Mueller : Trump is guilty of obstruction. Congress should handle it. Don't bother me again.

[Hutch Starskey]

He did. He outlined ten instances.

He made sort of kind of references to things that maybe could be construed as might be close to near to obstruction.

No. He described the elements necessary for obstruction and then showed which elements each of the ten instances of obstruction met. There were at least four that met all of the elements necessary to charge.

View attachment 263045

Too much at once? Sorry. Sometimes I forget to dumb it down. Do you have questions?

Dumbed down is your forte', the foundation of your posts.

Do you have anything to add? Are you still confused over the obstruction piece?

 

[beautress]

10 instances where they can’t find that Trump did anything but he is “covering up” by failing to prove that he did not

You're proud to be ignorant. Nice.

I am proud to be ignorant if the emotional forces which drive me to act like a brat in a sandbox like you.

Brat? Oh.... You mean you are agitated due to your inability to keep up.

Try reading the report. Maybe you won't need to ask so many dopey questions.

The reading of the report for interpretation by you or me is irrelevant What is relevant is that the researcher and author of the report did not make charges. Was not his task to exhonerate. When your boy Muller chickened out, his boss picked up Muellers slack and you lib loons don’t get to castigate Barr over Muellers failings

Still behind I see. There is only one interpretation. Your "interpretation" comes from ignorance. Read the report.

Covering your ass, Jim Acosta by projecting your foibles on me? Weigh ta go.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Most important thing said: MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

But, the GOP are going to continue to spin, spin, spin!

/——/ We have no clear evidence you didn’t steal a car last night. Turn yourself in at the nearest police station. How could you?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're proud to be ignorant. Nice.

I am proud to be ignorant if the emotional forces which drive me to act like a brat in a sandbox like you.

Brat? Oh.... You mean you are agitated due to your inability to keep up.

Try reading the report. Maybe you won't need to ask so many dopey questions.

The reading of the report for interpretation by you or me is irrelevant What is relevant is that the researcher and author of the report did not make charges. Was not his task to exhonerate. When your boy Muller chickened out, his boss picked up Muellers slack and you lib loons don’t get to castigate Barr over Muellers failings

Still behind I see. There is only one interpretation. Your "interpretation" comes from ignorance. Read the report.

Covering your ass, Jim Acosta by projecting your foibles on me? Weigh ta go.

Hmm...funny, I don't see your name anywhere in this discussion.

 

[beautress]

10 instances where they can’t find that Trump did anything but he is “covering up” by failing to prove that he did not

You're proud to be ignorant. Nice.

I am proud to be ignorant if the emotional forces which drive me to act like a brat in a sandbox like you.

Brat? Oh.... You mean you are agitated due to your inability to keep up.

Try reading the report. Maybe you won't need to ask so many dopey questions.

The reading of the report for interpretation by you or me is irrelevant What is relevant is that the researcher and author of the report did not make charges. Was not his task to exhonerate. When your boy Muller chickened out, his boss picked up Muellers slack and you lib loons don’t get to castigate Barr over Muellers failings

Still behind I see. There is only one interpretation. Your "interpretation" comes from ignorance. Read the report.

Still bitter about losing the election, I see. Time for my morning nap! Thanks for putting me to sleep with your dismal drivel.

 

[Lesh]

Get over yourself. Removing the Orange Criminal puts Pence in the White House. How does that "negate" the election?

 

[Pilot1]

Get over yourself. Removing the Orange Criminal puts Pence in the White House. How does that "negate" the election?

How is Trump a criminal? You're just a brainwashed TROLL.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

He made sort of kind of references to things that maybe could be construed as might be close to near to obstruction.

No. He described the elements necessary for obstruction and then showed which elements each of the ten instances of obstruction met. There were at least four that met all of the elements necessary to charge.

View attachment 263045

Too much at once? Sorry. Sometimes I forget to dumb it down. Do you have questions?

Dumbed down is your forte', the foundation of your posts.

Do you have anything to add? Are you still confused over the obstruction piece?

No reason to add or subtract anything. The matter is concluded.

All else is the Democrats' desperation.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Most important thing said: MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

But, the GOP are going to continue to spin, spin, spin!

Mueller had no proof, wonder girl.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Get over yourself. Removing the Orange Criminal puts Pence in the White House. How does that "negate" the election?

/——/ You over turn the election. We voted for Trump as CIC, not Pence. Just like you voted for Hildabeast and not what’s his name who ran as VP. Moron

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No. He described the elements necessary for obstruction and then showed which elements each of the ten instances of obstruction met. There were at least four that met all of the elements necessary to charge.

View attachment 263045

Too much at once? Sorry. Sometimes I forget to dumb it down. Do you have questions?

Dumbed down is your forte', the foundation of your posts.

Do you have anything to add? Are you still confused over the obstruction piece?

No reason to add or subtract anything. The matter is concluded.

All else is the Democrats' desperation.

Good job.

 

[mudwhistle]

What ten instances were those, specifically?

What ten instances were those, specifically

Tsk..Tsk....someone didn't read the report.

View attachment 263046

Again.....if there were no obstructive acts.....there was no obstruction..
Hillary obstructed justice, destroyed evidence, was never put under oath for some strange reason....and she never faced charges......yet Trump never destroyed evidence or prevented anyone from investigating him.

I guess you must think that we have two legal systems in this country. One for us and another for you and Democrats.

What does this have to do with what I posted?
The red is evidence of obstructive acts.

Bullshit.
It's not evidence.
It's not even circumstantial evidence.
It's hearsay.

It's a graphic of what's in the report. You should try reading it someday since you like to talk about it so much.

I've read some of it....and I saw a lot of "He said....She said" which is hearsay.
I think the Mueller Report is just a lot of wishful thinking.
They don't have evidence of any criminal activity by Trump.
They feel they can convict someone for a crime because they claim he showed intent but never carried it out.
And this same justice department felt Hillary didn't intend on obstructing justice when she destroyed evidence.
That she didn't intend on mishandling classified information when it was clear she did when she set up her private server, and then destroyed it with BleachBit and used hammers to crush the phones she communicated with.

Jesus, you fuckers think just wishful-thinking is enough to get a conviction. To Hell with the facts.

 

[iceberg]

so what mueller said from another point of view is -

i'm so bad at my job that i spent 2-3 years looking as hard as i could to find SOMETHING to go after trump with but came up empty. while i'm sure if someone wants to keep digging, i'm tapping out because i simply can't find it - but it's there. i know it. we know it. keep looking, keep the faith. i'm going to go to the country and milk cows.

so - good luck with that.

 

[The Original Tree]

Most important thing said: MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

MUELLER: 'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

But, the GOP are going to continue to spin, spin, spin!

Not what he said at all, gay blade.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Tsk..Tsk....someone didn't read the report.

View attachment 263046

Again.....if there were no obstructive acts.....there was no obstruction..
Hillary obstructed justice, destroyed evidence, was never put under oath for some strange reason....and she never faced charges......yet Trump never destroyed evidence or prevented anyone from investigating him.

I guess you must think that we have two legal systems in this country. One for us and another for you and Democrats.

What does this have to do with what I posted?
The red is evidence of obstructive acts.

Bullshit.
It's not evidence.
It's not even circumstantial evidence.
It's hearsay.

It's a graphic of what's in the report. You should try reading it someday since you like to talk about it so much.

I've read some of it....and I saw a lot of "He said....She said" which is hearsay.
I think the Mueller Report is just a lot of wishful thinking.
They don't have evidence of any criminal activity by Trump.
They feel they can convict someone for a crime because they claim he showed intent but never carried it out.
And this same justice department felt Hillary didn't intend on obstructing justice when she destroyed evidence.
That she didn't intend on mishandling classified information when it was clear she did when she set up her private server, and then destroyed it with BleachBit and used hammers to crush the phones she communicated with.

Jesus, you fuckers think just wishful-thinking is enough to get a conviction. To Hell with the facts.

Wishful thinking?
Jesus christ, dude. I just gave you a graphic of how Mueller broke it down.

 

[The Original Tree]

Conversely, if there is no confidence to charge a crime, tough titty. The burden of proof is on you.

I am not surprised that you have no problem with a president who mocks people, insults people, has secret meetings with russia and committed crimes and treason.


my respect for conservatives died when trump was elected and it gets worse every day you support his treachery and treason.

I love the mocking and insulting.

When did "secret meetings" happen?

 

[The Original Tree]

Again.....if there were no obstructive acts.....there was no obstruction..
Hillary obstructed justice, destroyed evidence, was never put under oath for some strange reason....and she never faced charges......yet Trump never destroyed evidence or prevented anyone from investigating him.

I guess you must think that we have two legal systems in this country. One for us and another for you and Democrats.

What does this have to do with what I posted?
The red is evidence of obstructive acts.

Bullshit.
It's not evidence.
It's not even circumstantial evidence.
It's hearsay.

It's a graphic of what's in the report. You should try reading it someday since you like to talk about it so much.

I've read some of it....and I saw a lot of "He said....She said" which is hearsay.
I think the Mueller Report is just a lot of wishful thinking.
They don't have evidence of any criminal activity by Trump.
They feel they can convict someone for a crime because they claim he showed intent but never carried it out.
And this same justice department felt Hillary didn't intend on obstructing justice when she destroyed evidence.
That she didn't intend on mishandling classified information when it was clear she did when she set up her private server, and then destroyed it with BleachBit and used hammers to crush the phones she communicated with.

Jesus, you fuckers think just wishful-thinking is enough to get a conviction. To Hell with the facts.

Wishful thinking?
Jesus christ, dude. I just gave you a graphic of how Mueller broke it down.

Insufficient Evidence in a Grand Jury or a Court Trial is a Verdict of NOT GUILTY.

When people start learning about The Law, maybe they will wake the **** up for once.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What does this have to do with what I posted?
The red is evidence of obstructive acts.

Bullshit.
It's not evidence.
It's not even circumstantial evidence.
It's hearsay.

It's a graphic of what's in the report. You should try reading it someday since you like to talk about it so much.

I've read some of it....and I saw a lot of "He said....She said" which is hearsay.
I think the Mueller Report is just a lot of wishful thinking.
They don't have evidence of any criminal activity by Trump.
They feel they can convict someone for a crime because they claim he showed intent but never carried it out.
And this same justice department felt Hillary didn't intend on obstructing justice when she destroyed evidence.
That she didn't intend on mishandling classified information when it was clear she did when she set up her private server, and then destroyed it with BleachBit and used hammers to crush the phones she communicated with.

Jesus, you fuckers think just wishful-thinking is enough to get a conviction. To Hell with the facts.

Wishful thinking?
Jesus christ, dude. I just gave you a graphic of how Mueller broke it down.

Insufficient Evidence in a Grand Jury or a Court Trial is a Verdict of NOT GUILTY.

When people start learning about The Law, maybe they will wake the **** up for once.

Who said there was insufficient evidence? Not Mueller.

 

[mudwhistle]

Again.....if there were no obstructive acts.....there was no obstruction..
Hillary obstructed justice, destroyed evidence, was never put under oath for some strange reason....and she never faced charges......yet Trump never destroyed evidence or prevented anyone from investigating him.

I guess you must think that we have two legal systems in this country. One for us and another for you and Democrats.

What does this have to do with what I posted?
The red is evidence of obstructive acts.

Bullshit.
It's not evidence.
It's not even circumstantial evidence.
It's hearsay.

It's a graphic of what's in the report. You should try reading it someday since you like to talk about it so much.

I've read some of it....and I saw a lot of "He said....She said" which is hearsay.
I think the Mueller Report is just a lot of wishful thinking.
They don't have evidence of any criminal activity by Trump.
They feel they can convict someone for a crime because they claim he showed intent but never carried it out.
And this same justice department felt Hillary didn't intend on obstructing justice when she destroyed evidence.
That she didn't intend on mishandling classified information when it was clear she did when she set up her private server, and then destroyed it with BleachBit and used hammers to crush the phones she communicated with.

Jesus, you fuckers think just wishful-thinking is enough to get a conviction. To Hell with the facts.

Wishful thinking?
Jesus christ, dude. I just gave you a graphic of how Mueller broke it down.

Yeah.....Mueller wanted to head the FBI and Trump said no.
So this graphic means nothing.
I saw the evidence in the report.
Volume 2
Somebody said Trump said something.
That's not obstruction because discussing firing that Prick Mueller isn't obstruction.
Did he fire him?
No.
Mueller claims that talking about it establishes intent.
However none of the above ever took place.
The media constantly talked about Trump firing him and Trump may have wanted to, but he never did....even though Mueller did plenty to deserve firing.
Mueller thinks that wanting to fire his worthless ass is enough to begin impeachment.
But Mueller knew he didn't have evidence of an actual crime.
All he had was a very nasty opinion of the president....because of huge conflicts.
Mueller never should have been put in charge of an investigation on Trump because of his inherent prejudices.

 

[iceberg]

Again.....if there were no obstructive acts.....there was no obstruction..
Hillary obstructed justice, destroyed evidence, was never put under oath for some strange reason....and she never faced charges......yet Trump never destroyed evidence or prevented anyone from investigating him.

I guess you must think that we have two legal systems in this country. One for us and another for you and Democrats.

What does this have to do with what I posted?
The red is evidence of obstructive acts.

Bullshit.
It's not evidence.
It's not even circumstantial evidence.
It's hearsay.

It's a graphic of what's in the report. You should try reading it someday since you like to talk about it so much.

I've read some of it....and I saw a lot of "He said....She said" which is hearsay.
I think the Mueller Report is just a lot of wishful thinking.
They don't have evidence of any criminal activity by Trump.
They feel they can convict someone for a crime because they claim he showed intent but never carried it out.
And this same justice department felt Hillary didn't intend on obstructing justice when she destroyed evidence.
That she didn't intend on mishandling classified information when it was clear she did when she set up her private server, and then destroyed it with BleachBit and used hammers to crush the phones she communicated with.

Jesus, you fuckers think just wishful-thinking is enough to get a conviction. To Hell with the facts.

Wishful thinking?
Jesus christ, dude. I just gave you a graphic of how Mueller broke it down.

and your past unbiased manner didn't lead the way to the honest land?

wow. i am stumped at the fate of the universe.