Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Anyone who knows anything about basic logic and/or critical thinking will recognize what pitiful, flimsy arguments Mueller made at his press conference the other day.
To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either." How do you prove that someone did not collude? How do you prove a negative? It is very hard, and often impossible, to prove a negative. So to say that "we could not prove he didn't do it" is to use the flimsy argument of citing the failure to prove a negative. This is Logic 101.
Think about it. Suppose a hostile neighbor accuses you of beating your wife. The police detective says, "I found no evidence that you beat your wife; however, I found no evidence that you did not beat your wife. Therefore, I am recommending that the DA indict you for wife beating."
To paraphrase another one of Mueller's arguments: "If I had found clear evidence that Trump did not commit a crime, I would have said so." Okay, and the obvious logical corollary to this is that if Mueller had found clear evidence that Trump did commit a crime, he would have said so. Again, this is basic logic, stuff that college students are taught in an introductory logic or critical thinking course.
What is equally pitiful, if not more so, is that Democrats are using Mueller's statements as their basis for renewed calls for impeachment.
Meuller is a high treason traitor at the highest level
Maybe have a look-see as to how the Constitution defines treason.
Yes it's about helping our enemies
And by weakening America that is helping our enemies big time
No, it's more specific, go back and read it some more.
That is what it says
Anyone helping our enemies by weakening the nation. Are traitors
Both Russia and China promotes liberalism in America in order to weaken the nation and that then makes them stronger and helps them gain on the nation
Traitors and high treason criminals for sure
Mueller didn't promote liberalism to begin with and there was no working relationship between Mueller and our enemies unlike Trump. So, by your standards Trump should be hanging soon I guess, right? I mean, I'm not for that but apparently your standard was met.
Wrong mueller promoted liberalism right out of the box
By trying to scare trump from going after the real liberal criminals
Both Russia and China knows liberalism with stupid voters destroys nations
So they both promote liberalism in America to weaken America and to help them gain power over America
Mueller right out of the box was trying to scare trump to over look the crimes by the liberal crooks
Mueller did the supposedly private person and investigation do?
Mueller went public big time to scare trump
Leaking that all his prosecutors are Hillary lovers
Then had high public massive raids on trumps connections and even had CNN there to help film and broadcast
Mueller was set to weaken trump and America by scaring off any help for trump
Yes indeed mueller is guilty of high treason
Anyone who knows anything about basic logic and/or critical thinking will recognize what pitiful, flimsy arguments Mueller made at his press conference the other day.
To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either." How do you prove that someone did not collude? How do you prove a negative? It is very hard, and often impossible, to prove a negative. So to say that "we could not prove he didn't do it" is to use the flimsy argument of citing the failure to prove a negative. This is Logic 101.
Think about it. Suppose a hostile neighbor accuses you of beating your wife. The police detective says, "I found no evidence that you beat your wife; however, I found no evidence that you did not beat your wife. Therefore, I am recommending that the DA indict you for wife beating."
To paraphrase another one of Mueller's arguments: "If I had found clear evidence that Trump did not commit a crime, I would have said so." Okay, and the obvious logical corollary to this is that if Mueller had found clear evidence that Trump did commit a crime, he would have said so. Again, this is basic logic, stuff that college students are taught in an introductory logic or critical thinking course.
What is equally pitiful, if not more so, is that Democrats are using Mueller's statements as their basis for renewed calls for impeachment.
Mueller found no evidence members of Trump's campaign conspired or cooperated, i.e., "colluded" with elements of the Russian government to elect Donald Trump in 2016.To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either." How do you prove that someone did not collude? H
Anyone who knows anything about basic logic and/or critical thinking will recognize what pitiful, flimsy arguments Mueller made at his press conference the other day.
To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either." How do you prove that someone did not collude? How do you prove a negative? It is very hard, and often impossible, to prove a negative. So to say that "we could not prove he didn't do it" is to use the flimsy argument of citing the failure to prove a negative. This is Logic 101.
Think about it. Suppose a hostile neighbor accuses you of beating your wife. The police detective says, "I found no evidence that you beat your wife; however, I found no evidence that you did not beat your wife. Therefore, I am recommending that the DA indict you for wife beating."
To paraphrase another one of Mueller's arguments: "If I had found clear evidence that Trump did not commit a crime, I would have said so." Okay, and the obvious logical corollary to this is that if Mueller had found clear evidence that Trump did commit a crime, he would have said so. Again, this is basic logic, stuff that college students are taught in an introductory logic or critical thinking course.
What is equally pitiful, if not more so, is that Democrats are using Mueller's statements as their basis for renewed calls for impeachment.
Wrong mueller promoted liberalism right out of the box
By trying to scare trump from going after the real liberal criminals
Both Russia and China knows liberalism with stupid voters destroys nations
So they both promote liberalism in America to weaken America and to help them gain power over America
Mueller right out of the box was trying to scare trump to over look the crimes by the liberal crooks
Mueller did the supposedly private person and investigation do?
Mueller went public big time to scare trump
Leaking that all his prosecutors are Hillary lovers
Then had high public massive raids on trumps connections and even had CNN there to help film and broadcast
Mueller was set to weaken trump and America by scaring off any help for trump
Yes indeed mueller is guilty of high treason
Your conspiracies wrapped in your horrifically bad grammar make your post almost impossible to read. Can you rewrite all of that in some sort of legible manner?
Maybe also cite the applicable piece of the Constitution word for word and tell us at what point you think Mueller comitted treason.
Mueller committed treason by covering up the crimes by liberals
Mueller committed treason by covering up the crimes by liberals
He didn't and that's also not the definition of treason anyway.
Mueller committed treason by covering up the crimes by liberals
He didn't and that's also not the definition of treason anyway.
Wrong Dead Wrong
Mueller committed treason by covering up the crimes by liberals
He didn't and that's also not the definition of treason anyway.
Wrong Dead Wrong
I mean, you didn't even get close to the basic definition of treason as stated in our Constitution. Start there and work your way up.
Mueller committed treason by covering up the crimes by liberals
He didn't and that's also not the definition of treason anyway.
Wrong Dead Wrong
I mean, you didn't even get close to the basic definition of treason as stated in our Constitution. Start there and work your way up.
Anyone who knows anything about basic logic and/or critical thinking will recognize what pitiful, flimsy arguments Mueller made at his press conference the other day.
To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either." How do you prove that someone did not collude? How do you prove a negative? It is very hard, and often impossible, to prove a negative. So to say that "we could not prove he didn't do it" is to use the flimsy argument of citing the failure to prove a negative. This is Logic 101.
Think about it. Suppose a hostile neighbor accuses you of beating your wife. The police detective says, "I found no evidence that you beat your wife; however, I found no evidence that you did not beat your wife. Therefore, I am recommending that the DA indict you for wife beating."
To paraphrase another one of Mueller's arguments: "If I had found clear evidence that Trump did not commit a crime, I would have said so." Okay, and the obvious logical corollary to this is that if Mueller had found clear evidence that Trump did commit a crime, he would have said so. Again, this is basic logic, stuff that college students are taught in an introductory logic or critical thinking course.
What is equally pitiful, if not more so, is that Democrats are using Mueller's statements as their basis for renewed calls for impeachment.
Mueller did not say ANYTHING about “collusion”, not in his report or his press conference. He talked about “criminal conspiracy” which is a crime. Trump and Barr talk about “collusion” because it’s not a crime. It’s a deflection and a type of lie, one of the many “small lies” Trump tells that don’t matter to groom you to believe the big lies that he tells later that really do matter.
Trump has tried desperately to control the language around the Mueller Report because if you control the language, you control the narrative.
Notice how one written statement read aloud by Robert Mueller has changed the narrative. Because Mueller basically denied everything Barr has said about findings contained the Mueller Report and called on Congress to impeach the President, people are no longer saying the Democrats need to move on.
I look forward to Congress getting Trump’s financial records. And Trump losing more court battles on his unconstitutional attempts at stonewalling Congress.
You are a fucking liar, as Communists tend to be.
{
{1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion
As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the
collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens
of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[e]" appears in the
Acting Attorney General's August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public
reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, cg, Brooke Group 12. Brown
Williamson Tobacco Corp, 509 US. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or
theory of liability found in the US. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the
contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as
that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. See Black ?3 Law
Dictionary 321. (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain
something forbidden by law?); 1 Alexander Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 31 (1871)
(?An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ
such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object?); 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary 352}}
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5955997-Muellerreport
Did you actually READ the paragraph you quoted? I've bolded the parts you seem to have missed:
"As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens of conspiracy law. . . . But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the US. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law."
The passage you quote CONFIRMED WHAT I SAID ABOUT COLLUSION, YOU FOOL.
That's not an accurate representation of what was said.To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either."
Meuller is a high treason traitor at the highest level
Maybe have a look-see as to how the Constitution defines treason.
Why do you lie like that? Do you think no one is gonna bother to call you on it?That's not an accurate representation of what was said.To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either."
Correct - Mueller unequivocally stated that collusion is a made up term used by the DNC press to slander the president, AND that there is no evidence of conspiracy by Trump or ANY member of his teams. (campaign or transition)
But didn’t his report exonerate Trump?Mueller is a corrupt piece of garbage, who couldn’t find his dick with 2 maps and a flashlight while sitting on a mirror.
2 years, nothing
Don't paraphrase. That's just a cheap way of making a point by twisting something he said into something he didn't say.Anyone who knows anything about basic logic and/or critical thinking will recognize what pitiful, flimsy arguments Mueller made at his press conference the other day. To paraphrase one of Mueller's statements: "We didn't find evidence that he colluded, but we didn't evidence that he did not collude either." How do you prove that someone did not collude?
But didn’t his report exonerate Trump?Mueller is a corrupt piece of garbage, who couldn’t find his dick with 2 maps and a flashlight while sitting on a mirror.
2 years, nothing
He did say that if he did not find anything he would have said so. He also said that the parameters set forth by the DoJ meant he could not charge Trump as he is the sitting president. The DoJ can't charge, but the congress has that authority.But didn’t his report exonerate Trump?Mueller is a corrupt piece of garbage, who couldn’t find his dick with 2 maps and a flashlight while sitting on a mirror.
2 years, nothing
He tried, but couldn’t find anything, so the 2nd half of it is an OPED.
He should have wrapped it after 3weeks.
