivity.....lol)
get over it.
Why do you hate the fact the President did not collude with the Russians?In Barr's wording, Mueller did also not say there was no collusion. Let's all let that sink in.
Why do you hate the fact the President did not obstruct justice?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 37
- Views
- 528
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 306
- Replies
- 82
- Views
- 654
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 53
- Replies
- 65
- Views
- 373
- Replies
- 59
- Views
- 60
- Replies
- 68
- Views
- 263
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8013
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 466
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-