Dark Day For The Left

[PoliticalChic]

Re-post without the vulgarity and I may respond.

The vulgarity was a comment on the presentation of the process, not directed at you personally. Thicken that skin up. Jeez, are you sure you're from Brooklyn?

Barr took the teeth out of the presentation of the report allowing Trump to skate. Republicans controlled the Senate. Democrats controlled the House. If you remember, Nancy Pelosi, held her caucus off for months when most of them wanted Trump impeached...but Trump has no self-awareness. Just his own worst corrupt instincts. Double down, rinse, repeat, fail.

I want you to behave as an adult, no matter where it is directed.


"Barr took the teeth out of the presentation of the report allowing Trump to skate."

Let's see your proof....or, you are simply lying to hide your chagrin at one move failure.....


Frankly, you should be used to failure:
First collusion, collusion, collusion failed

Russia, Russia, Russia failed.

Obstruction, Obstruction, Obstruction failed.

Racist, Racist, Racist failed.

Impeach, Impeach, Impeach failed.

Recession, Recession, Recession failed.

Emoluments, 25th amendment, Stormy Daniels, lies about Charlottesville fine Nazis, Kurds, Ukraine, Quid Pro Quo, ‘lynching,’ the GAO charges, Lev Parnas, impeachment, coronavirus ‘hoax,’ one after another lead balloons.

Honestly, you're like a tiger with no teeth. You almost remind me of that perpetual whiner Ben Shapiro running on and on about civil discourse and then running to his corner whenever he gets his ass handed to him screaming "LEFTIST!!".

Barr takes the teeth out of the Mueller report. Well, let's start here.
'Lied through his teeth': Dem lawmakers slam Barr over Mueller report
And then a second course of what was contained in the report.
Five Things I Learned From the Mueller Report

For a contrast, let's jump in the DeLorean and go back in time.
The hypocrisy of impeachment: How lawmakers' stances on ousting a president changed from Clinton to Trump
I like that this next one came from a Fox News panelist.
Juan Williams: GOP are hypocrites on impeachment

Seriously, I was about to thank you for providing a welcome distraction from all the coronavirus posts...and then you go and put the word "hoax" next to it.
Sigh....

"Honestly, you're like a tiger with no teeth. You almost remind me of that perpetual whiner Ben Shapiro running on and on about civil discourse and then running to his corner whenever he gets his ass handed to him screaming "LEFTIST!!".


You must sense how little I incorporate your....observations.

You should confine your attention to actually finding any errors in my posts.
(How to keep an idiot busy.)

That's only because you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense while running away declaring victory. You're entire post is filled with errors.
You really don't refute anything. You just yell loudly and run away.

Nothing I post is 'nonsense'....your feeble attempts at refutation is proof of that.

You have yet to show any errors.....but plenty of proof that you simply lie.

I run from nothing, liar....I'm fearless and armored with truth.



This is what brought you crawling in....and remains a fact.
March 22nd, 2019.....

After running on the hopes of reversing the 2016 election.....hope ran out when the confused Biden-like Robert Mueller tossed in the towel....


"Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to the attorney general, William Barr; it stated that “while this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Britannica.com

Again?
"...while this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Anyone conversant with the law will quickly recognize that the first phrase....
"...this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime,..."

...obviated the following phrase...

"...does not exonerate him.”



And that second phrase is inserted simply to justify the vast sum and time wasted on the hoax.


'Happy' anniversary, Democrats/Liberals???

 

[PoliticalChic]

born with inalienable rights,

Wrong. A "college Republican" no doubt, who's never wrong- this is the 4th time recently-

We're born with UNalienable rights- inalienable rights are tangible as in granted privileges, which can (and have been rescinded via evisceration of the 4th amendment). And as Bush Jr, the compassionate conservative" said; it's just a goddamn piece of paper-

UNalienable rights are inherent therefore non tangible, but can be restricted or ignored but never taken, given, passed on etc.

Porter Rockwell has, on at least 3 occasions, posted an essay on the 14th amendment "legal arguments" using the word inalienable rights vs unalienable rights-

I'll accept that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Genesis Rabbah (l. 14) concludes that Lot had at the time of the destruction of Sodom four daughters, two married and two betrothed, and that the latter escaped with their father. But he had previously had a daughter named Peloṭet, who was married to one of the inhabitants of Sodom. She secretly practised hospitality, but being one day discovered by the people of Sodom, was sentenced to be burned (Pirḳe R. El. l.c.; "Sefer ha-Yashar," "Lek Leka," ed. Leghorn, p. 23a). Lot's wife, called "'Irit" or "'Idit," desirous to see whether her other two daughters followed her, looked behind her; but she then saw the back of the Shekinah and was accordingly punished for her imprudence (Pirḳe R. El. l.c.). She was turned into a pillar of salt because she had previously sinned by not giving salt to strangers (Targ. pseudo-Jonathan and Yer. to Gen. xix. 26; comp. Gen. R. li. 7).
LOT - JewishEncyclopedia.com

It was hospitality and if God is all powerful, why did he have to come to S&G to see what's going on.

You want people to believe what you believe, the Christians in the US have many Gods as they all believe different things.

You are so full of hatred you think you can judge people depending on their beliefs.

Wrong thread.

Move this post....

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

The vulgarity was a comment on the presentation of the process, not directed at you personally. Thicken that skin up. Jeez, are you sure you're from Brooklyn?

Barr took the teeth out of the presentation of the report allowing Trump to skate. Republicans controlled the Senate. Democrats controlled the House. If you remember, Nancy Pelosi, held her caucus off for months when most of them wanted Trump impeached...but Trump has no self-awareness. Just his own worst corrupt instincts. Double down, rinse, repeat, fail.

I want you to behave as an adult, no matter where it is directed.


"Barr took the teeth out of the presentation of the report allowing Trump to skate."

Let's see your proof....or, you are simply lying to hide your chagrin at one move failure.....


Frankly, you should be used to failure:
First collusion, collusion, collusion failed

Russia, Russia, Russia failed.

Obstruction, Obstruction, Obstruction failed.

Racist, Racist, Racist failed.

Impeach, Impeach, Impeach failed.

Recession, Recession, Recession failed.

Emoluments, 25th amendment, Stormy Daniels, lies about Charlottesville fine Nazis, Kurds, Ukraine, Quid Pro Quo, ‘lynching,’ the GAO charges, Lev Parnas, impeachment, coronavirus ‘hoax,’ one after another lead balloons.

Honestly, you're like a tiger with no teeth. You almost remind me of that perpetual whiner Ben Shapiro running on and on about civil discourse and then running to his corner whenever he gets his ass handed to him screaming "LEFTIST!!".

Barr takes the teeth out of the Mueller report. Well, let's start here.
'Lied through his teeth': Dem lawmakers slam Barr over Mueller report
And then a second course of what was contained in the report.
Five Things I Learned From the Mueller Report

For a contrast, let's jump in the DeLorean and go back in time.
The hypocrisy of impeachment: How lawmakers' stances on ousting a president changed from Clinton to Trump
I like that this next one came from a Fox News panelist.
Juan Williams: GOP are hypocrites on impeachment

Seriously, I was about to thank you for providing a welcome distraction from all the coronavirus posts...and then you go and put the word "hoax" next to it.
Sigh....

"Honestly, you're like a tiger with no teeth. You almost remind me of that perpetual whiner Ben Shapiro running on and on about civil discourse and then running to his corner whenever he gets his ass handed to him screaming "LEFTIST!!".


You must sense how little I incorporate your....observations.

You should confine your attention to actually finding any errors in my posts.
(How to keep an idiot busy.)

That's only because you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense while running away declaring victory. You're entire post is filled with errors.
You really don't refute anything. You just yell loudly and run away.

Nothing I post is 'nonsense'....your feeble attempts at refutation is proof of that.

You have yet to show any errors.....but plenty of proof that you simply lie.

I run from nothing, liar....I'm fearless and armored with truth.



This is what brought you crawling in....and remains a fact.
March 22nd, 2019.....

After running on the hopes of reversing the 2016 election.....hope ran out when the confused Biden-like Robert Mueller tossed in the towel....


"Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to the attorney general, William Barr; it stated that “while this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Britannica.com

Again?
"...while this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Anyone conversant with the law will quickly recognize that the first phrase....
"...this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime,..."

...obviated the following phrase...

"...does not exonerate him.”



And that second phrase is inserted simply to justify the vast sum and time wasted on the hoax.


'Happy' anniversary, Democrats/Liberals???

The report does not exonerate him. Obstruction is all over Part 2 of Mueller's report. If Democrats controlled the Senate, Trump would be in the rear view mirror, whining about conspiracies at Trump Tower and plotting the creation of his new TV network. Just another right wing media whore.

I suggest you deal with it. November is going to be a cruel month for Republicans.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Trump allowed the Democrat attempt to do its darndest.

And it still failed.



“Mueller: Investigation was “not at any time curtailed, stopped, or hindered”
Robert Mueller under questioning by Republican Doug Collins admitted that the investigation was not actually obstructed:

Andrew Clark

✔@AndrewHClark


Here's Mueller admitting his investigation was "not AT ANY TIME curtailed, stopped, or hindered."

No obstruction. #MuellerHearings

Mueller: Investigation was "not at any time curtailed, stopped, or hindered"

 

[PoliticalChic]

I want you to behave as an adult, no matter where it is directed.


"Barr took the teeth out of the presentation of the report allowing Trump to skate."

Let's see your proof....or, you are simply lying to hide your chagrin at one move failure.....


Frankly, you should be used to failure:
First collusion, collusion, collusion failed

Russia, Russia, Russia failed.

Obstruction, Obstruction, Obstruction failed.

Racist, Racist, Racist failed.

Impeach, Impeach, Impeach failed.

Recession, Recession, Recession failed.

Emoluments, 25th amendment, Stormy Daniels, lies about Charlottesville fine Nazis, Kurds, Ukraine, Quid Pro Quo, ‘lynching,’ the GAO charges, Lev Parnas, impeachment, coronavirus ‘hoax,’ one after another lead balloons.

Honestly, you're like a tiger with no teeth. You almost remind me of that perpetual whiner Ben Shapiro running on and on about civil discourse and then running to his corner whenever he gets his ass handed to him screaming "LEFTIST!!".

Barr takes the teeth out of the Mueller report. Well, let's start here.
'Lied through his teeth': Dem lawmakers slam Barr over Mueller report
And then a second course of what was contained in the report.
Five Things I Learned From the Mueller Report

For a contrast, let's jump in the DeLorean and go back in time.
The hypocrisy of impeachment: How lawmakers' stances on ousting a president changed from Clinton to Trump
I like that this next one came from a Fox News panelist.
Juan Williams: GOP are hypocrites on impeachment

Seriously, I was about to thank you for providing a welcome distraction from all the coronavirus posts...and then you go and put the word "hoax" next to it.
Sigh....

"Honestly, you're like a tiger with no teeth. You almost remind me of that perpetual whiner Ben Shapiro running on and on about civil discourse and then running to his corner whenever he gets his ass handed to him screaming "LEFTIST!!".


You must sense how little I incorporate your....observations.

You should confine your attention to actually finding any errors in my posts.
(How to keep an idiot busy.)

That's only because you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense while running away declaring victory. You're entire post is filled with errors.
You really don't refute anything. You just yell loudly and run away.

Nothing I post is 'nonsense'....your feeble attempts at refutation is proof of that.

You have yet to show any errors.....but plenty of proof that you simply lie.

I run from nothing, liar....I'm fearless and armored with truth.



This is what brought you crawling in....and remains a fact.
March 22nd, 2019.....

After running on the hopes of reversing the 2016 election.....hope ran out when the confused Biden-like Robert Mueller tossed in the towel....


"Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to the attorney general, William Barr; it stated that “while this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Britannica.com

Again?
"...while this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Anyone conversant with the law will quickly recognize that the first phrase....
"...this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime,..."

...obviated the following phrase...

"...does not exonerate him.”



And that second phrase is inserted simply to justify the vast sum and time wasted on the hoax.


'Happy' anniversary, Democrats/Liberals???

The report does not exonerate him. Obstruction is all over Part 2 of Mueller's report. If Democrats controlled the Senate, Trump would be in the rear view mirror, whining about conspiracies at Trump Tower and plotting the creation of his new TV network. Just another right wing media whore.

I suggest you deal with it. November is going to be a cruel month for Republicans.

The law requires no such conclusion.

It is 'guilty' or 'not guilty.



Which did Mueller report?


Take your time.


Don't your hands hurt from holding on by your fingernails for so long?

 

[PoliticalChic]

As this 'anniversary' appears to be a painful issue for Democrats/Liberals.....well, by all means then, let's continue.


Under his mandate…..how could the fraud, Mueller, fail to investigate the individuals who authorized and paid for the dossier…..Hillary, the DNC, et al????


Let's review:


1.The Hillary campaign paid for an anti-Trump Russian creation called the dossier: they used law firm Perkins Coie to funnel money to GPS Fusion and Christopher Steele


2. The Hillary campaign screamed that they had been hacked, but refused to allow any government agencies to inspect the supposedly hacked servers

3. The FBI admitted that they knew the dossier was fake from the start, but used it to get a FISA warrant to surveil Trump and associates

4. A secret cabal at the highest levels of the FBI and the DoJ worked with GPS Fusion to undermine the Trump campaign...before and after the election.

5. FBI found classified data on Huma and Anthony Weiner’s laptop….so they gave them a pass

6. The FBI decided no charges against Hillary before they interviewed her…..with no record kept of the interview, and not under oath.

7. Both Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills were found to be lying to the FBI….but given a pass ...and allowed to keep their laptops, and destroy any evidence on same

8. FBI agents Strzok and Page and McCabe talked over a plan to overturn the election….an ‘insurance policy’

9. Loretta Lynch with Comey’s acquiescence, worked to benefit Hillary’s campaign

10. Obama knew about Hillary’s use of unsecured emails, as he conversed with her on same…kept his name out of the reports.

11. BTW…..Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein were all government officials when Hillary received the $145 million bribe for the sale of our uranium.

....Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the time of the Russian uranium probe, and so was his successor James Comey who took over in 2013 as the FBI was still developing the case. Rod Rosenstein, then-U.S. Attorney....


12. The FBI offered to pay Christopher Steele if he could corroborate the dossier….so he told Yahoo New’s Michael Isikoff about the dossier, had him print the information….then told the FBI that Isikoff independently discovered the “facts”…

Steele admitted, in a British court, that he leaked the material to Yahoo. September 23 Yahoo ran the story.

The FBI took the Isikoff Yahoo story to the FISA court to get the warrant….then fired Steele for sharing it with news outlets.

13. After the FBI fired Steele, he continued to confer with Bruce Ohr and the DoJ…and Rod Rosestein and Sally Yates.

In September of 2016, this was Steele’s statement to Bruce Ohr that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”


14. And in another stunning revelation, the memo asserts that Justice Department official Bruce Ohr was used to pass information from the author of the dossier, Christopher Steele, to the DOJ.
Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, worked at the time for Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm research firm that commissioned the dossier. Bruce Ohr, who worked closely with Deputy Attorney Generals Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein, passed his wife’s opposition research on Trump to the FBI, the memo says.


15. Fired by the FBI as untrustworthy, Steele is maintained by the DoJ as a contact, and all the while, Bruce Ohr’s wife is drawing a salary from the group Hillary hired to produce the dossier….GPS Fusion.

Bruce Ohr’s wife’s connections to Hillary’s paid dossier-producers, GPS Fusion, was never disclosed to the FISA court.

16. Not Hillary Clinton’s Campaign, nor the DNC, nor Christopher Steel, nor Fusion GPS, nor Bruce Ohr’s wife, the roles of none of these participants in the creation of the dossier….not a one was revealed to the FISA court.

17. The memo also says that the FBI’s deputy director, Andrew McCabe, told Congress that a FISA warrant against the campaign adviser, Carter Page, would not have been granted without use of the dossier. That despite the FBI later determining that very little of the Democrat-funded document was corroborated


18. Let’s compare the zealous and very aggressive action by Mueller against Flynn, Manafort, Papadopoulos, and Carter Page with the immunity and passes given above…..

19..The memo notes that the Papadopoulos information “triggered” the FBI investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion.
It says that there is no evidence that Page and Papadopoulos engaged in a conspiracy. “
Spy Warrant Granted Based On Dossier And News Stories Planted By Fusion GPS



…and lots of evidence of associations of Democrats with the Kremlin….

…completely different treatment.

20. And all of the players in on the fix were demanding the Memo not be released….and lied about why it should not be released.

 

[Winco]

One more proof of Coulter's genius:

"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"

Ann Coulter? lol.
This Ann Coulter "As far as I'm concerned, I'm a middle-of-the-road moderate and the rest of you are crazy."

She is a loose cannon idiot paid to make outlandish statements, kinda like the OP.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Honestly, you're like a tiger with no teeth. You almost remind me of that perpetual whiner Ben Shapiro running on and on about civil discourse and then running to his corner whenever he gets his ass handed to him screaming "LEFTIST!!".

Barr takes the teeth out of the Mueller report. Well, let's start here.
'Lied through his teeth': Dem lawmakers slam Barr over Mueller report
And then a second course of what was contained in the report.
Five Things I Learned From the Mueller Report

For a contrast, let's jump in the DeLorean and go back in time.
The hypocrisy of impeachment: How lawmakers' stances on ousting a president changed from Clinton to Trump
I like that this next one came from a Fox News panelist.
Juan Williams: GOP are hypocrites on impeachment

Seriously, I was about to thank you for providing a welcome distraction from all the coronavirus posts...and then you go and put the word "hoax" next to it.
Sigh....

"Honestly, you're like a tiger with no teeth. You almost remind me of that perpetual whiner Ben Shapiro running on and on about civil discourse and then running to his corner whenever he gets his ass handed to him screaming "LEFTIST!!".


You must sense how little I incorporate your....observations.

You should confine your attention to actually finding any errors in my posts.
(How to keep an idiot busy.)

That's only because you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense while running away declaring victory. You're entire post is filled with errors.
You really don't refute anything. You just yell loudly and run away.

Nothing I post is 'nonsense'....your feeble attempts at refutation is proof of that.

You have yet to show any errors.....but plenty of proof that you simply lie.

I run from nothing, liar....I'm fearless and armored with truth.



This is what brought you crawling in....and remains a fact.
March 22nd, 2019.....

After running on the hopes of reversing the 2016 election.....hope ran out when the confused Biden-like Robert Mueller tossed in the towel....


"Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to the attorney general, William Barr; it stated that “while this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Britannica.com

Again?
"...while this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Anyone conversant with the law will quickly recognize that the first phrase....
"...this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime,..."

...obviated the following phrase...

"...does not exonerate him.”



And that second phrase is inserted simply to justify the vast sum and time wasted on the hoax.


'Happy' anniversary, Democrats/Liberals???

The report does not exonerate him. Obstruction is all over Part 2 of Mueller's report. If Democrats controlled the Senate, Trump would be in the rear view mirror, whining about conspiracies at Trump Tower and plotting the creation of his new TV network. Just another right wing media whore.

I suggest you deal with it. November is going to be a cruel month for Republicans.

The law requires no such conclusion.

It is 'guilty' or 'not guilty.



Which did Mueller report?


Take your time.


Don't your hands hurt from holding on by your fingernails for so long?

No more than your index finger probably hurts from the mouse clicks of repeated cut and paste talking points that I have no doubt you have already skinned and have lined up from your dubious sources.

Last I looked, it was the job of Congress to read the report and determine whether or not any transgressions had taken place and then to either proceed with impeachment or not...yes, I'm sure I read that somewhere. Maybe in the statements from a couple of former Representatives that are now Senators. , you know when they impeached a president for lying about a sex act...cause you know, it's so much worse.

Barr took the teeth right out of the report by pulling a Roy Cohn. Any sane person would conclude that obstruction was all over Part 2 of Mueller's report. Again, if Moscow Mitch and Republicans didn't control the Senate, Trump would be toast. Be sure to send Mitch a fruit basket this holiday season.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One more proof of Coulter's genius:

"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"

Ann Coulter? lol.
This Ann Coulter "As far as I'm concerned, I'm a middle-of-the-road moderate and the rest of you are crazy."

She is a loose cannon idiot paid to make outlandish statements, kinda like the OP.

Could you list which of the dozen or so scholarly best sellers of her's that you've read...you know, as the basis of your conclusion?


Otherwise, you are simply our latest and greatest source of green house gases.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Honestly, you're like a tiger with no teeth. You almost remind me of that perpetual whiner Ben Shapiro running on and on about civil discourse and then running to his corner whenever he gets his ass handed to him screaming "LEFTIST!!".


You must sense how little I incorporate your....observations.

You should confine your attention to actually finding any errors in my posts.
(How to keep an idiot busy.)

That's only because you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense while running away declaring victory. You're entire post is filled with errors.
You really don't refute anything. You just yell loudly and run away.

Nothing I post is 'nonsense'....your feeble attempts at refutation is proof of that.

You have yet to show any errors.....but plenty of proof that you simply lie.

I run from nothing, liar....I'm fearless and armored with truth.



This is what brought you crawling in....and remains a fact.
March 22nd, 2019.....

After running on the hopes of reversing the 2016 election.....hope ran out when the confused Biden-like Robert Mueller tossed in the towel....


"Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to the attorney general, William Barr; it stated that “while this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Britannica.com

Again?
"...while this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Anyone conversant with the law will quickly recognize that the first phrase....
"...this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime,..."

...obviated the following phrase...

"...does not exonerate him.”



And that second phrase is inserted simply to justify the vast sum and time wasted on the hoax.


'Happy' anniversary, Democrats/Liberals???

The report does not exonerate him. Obstruction is all over Part 2 of Mueller's report. If Democrats controlled the Senate, Trump would be in the rear view mirror, whining about conspiracies at Trump Tower and plotting the creation of his new TV network. Just another right wing media whore.

I suggest you deal with it. November is going to be a cruel month for Republicans.

The law requires no such conclusion.

It is 'guilty' or 'not guilty.



Which did Mueller report?


Take your time.


Don't your hands hurt from holding on by your fingernails for so long?

No more than your index finger probably hurts from the mouse clicks of repeated cut and paste talking points that I have no doubt you have already skinned and have lined up from your dubious sources.

Last I looked, it was the job of Congress to read the report and determine whether or not any transgressions had taken place and then to either proceed with impeachment or not...yes, I'm sure I read that somewhere. Maybe in the statements from a couple of former Representatives that are now Senators. , you know when they impeached a president for lying about a sex act...cause you know, it's so much worse.

Barr took the teeth right out of the report by pulling a Roy Cohn. Any sane person would conclude that obstruction was all over Part 2 of Mueller's report. Again, if Moscow Mitch and Republicans didn't control the Senate, Trump would be toast. Be sure to send Mitch a fruit basket this holiday season.

"...repeated cut and paste talking points ..."

The best you can do is parrot the words of every other loser who can't compete with my documentation?



To skewer you, you dolt...

1. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml)

Composition Patterns: Developing an Argument

2. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill26.htm#LinkReason)

3. A valid objection to this selection of sources may be the type of audience being addressed. Is the ‘pasted selection’ aimed at a specialized or a general audience? Do you find the level ‘over your head’ or is this source too elementary? Ibid.

4. Are you objecting to the author's credentials--institutional affiliation (where he or she works), educational background, past writings, or experience? Or simply looking for a weapon to attack the post? This, of course, would be puerile.

5. Providing summaries or outlines of a source is valid as long as a link to the original is provided, and the author’s meaning is conveyed.

6. Nor is it necessary to insert one’s own language if the original article is simply abbreviated, with link provided.

7. What has been called ‘cut and paste’ is frequently the message board version of footnotes and endnotes of an academic essay. “…footnotes were declared outmoded just before the era of the word-processors which make using footnotes so much easier. Still, because of its relative ease in both writing and reading, parenthetical documentation is greatly preferred by most instructors.” http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml

websites.wnc.edu/~kille/Fred/researchpaper.rtf




How about you are simply too poorly read and educated to compete on the same level.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

One more proof of Coulter's genius:

"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"

Ann Coulter? lol.
This Ann Coulter "As far as I'm concerned, I'm a middle-of-the-road moderate and the rest of you are crazy."

She is a loose cannon idiot paid to make outlandish statements, kinda like the OP.

Yard Sale Barbie? She's still relevant? She went poopers on Trump last fall. That's grounds for ex-communication.
I just checked her Twitter feed and she's still trying to get back in the good graces of the faithful.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

That's only because you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense while running away declaring victory. You're entire post is filled with errors.
You really don't refute anything. You just yell loudly and run away.

Nothing I post is 'nonsense'....your feeble attempts at refutation is proof of that.

You have yet to show any errors.....but plenty of proof that you simply lie.

I run from nothing, liar....I'm fearless and armored with truth.



This is what brought you crawling in....and remains a fact.
March 22nd, 2019.....

After running on the hopes of reversing the 2016 election.....hope ran out when the confused Biden-like Robert Mueller tossed in the towel....


"Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to the attorney general, William Barr; it stated that “while this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Britannica.com

Again?
"...while this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Anyone conversant with the law will quickly recognize that the first phrase....
"...this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime,..."

...obviated the following phrase...

"...does not exonerate him.”



And that second phrase is inserted simply to justify the vast sum and time wasted on the hoax.


'Happy' anniversary, Democrats/Liberals???

The report does not exonerate him. Obstruction is all over Part 2 of Mueller's report. If Democrats controlled the Senate, Trump would be in the rear view mirror, whining about conspiracies at Trump Tower and plotting the creation of his new TV network. Just another right wing media whore.

I suggest you deal with it. November is going to be a cruel month for Republicans.

The law requires no such conclusion.

It is 'guilty' or 'not guilty.



Which did Mueller report?


Take your time.


Don't your hands hurt from holding on by your fingernails for so long?

No more than your index finger probably hurts from the mouse clicks of repeated cut and paste talking points that I have no doubt you have already skinned and have lined up from your dubious sources.

Last I looked, it was the job of Congress to read the report and determine whether or not any transgressions had taken place and then to either proceed with impeachment or not...yes, I'm sure I read that somewhere. Maybe in the statements from a couple of former Representatives that are now Senators. , you know when they impeached a president for lying about a sex act...cause you know, it's so much worse.

Barr took the teeth right out of the report by pulling a Roy Cohn. Any sane person would conclude that obstruction was all over Part 2 of Mueller's report. Again, if Moscow Mitch and Republicans didn't control the Senate, Trump would be toast. Be sure to send Mitch a fruit basket this holiday season.

"...repeated cut and paste talking points ..."

The best you can do is parrot the words of every other loser who can't compete with my documentation?



To skewer you, you dolt...

1. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml)

Composition Patterns: Developing an Argument

2. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill26.htm#LinkReason)

3. A valid objection to this selection of sources may be the type of audience being addressed. Is the ‘pasted selection’ aimed at a specialized or a general audience? Do you find the level ‘over your head’ or is this source too elementary? Ibid.

4. Are you objecting to the author's credentials--institutional affiliation (where he or she works), educational background, past writings, or experience? Or simply looking for a weapon to attack the post? This, of course, would be puerile.

5. Providing summaries or outlines of a source is valid as long as a link to the original is provided, and the author’s meaning is conveyed.

6. Nor is it necessary to insert one’s own language if the original article is simply abbreviated, with link provided.

7. What has been called ‘cut and paste’ is frequently the message board version of footnotes and endnotes of an academic essay. “…footnotes were declared outmoded just before the era of the word-processors which make using footnotes so much easier. Still, because of its relative ease in both writing and reading, parenthetical documentation is greatly preferred by most instructors.” http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml

websites.wnc.edu/~kille/Fred/researchpaper.rtf




How about you are simply too poorly read and educated to compete on the same level.

Honestly, just stop with the misdirection. You've been outed. You cut and paste more than an online book editor.

Again, I win.

 

[Winco]

Could you list which of the dozen or so scholarly best sellers of her's that you've read...you know, as the basis of your conclusion?


Otherwise, you are simply our latest and greatest source of green house gases.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nothing I post is 'nonsense'....your feeble attempts at refutation is proof of that.

You have yet to show any errors.....but plenty of proof that you simply lie.

I run from nothing, liar....I'm fearless and armored with truth.



This is what brought you crawling in....and remains a fact.
March 22nd, 2019.....

After running on the hopes of reversing the 2016 election.....hope ran out when the confused Biden-like Robert Mueller tossed in the towel....


"Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to the attorney general, William Barr; it stated that “while this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Britannica.com

Again?
"...while this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Anyone conversant with the law will quickly recognize that the first phrase....
"...this report does not conclude that the President [Donald Trump] committed a crime,..."

...obviated the following phrase...

"...does not exonerate him.”



And that second phrase is inserted simply to justify the vast sum and time wasted on the hoax.


'Happy' anniversary, Democrats/Liberals???

The report does not exonerate him. Obstruction is all over Part 2 of Mueller's report. If Democrats controlled the Senate, Trump would be in the rear view mirror, whining about conspiracies at Trump Tower and plotting the creation of his new TV network. Just another right wing media whore.

I suggest you deal with it. November is going to be a cruel month for Republicans.

The law requires no such conclusion.

It is 'guilty' or 'not guilty.



Which did Mueller report?


Take your time.


Don't your hands hurt from holding on by your fingernails for so long?

No more than your index finger probably hurts from the mouse clicks of repeated cut and paste talking points that I have no doubt you have already skinned and have lined up from your dubious sources.

Last I looked, it was the job of Congress to read the report and determine whether or not any transgressions had taken place and then to either proceed with impeachment or not...yes, I'm sure I read that somewhere. Maybe in the statements from a couple of former Representatives that are now Senators. , you know when they impeached a president for lying about a sex act...cause you know, it's so much worse.

Barr took the teeth right out of the report by pulling a Roy Cohn. Any sane person would conclude that obstruction was all over Part 2 of Mueller's report. Again, if Moscow Mitch and Republicans didn't control the Senate, Trump would be toast. Be sure to send Mitch a fruit basket this holiday season.

"...repeated cut and paste talking points ..."

The best you can do is parrot the words of every other loser who can't compete with my documentation?



To skewer you, you dolt...

1. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml)

Composition Patterns: Developing an Argument

2. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill26.htm#LinkReason)

3. A valid objection to this selection of sources may be the type of audience being addressed. Is the ‘pasted selection’ aimed at a specialized or a general audience? Do you find the level ‘over your head’ or is this source too elementary? Ibid.

4. Are you objecting to the author's credentials--institutional affiliation (where he or she works), educational background, past writings, or experience? Or simply looking for a weapon to attack the post? This, of course, would be puerile.

5. Providing summaries or outlines of a source is valid as long as a link to the original is provided, and the author’s meaning is conveyed.

6. Nor is it necessary to insert one’s own language if the original article is simply abbreviated, with link provided.

7. What has been called ‘cut and paste’ is frequently the message board version of footnotes and endnotes of an academic essay. “…footnotes were declared outmoded just before the era of the word-processors which make using footnotes so much easier. Still, because of its relative ease in both writing and reading, parenthetical documentation is greatly preferred by most instructors.” http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml

websites.wnc.edu/~kille/Fred/researchpaper.rtf




How about you are simply too poorly read and educated to compete on the same level.

Honestly, just stop with the misdirection. You've been outed. You cut and paste more than an online book editor.

Again, I win.

You can't do what I do....construct 100% accurate, correct and true expositions.
And every one of 'em documented, sourced and linked.


Just admit you've been destroyed.


Not a particularly high bar....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Could you list which of the dozen or so scholarly best sellers of her's that you've read...you know, as the basis of your conclusion?


Otherwise, you are simply our latest and greatest source of green house gases.

Could you list which of the dozen or so scholarly best sellers of her's that you've read...you know, as the basis of your conclusion?


Otherwise, you are simply our latest and greatest source of green house gases.


You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

 

[Winco]

Could you list which of the dozen or so scholarly best sellers of her's that you've read

I would NEVER read a book by this POS, a POS human scum in so many ways.
Watch the Roast and try to laugh.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

If you're not being paid by the RNC you should be. LOL

Says a conspiracy theory wingnut.

 

[Winco]

Coulter, your hero, bombs.
Then real comedians roast the hell out of her.



Watch it and laugh chic !

 

[Winco]

Could you list which of the dozen or so scholarly best sellers of her's that you've read...you know, as the basis of your conclusion?


Otherwise, you are simply our latest and greatest source of green house gases.


You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

Thank You so much for bringing up Ann Coulter.
You made my day, the joy I got rewatching these people DESTROY ann coulter.