Seriously, what kind of a country have we become when people hope their President is guilty?

[BULLDOG]

Stop and think about that for a minute...We had/have ‘citizens’ praying that their President was guilty of crimes against America.
Imagine what our grandparents would think of these filthy fucks?

Nobody wants Trump to be guilty of anything, but ignoring his guilt, as you are, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Why didn’t Mueller find it? Two and a half years and thirty five million dollars!

Did you read the report? He found lots. He couldn't indict because of DOJ policy, which he noted, but he did document lots of wrong doing. Read the report instead of taking Barr's word for what is in it.

 

[WillowTree]

Stop and think about that for a minute...We had/have ‘citizens’ praying that their President was guilty of crimes against America.
Imagine what our grandparents would think of these filthy fucks?

Nobody wants Trump to be guilty of anything, but ignoring his guilt, as you are, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Why didn’t Mueller find it? Two and a half years and thirty five million dollars!

Did you read the report? He found lots. He couldn't indict because of DOJ policy, which he noted, but he did document lots of wrong doing. Read the report instead of taking Barr's word for what is in it.

What did he find. Spell it out!

 

[Nosmo King]

Stop and think about that for a minute...We had/have ‘citizens’ praying that their President was guilty of crimes against America.
Imagine what our grandparents would think of these filthy fucks?

Such drama from such drama queens.

We're the same nation as we were when republicans loudly and proudly said they wanted Obama to fail. The same nation with republicans who screamed Obama was from Kenya. The same with republicans who wanted Obama to be guilty of a long list of made up crimes. The same nation with republicans who for the last 3 decades have wanted Hillary to be guilty.

The same nation with republicans who wanted Bill Clinton to be guilty.

Everything that you people accuse democrats of being and doing, democrats aren't and don't do but republicans are and have already done.

What does that say about you and your party?

More like the exact opposite.

Your party ran against Christian pious lifestyles as a platform and now you want to complain when Trump wins the party nomination as a result of your success of destroying Christian tradition and communities.

Now you assholes get to deal with us, the children and grandchildren of those destroyed Christian communities and families. We don’t give a fuck what Jesus would do and neither do you, so now it is time to finally get this fight started.

Christians are not oppressed in America.

Right Wingers playing the victim card. That's something they deride Liberals for.

Ironic, ain't it?

Tell that to the baker. Liberals refused service to Trump supporters and there was no liberal out cry over rights being taken then.

YOU must defend your rights as YOU have denied them to others yourselves.

 

[BULLDOG]

Stop and think about that for a minute...We had/have ‘citizens’ praying that their President was guilty of crimes against America.
Imagine what our grandparents would think of these filthy fucks?

Nobody wants Trump to be guilty of anything, but ignoring his guilt, as you are, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Why didn’t Mueller find it? Two and a half years and thirty five million dollars!

Did you read the report? He found lots. He couldn't indict because of DOJ policy, which he noted, but he did document lots of wrong doing. Read the report instead of taking Barr's word for what is in it.

What did he find. Spell it out!

It's been spelled out lots of times already. If you are unaware of that, you are willfully ignorant. Read the report for yourself.

 

[WillowTree]

Stop and think about that for a minute...We had/have ‘citizens’ praying that their President was guilty of crimes against America.
Imagine what our grandparents would think of these filthy fucks?

Nobody wants Trump to be guilty of anything, but ignoring his guilt, as you are, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Why didn’t Mueller find it? Two and a half years and thirty five million dollars!

Did you read the report? He found lots. He couldn't indict because of DOJ policy, which he noted, but he did document lots of wrong doing. Read the report instead of taking Barr's word for what is in it.

What did he find. Spell it out!

It's been spelled out lots of times already. If you are unaware of that, you are willfully ignorant. Read the report for yourself.

So. No collusion was found! Right? Obstruction could not be proven either way! What dew ewe and Schitt know that Mueller could not find given 2 1/2 years and thirty five million dollars? Spell it out!

 

[Borillar]

Stop and think about that for a minute...We had/have ‘citizens’ praying that their President was guilty of crimes against America.
Imagine what our grandparents would think of these filthy fucks?

Are you new? Been this way since the LBJ administration if not longer.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

What kind of country have we become when half the population thinks trump is the best we have?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What kind of country have we become when the only choices we have are Clinton and Trump?

Let that sink in...

 

[WillPower]

No one “hopes he is guilty”. Decent people find his behavior disgusting, unfit and incompetent.

The better question is what type of country are we where 36% of the country is so vile and hates this country so much, they think he is ok

Jillian prepares to log into USMB:

 

[ptbw forever]

No one “hopes he is guilty”. Decent people find his behavior disgusting, unfit and incompetent.

The better question is what type of country are we where 36% of the country is so vile and hates this country so much, they think he is ok

Jillian prepares to log into USMB:

That is exactly how I see her too.

LOL

 

[xyz]

What kind of country have we become when half the population thinks trump is the best we have?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is the result of you pieces of shit destroying the traditions and morals of this nation.

Yeah, it's a lie that half the country supports Trump. A lot of people didn't even vote.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nobody wants Trump to be guilty of anything, but ignoring his guilt, as you are, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Why didn’t Mueller find it? Two and a half years and thirty five million dollars!

Did you read the report? He found lots. He couldn't indict because of DOJ policy, which he noted, but he did document lots of wrong doing. Read the report instead of taking Barr's word for what is in it.

What did he find. Spell it out!

It's been spelled out lots of times already. If you are unaware of that, you are willfully ignorant. Read the report for yourself.

So. No collusion was found! Right? Obstruction could not be proven either way! What dew ewe and Schitt know that Mueller could not find given 2 1/2 years and thirty five million dollars? Spell it out!

Again, that's not what the report says. You're relying only on what Barr and Trump say. As long as you only watch fox, they will never tell you what is in the report. It's not my job to repeat what has already been said multiple times, just because you don't want to believe it. Read it for yourself or remain ignorant. That's your choice. It is pretty well written for a legal document. You can easily understand what is pointed out, if you care to try.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why didn’t Mueller find it? Two and a half years and thirty five million dollars!

Did you read the report? He found lots. He couldn't indict because of DOJ policy, which he noted, but he did document lots of wrong doing. Read the report instead of taking Barr's word for what is in it.

What did he find. Spell it out!

It's been spelled out lots of times already. If you are unaware of that, you are willfully ignorant. Read the report for yourself.

So. No collusion was found! Right? Obstruction could not be proven either way! What dew ewe and Schitt know that Mueller could not find given 2 1/2 years and thirty five million dollars? Spell it out!

Again, that's not what the report says. You're relying only on what Barr and Trump say. As long as you only watch fox, they will never tell you what is in the report. It's not my job to repeat what has already been said multiple times, just because you don't want to believe it. Read it for yourself or remain ignorant. That's your choice. It is pretty well written for a legal document. You can easily understand what is pointed out, if you care to try.

And what are you talking about, what CNN wrote what the report said or what the 450 page report actually said? Because I find it hard to believe that you read the entire report front to back. And if you did, please specify what page you're referring to when talking about Trump's transgressions.

 

[BULLDOG]

Did you read the report? He found lots. He couldn't indict because of DOJ policy, which he noted, but he did document lots of wrong doing. Read the report instead of taking Barr's word for what is in it.

What did he find. Spell it out!

It's been spelled out lots of times already. If you are unaware of that, you are willfully ignorant. Read the report for yourself.

So. No collusion was found! Right? Obstruction could not be proven either way! What dew ewe and Schitt know that Mueller could not find given 2 1/2 years and thirty five million dollars? Spell it out!

Again, that's not what the report says. You're relying only on what Barr and Trump say. As long as you only watch fox, they will never tell you what is in the report. It's not my job to repeat what has already been said multiple times, just because you don't want to believe it. Read it for yourself or remain ignorant. That's your choice. It is pretty well written for a legal document. You can easily understand what is pointed out, if you care to try.

And what are you talking about, what CNN wrote what the report said or what the 450 page report actually said? Because I find it hard to believe that you read the entire report front to back. And if you did, please specify what page you're referring to when talking about Trump's transgressions.

I said read the report, and that's what I mean. In your case just read the first few pages. That's enough to show Barr was misrepresenting what the report said.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What did he find. Spell it out!

It's been spelled out lots of times already. If you are unaware of that, you are willfully ignorant. Read the report for yourself.

So. No collusion was found! Right? Obstruction could not be proven either way! What dew ewe and Schitt know that Mueller could not find given 2 1/2 years and thirty five million dollars? Spell it out!

Again, that's not what the report says. You're relying only on what Barr and Trump say. As long as you only watch fox, they will never tell you what is in the report. It's not my job to repeat what has already been said multiple times, just because you don't want to believe it. Read it for yourself or remain ignorant. That's your choice. It is pretty well written for a legal document. You can easily understand what is pointed out, if you care to try.

And what are you talking about, what CNN wrote what the report said or what the 450 page report actually said? Because I find it hard to believe that you read the entire report front to back. And if you did, please specify what page you're referring to when talking about Trump's transgressions.

I said read the report, and that's what I mean. In your case just read the first few pages. That's enough to show Barr was misrepresenting what the report said.

Oh, so your stance is for somebody else to read the report to prove you are right? Sorry Bulldog, that's not the way it works in political forums. You make the charge, you provide the proof, not the other way around.

Barr had to read the report and read it carefully, because he and Mueller redacted the report together.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's been spelled out lots of times already. If you are unaware of that, you are willfully ignorant. Read the report for yourself.

So. No collusion was found! Right? Obstruction could not be proven either way! What dew ewe and Schitt know that Mueller could not find given 2 1/2 years and thirty five million dollars? Spell it out!

Again, that's not what the report says. You're relying only on what Barr and Trump say. As long as you only watch fox, they will never tell you what is in the report. It's not my job to repeat what has already been said multiple times, just because you don't want to believe it. Read it for yourself or remain ignorant. That's your choice. It is pretty well written for a legal document. You can easily understand what is pointed out, if you care to try.

And what are you talking about, what CNN wrote what the report said or what the 450 page report actually said? Because I find it hard to believe that you read the entire report front to back. And if you did, please specify what page you're referring to when talking about Trump's transgressions.

I said read the report, and that's what I mean. In your case just read the first few pages. That's enough to show Barr was misrepresenting what the report said.

Oh, so your stance is for somebody else to read the report to prove you are right? Sorry Bulldog, that's not the way it works in political forums. You make the charge, you provide the proof, not the other way around.

Barr had to read the report and read it carefully, because he and Mueller redacted the report together.

I am sure nothing would change your mind, so I see no need to try. Believe what you want. It's not like Trump ever lied before, Right?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So. No collusion was found! Right? Obstruction could not be proven either way! What dew ewe and Schitt know that Mueller could not find given 2 1/2 years and thirty five million dollars? Spell it out!

Again, that's not what the report says. You're relying only on what Barr and Trump say. As long as you only watch fox, they will never tell you what is in the report. It's not my job to repeat what has already been said multiple times, just because you don't want to believe it. Read it for yourself or remain ignorant. That's your choice. It is pretty well written for a legal document. You can easily understand what is pointed out, if you care to try.

And what are you talking about, what CNN wrote what the report said or what the 450 page report actually said? Because I find it hard to believe that you read the entire report front to back. And if you did, please specify what page you're referring to when talking about Trump's transgressions.

I said read the report, and that's what I mean. In your case just read the first few pages. That's enough to show Barr was misrepresenting what the report said.

Oh, so your stance is for somebody else to read the report to prove you are right? Sorry Bulldog, that's not the way it works in political forums. You make the charge, you provide the proof, not the other way around.

Barr had to read the report and read it carefully, because he and Mueller redacted the report together.

I am sure nothing would change your mind, so I see no need to try. Believe what you want. It's not like Trump ever lied before, Right?

This has nothing to do with Trump. This has to do with Barr and his analysis and conclusion of the report that you are in denial of.

I hope we can at least agree that according to the report, there was no Russian collusion even though that wouldn't be against the law. Obstruction is interfering or impeding an investigation or legal process. Trump didn't do either. Why? Because he was not guilty of anything. Why would he obstruct an investigation that would prove his innocence?

What Mueller said is he didn't have enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction, but it doesn't mean somebody else can't try. He was just throwing the Democrats a bone since it's their agenda to try and stretch this out until 2020.

 

[BULLDOG]

Again, that's not what the report says. You're relying only on what Barr and Trump say. As long as you only watch fox, they will never tell you what is in the report. It's not my job to repeat what has already been said multiple times, just because you don't want to believe it. Read it for yourself or remain ignorant. That's your choice. It is pretty well written for a legal document. You can easily understand what is pointed out, if you care to try.

And what are you talking about, what CNN wrote what the report said or what the 450 page report actually said? Because I find it hard to believe that you read the entire report front to back. And if you did, please specify what page you're referring to when talking about Trump's transgressions.

I said read the report, and that's what I mean. In your case just read the first few pages. That's enough to show Barr was misrepresenting what the report said.

Oh, so your stance is for somebody else to read the report to prove you are right? Sorry Bulldog, that's not the way it works in political forums. You make the charge, you provide the proof, not the other way around.

Barr had to read the report and read it carefully, because he and Mueller redacted the report together.

I am sure nothing would change your mind, so I see no need to try. Believe what you want. It's not like Trump ever lied before, Right?

This has nothing to do with Trump. This has to do with Barr and his analysis and conclusion of the report that you are in denial of.

I hope we can at least agree that according to the report, there was no Russian collusion even though that wouldn't be against the law. Obstruction is interfering or impeding an investigation or legal process. Trump didn't do either. Why? Because he was not guilty of anything. Why would he obstruct an investigation that would prove his innocence?

What Mueller said is he didn't have enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction, but it doesn't mean somebody else can't try. He was just throwing the Democrats a bone since it's their agenda to try and stretch this out until 2020.

Collusion isn't a legal term. Barr is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Trump. That's why he repeated the "no collusion" claim about a half dozen times in his press conference. That's why he said Mueller left it to him to decide, when he clearly did not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And what are you talking about, what CNN wrote what the report said or what the 450 page report actually said? Because I find it hard to believe that you read the entire report front to back. And if you did, please specify what page you're referring to when talking about Trump's transgressions.

I said read the report, and that's what I mean. In your case just read the first few pages. That's enough to show Barr was misrepresenting what the report said.

Oh, so your stance is for somebody else to read the report to prove you are right? Sorry Bulldog, that's not the way it works in political forums. You make the charge, you provide the proof, not the other way around.

Barr had to read the report and read it carefully, because he and Mueller redacted the report together.

I am sure nothing would change your mind, so I see no need to try. Believe what you want. It's not like Trump ever lied before, Right?

This has nothing to do with Trump. This has to do with Barr and his analysis and conclusion of the report that you are in denial of.

I hope we can at least agree that according to the report, there was no Russian collusion even though that wouldn't be against the law. Obstruction is interfering or impeding an investigation or legal process. Trump didn't do either. Why? Because he was not guilty of anything. Why would he obstruct an investigation that would prove his innocence?

What Mueller said is he didn't have enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction, but it doesn't mean somebody else can't try. He was just throwing the Democrats a bone since it's their agenda to try and stretch this out until 2020.

Collusion isn't a legal term. Barr is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Trump. That's why he repeated the "no collusion" claim about a half dozen times in his press conference. That's why he said Mueller left it to him to decide, when he clearly did not.

It may not be a legal term but it was why the investigation was conducted in the first place. Collusion was wall to wall media for two years.

Remember that Hillary lied to Congress under oath, and destroyed evidence they wanted to see, and even she wasn't charged with obstruction. So now you say it's justifiable for Trump even though you can't point to one instance where the case could possibly be made?

 

[BULLDOG]

I said read the report, and that's what I mean. In your case just read the first few pages. That's enough to show Barr was misrepresenting what the report said.

Oh, so your stance is for somebody else to read the report to prove you are right? Sorry Bulldog, that's not the way it works in political forums. You make the charge, you provide the proof, not the other way around.

Barr had to read the report and read it carefully, because he and Mueller redacted the report together.

I am sure nothing would change your mind, so I see no need to try. Believe what you want. It's not like Trump ever lied before, Right?

This has nothing to do with Trump. This has to do with Barr and his analysis and conclusion of the report that you are in denial of.

I hope we can at least agree that according to the report, there was no Russian collusion even though that wouldn't be against the law. Obstruction is interfering or impeding an investigation or legal process. Trump didn't do either. Why? Because he was not guilty of anything. Why would he obstruct an investigation that would prove his innocence?

What Mueller said is he didn't have enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction, but it doesn't mean somebody else can't try. He was just throwing the Democrats a bone since it's their agenda to try and stretch this out until 2020.

Collusion isn't a legal term. Barr is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Trump. That's why he repeated the "no collusion" claim about a half dozen times in his press conference. That's why he said Mueller left it to him to decide, when he clearly did not.

It may not be a legal term but it was why the investigation was conducted in the first place. Collusion was wall to wall media for two years.

Remember that Hillary lied to Congress under oath, and destroyed evidence they wanted to see, and even she wasn't charged with obstruction. So now you say it's justifiable for Trump even though you can't point to one instance where the case could possibly be made?

Lots of instances where the case for conspiracy could be made. You haven't read the report, have you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, so your stance is for somebody else to read the report to prove you are right? Sorry Bulldog, that's not the way it works in political forums. You make the charge, you provide the proof, not the other way around.

Barr had to read the report and read it carefully, because he and Mueller redacted the report together.

I am sure nothing would change your mind, so I see no need to try. Believe what you want. It's not like Trump ever lied before, Right?

This has nothing to do with Trump. This has to do with Barr and his analysis and conclusion of the report that you are in denial of.

I hope we can at least agree that according to the report, there was no Russian collusion even though that wouldn't be against the law. Obstruction is interfering or impeding an investigation or legal process. Trump didn't do either. Why? Because he was not guilty of anything. Why would he obstruct an investigation that would prove his innocence?

What Mueller said is he didn't have enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction, but it doesn't mean somebody else can't try. He was just throwing the Democrats a bone since it's their agenda to try and stretch this out until 2020.

Collusion isn't a legal term. Barr is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Trump. That's why he repeated the "no collusion" claim about a half dozen times in his press conference. That's why he said Mueller left it to him to decide, when he clearly did not.

It may not be a legal term but it was why the investigation was conducted in the first place. Collusion was wall to wall media for two years.

Remember that Hillary lied to Congress under oath, and destroyed evidence they wanted to see, and even she wasn't charged with obstruction. So now you say it's justifiable for Trump even though you can't point to one instance where the case could possibly be made?

Lots of instances where the case for conspiracy could be made. You haven't read the report, have you?

No I haven't, and neither have you. I depend on legal scholars that did read it and agreed with Barr. Now it's conspiracy? Conspiracy to what? In Mueller's report, he specifically stated that no American was involved in tampering with our election system.