I have proof that the Muller report found no collusion

[HappyJoy]

Try reading the Mueller report. You'll sound less stupid.

Mueller report - Department of Justice

Lakhota is now more well versed in the law than Alan Dershowitz? This is fantastic.

Dershowitz thought OJ was innocent too. Just like with O.J., Dershowitz has been a Trump defender and he is only one voice among many. There have been hundreds of prosecutors who have gone on record to say Trump committed crimes.

so what? move forward. what are you waiting for, we're waiting!!! ready set go!! why do you drag your feet liar? too fking funny. you're a subservient sheep

I think you'e on the wrong board, weirdo.

 

[Frannie]

Try reading the Mueller report. You'll sound less stupid.

Mueller report - Department of Justice

Lakhota is now more well versed in the law than Alan Dershowitz? This is fantastic.

Dershowitz thought OJ was innocent too. Just like with O.J., Dershowitz has been a Trump defender and he is only one voice among many. There have been hundreds of prosecutors who have gone on record to say Trump committed crimes.

so what? move forward. what are you waiting for, we're waiting!!! ready set go!! why do you drag your feet liar? too fking funny. you're a subservient sheep

I think you'e on the wrong board, weirdo.

No guts no glory

 

[BlindBoo]

He won't say he's guilty because due to DOJ policy they will not indict a sitting president, so for a special prosecutor to call someone guilty and then not indict and try would be irresponsible.

he can say he's guilty, Ken Star said it eleven times for Slick Willie. you've been lied to as usual. and you believed it.

That Ken Starr talking point has been debunked because Starr was appointed by Congress under the Independent Counsel Act and was not subject to the DOJ rule.

Ah, thank you!

It's like shoot'in fish in a barrel.

They parrot good sounding propaganda though!

Trump is innocent. post where anyone said he was guilty of anything? I'll wait poacher man.

He is of course considered innocent until proven guilty, but as president he can't be charged with a crime.

"Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice," according to the letter

I think that letter now has over a thousand former federal prosecutors signing it.

Thanks for the net Popeye.

 

[iceberg]

why? so you can go NU UHN!!! w/o providing any links yourself? left's been doing that a lot lately. bitching at my links and calling them "right wing bullshit" yet, they provide nothing. how odd.

anyway -

The Steele Dossier: A Retrospective
The dossier is actually a series of reports—16 in all—that total 35 pages. Written in 2016, the dossier is a collection of raw intelligence. Steele neither evaluated nor synthesized the intelligence. He neither made nor rendered bottom-line judgments. The dossier is, quite simply and by design, raw reporting, not a finished intelligence product.

In that sense, the dossier is similar to an FBI 302 form or a DEA 6 form. Both of those forms are used by special agents of the FBI and DEA, respectively, to record what they are told by witnesses during investigations. The substance of these memoranda can be true or false, but the recording of information is (or should be) accurate. In that sense, notes taken by a special agent have much in common with the notes that a journalist might take while covering a story—the substance of those notes could be true or false, depending on what the source tells the journalist, but the transcription should be accurate.
----------
so this is simply "Raw Data" and a collection of shit people said. NONE OF IT VERIFIED.

now, i showed my work, you show me where the info was verified before being taken to FISA for a warrant.

well you won't do this either so let me -
DOJ inspector general found Carter Page FISA extensions were illegally obtained, Joe diGenova says

The Justice Department inspector general has determined the three Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant extensions against onetime Trump campaign aide Carter Page were illegally obtained, attorney Joe diGenova said on Thursday.

so this "information" was NOT verified, yet said it was in order to obtain the warrants. is this ok? use unverified info to obtain warrants to "monitor" people? if so great. then the (R)'s next time around can use unverified info and get warrants also. you can't do this just ONE way.

now - for shits n grins:

Trump Intelligence Allegations

have you ever actually read the report? first few pages interesting, highlighted parts. how can this be so wrong? if ANY of this were true mueller would have found it, right? i mean lord knows he was looking.

your turn. provide links, not just snark, to prove your mindset.

You want me to provide a link that proves a negative? The guy said there were holes in the Mueller report, I asked him to prove it, he can't.

no, we want the link that shows trump's guilt. we've been waiting three years now.

Neat, I'm waiting for the guy who made a claim to back it up.

You can read about the 10 examples of possible obstruction here:

These are the 10 episodes Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice

There is no obstruction or the dopes would be impeaching

That's simply not true. There are multiple instances of obstruction documented in the Mueller report. Whether the Democrats choose to impeach or not does not change that fact.

Just curious, do you think Obama committed any crimes?

dude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!

and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.

 

[The Original Tree]

Try reading the Mueller report. You'll sound less stupid.

Mueller report - Department of Justice

The Left cannot Continue To Preach!
If The Left is Too Scared To Impeach!

 

[iceberg]

Or obstruction

The proof is that the demp are not impeaching

It's that simple.

Talk is cheap

Thanks for sharing your opinion. And thanks for waiting until I had finished drinking my coffee, had a read your post while drinking my coffee, I laughed out loud it would have clouded my screen.

Neat, I'm waiting for the guy who made a claim to back it up.

You can read about the 10 examples of possible obstruction here:

These are the 10 episodes Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice

VOX??? heh, ok. but lets go with it.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report contains 10 instances where President Donald Trump potentially committed obstruction of justice. Now that the report has been released, we know what they are.

POTENTIALLY.

at this point you either know or don't. any "potential" is simply wishing.

Same report explains exactly why it has to use the word "potentially". DID YOU READ IT?

Mueller believed he COULD NOT use the word ACTUALLY because that would accuse the President without an indictment he COULD NOT bring.

According to the report it is up to Congress to consider the evidence investigation gathered and make the official charge of ACTUAL guilt.

I had my hottie Nancy Pelosi read it 4 me, she there are no crimes found and she will not impeach

Did unread it?

If you did you wasted your time

Stop lying, Pelosi's refusal to bring indictment process (impeachment) is based on the electoral POLITICS, not merrit of the case.

look at you acting all stupid.

shit.

he ain't acting.

 

[HappyJoy]

You want me to provide a link that proves a negative? The guy said there were holes in the Mueller report, I asked him to prove it, he can't.

no, we want the link that shows trump's guilt. we've been waiting three years now.

Neat, I'm waiting for the guy who made a claim to back it up.

You can read about the 10 examples of possible obstruction here:

These are the 10 episodes Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice

There is no obstruction or the dopes would be impeaching

That's simply not true. There are multiple instances of obstruction documented in the Mueller report. Whether the Democrats choose to impeach or not does not change that fact.

Just curious, do you think Obama committed any crimes?

dude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!

and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.

Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.

 

[BlindBoo]

That's simply not true. There are multiple instances of obstruction documented in the Mueller report. Whether the Democrats choose to impeach or not does not change that fact.

Just curious, do you think Obama committed any crimes?

no there isn't. otherwise he would have said he was guilty of obstruction. he didn't. he said he didn't have any evidence, you're parroting nicely the left. no impeachment is coming. If it isn't done today, it ain't ever gonna happen. so let's move on.

He won't say he's guilty because due to DOJ policy they will not indict a sitting president, so for a special prosecutor to call someone guilty and then not indict and try would be irresponsible.

he can say he's guilty, Ken Star said it eleven times for Slick Willie. you've been lied to as usual. and you believed it.

That Ken Starr talking point (or butwhatabout) has been debunked because Starr was appointed by Congress under the Independent Counsel Act and was not subject to the DOJ rule.

then why did he tell congress they should impeach? if he didn't work for them, right? are you sure you get how all of this works? I think you be clueless bubba.

Who is it that told Congress they should impeach? I'd like to see that or at least get a transcript or something.

 

[Frannie]

no, we want the link that shows trump's guilt. we've been waiting three years now.

Neat, I'm waiting for the guy who made a claim to back it up.

You can read about the 10 examples of possible obstruction here:

These are the 10 episodes Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice

There is no obstruction or the dopes would be impeaching

That's simply not true. There are multiple instances of obstruction documented in the Mueller report. Whether the Democrats choose to impeach or not does not change that fact.

Just curious, do you think Obama committed any crimes?

dude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!

and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.

Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.

Actually Muller concluded innocent

 

[HappyJoy]

Neat, I'm waiting for the guy who made a claim to back it up.

You can read about the 10 examples of possible obstruction here:

These are the 10 episodes Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice

There is no obstruction or the dopes would be impeaching

That's simply not true. There are multiple instances of obstruction documented in the Mueller report. Whether the Democrats choose to impeach or not does not change that fact.

Just curious, do you think Obama committed any crimes?

dude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!

and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.

Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.

Actually Muller concluded innocent

Nope, he did neither.

 

[jc456]

no there isn't. otherwise he would have said he was guilty of obstruction. he didn't. he said he didn't have any evidence, you're parroting nicely the left. no impeachment is coming. If it isn't done today, it ain't ever gonna happen. so let's move on.

He won't say he's guilty because due to DOJ policy they will not indict a sitting president, so for a special prosecutor to call someone guilty and then not indict and try would be irresponsible.

he can say he's guilty, Ken Star said it eleven times for Slick Willie. you've been lied to as usual. and you believed it.

That Ken Starr talking point (or butwhatabout) has been debunked because Starr was appointed by Congress under the Independent Counsel Act and was not subject to the DOJ rule.

absolutely incorrect, the point is saying guilty. he had every right to. he said he didn't collude, correct? how is it he's allowed to do that? you all have struggled your way into a fking knot.

let me help you out a bit more..

Barr Says Mueller Was Wrong, 'Could've Reached a Decision' on Obstruction

Starr also reported directly to Congress not the DOJ.

Barr's Monday morning QBing has doesn't change Mueller's report or reasoning. The joint statement yesterday proclaimed no conflict between the two statements.

Who cares! He’s the AG. When you get there let us know

 

[jc456]

There is no obstruction or the dopes would be impeaching

That's simply not true. There are multiple instances of obstruction documented in the Mueller report. Whether the Democrats choose to impeach or not does not change that fact.

Just curious, do you think Obama committed any crimes?

dude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!

and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.

Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.

Actually Muller concluded innocent

Nope, he did neither.

No guilty means innocent

You a citizen? If so, then you know our justice is innocent until proven guilty! Correct?

 

[HappyJoy]

That's simply not true. There are multiple instances of obstruction documented in the Mueller report. Whether the Democrats choose to impeach or not does not change that fact.

Just curious, do you think Obama committed any crimes?

dude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!

and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.

Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.

Actually Muller concluded innocent

Nope, he did neither.

No guilty means innocent

Who said not guilty?

 

[iceberg]

no, we want the link that shows trump's guilt. we've been waiting three years now.

Neat, I'm waiting for the guy who made a claim to back it up.

You can read about the 10 examples of possible obstruction here:

These are the 10 episodes Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice

There is no obstruction or the dopes would be impeaching

That's simply not true. There are multiple instances of obstruction documented in the Mueller report. Whether the Democrats choose to impeach or not does not change that fact.

Just curious, do you think Obama committed any crimes?

dude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!

and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.

Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.

then why are you based off his "evidence" that even he won't use?

 

[The Original Tree]

There is no obstruction or the dopes would be impeaching

That's simply not true. There are multiple instances of obstruction documented in the Mueller report. Whether the Democrats choose to impeach or not does not change that fact.

Just curious, do you think Obama committed any crimes?

dude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!

and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.

Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.

Actually Muller concluded innocent

Nope, he did neither.

Insufficient Evidence!
Means you Don't Get Mike Pence!

You must be deluded to think Russia colluded.

 

[HappyJoy]

Neat, I'm waiting for the guy who made a claim to back it up.

You can read about the 10 examples of possible obstruction here:

These are the 10 episodes Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice

There is no obstruction or the dopes would be impeaching

That's simply not true. There are multiple instances of obstruction documented in the Mueller report. Whether the Democrats choose to impeach or not does not change that fact.

Just curious, do you think Obama committed any crimes?

dude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!

and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.

Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.

then why are you based off his "evidence" that even he won't use?

He as in Mueller? What would he use the evidence for?

 

[iceberg]

dude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!

and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.

Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.

Actually Muller concluded innocent

Nope, he did neither.

No guilty means innocent

Who said not guilty?

"potential" is not a proven fact to call anyone guilty.

the ONE source you choose to use hides behind disclaimers and you eat that shit up with a double spatula.

he's not been proven guilty at this point so by our laws and rights within this country he's innocent.

innocent TIL PROVEN guity OF WHICH has not happened. ergo, suck on it.

 

[jc456]

dude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!

and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.

Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.

Actually Muller concluded innocent

Nope, he did neither.

No guilty means innocent

Who said not guilty?

And?

 

[iceberg]

There is no obstruction or the dopes would be impeaching

That's simply not true. There are multiple instances of obstruction documented in the Mueller report. Whether the Democrats choose to impeach or not does not change that fact.

Just curious, do you think Obama committed any crimes?

dude - again - your link says POTENTIAL!!!

and VOX may as well be me going to brietbart and worse than zerohedge. find someone who gives the news, not hate material.

Yes, it says potential. As we have already established Mueller is not going to conclude guilt or innocence.

then why are you based off his "evidence" that even he won't use?

He as in Mueller? What would he use the evidence for?

good god you're a 1 man circle jerk.

i'm out.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Try reading the Mueller report. You'll sound less stupid.

Mueller report - Department of Justice

Lakhota is now more well versed in the law than Alan Dershowitz? This is fantastic.

Dershowitz thought OJ was innocent too. Just like with O.J., Dershowitz has been a Trump defender and he is only one voice among many. There have been hundreds of prosecutors who have gone on record to say Trump committed crimes.

He defended the law and never opined on guilt or innocence of OJ. Dershowitz has been a constitutional defender. He defended HRC as well when it came to the emails.