It's Mueller Time!

[AzogtheDefiler]

Talking down to me? LOL you chicken shit.

When you talk like an idiot you get treated like an idiot. Mueller never said there is not enough evidence to indict. Not once. Not in his report and not in his testimony. Those are your words, not his.

If there were enough evidence he would. Stating there was not enough to find a crime is the same thing. You pussy. Honestly. You’re a pussy. A wimp. A coward. If there was a smidgeon of wrongdoing he would have been impeached and the Leftists on MSNBC and CNN would not be crying.

"If there were enough evidence he would."

LOLOL

He said he couldn't because a sitting president can't be indicted. You'll never understand that because you lack the ability.

He could recommend it. He completely retracted what he said to Lieu about obstruction and the report always stated there was no conspiracy. These are facts. Pussies like you don’t have the mental capacity to understand basic English.

He could have but he said he chose not to because a sitting president can't be indicted.

Obviously, you'll never understand this.

Do you think Mueller reached the same level of innocence in volume two as he did in volume one?

LMAO. He can be impeached. And Mueller specifically stated there was no conspiracy. I didn't realize you were an anti Trump hack. Wow. Awesome.

 

[JoeMoma]

Nope. He came back and stated there was not enough evidence. Keep trying.

LOLOL

No worries. Your derangement is noted, laughed at, and summarily discarded.

Talking down to me? LOL you chicken shit.

When you talk like an idiot you get treated like an idiot. Mueller never said there is not enough evidence to indict. Not once. Not in his report and not in his testimony. Those are your words, not his.

If there were enough evidence he would. Stating there was not enough to find a crime is the same thing. You pussy. Honestly. You’re a pussy. A wimp. A coward. If there was a smidgeon of wrongdoing he would have been impeached and the Leftists on MSNBC and CNN would not be crying.

If there were enough evidence he would

No he wouldn't. Mueller has explained that 20 different ways. All of which you missed.

Your incompetence on this subject is glaring.

And your explanation was wrong each of the 20 different ways.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He could recommend it. He completely retracted what he said to Lieu about obstruction and the report always stated there was no conspiracy. These are facts. Pussies like you don’t have the mental capacity to understand basic English.

He could have but he said he chose not to because a sitting president can't be indicted. Obviously, you'll never understand this...

You're fucking CLUELESS. The report was an internal DOJ doc. Mueller could have concluded anything he chose to. He chose "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Bend, fold, and mutilate to your heart's content but there is NOTHING ambiguous about those 11 words.

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

LOLOL

Exactly which part of, he could have but chose not to, leaves you blabbering like a wiggling bowl of jello?

Faun, I thought you were a jerk but logical. Now I see you as a wimp and illogical. Not that you care but you are failing miserably here.

 

[SAYIT]

He could recommend it. He completely retracted what he said to Lieu about obstruction and the report always stated there was no conspiracy. These are facts. Pussies like you don’t have the mental capacity to understand basic English.

He could have but he said he chose not to because a sitting president can't be indicted. Obviously, you'll never understand this...

You're fucking CLUELESS. The report was an internal DOJ doc. Mueller could have concluded anything he chose to. He chose "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Bend, fold, and mutilate to your heart's content but there is NOTHING ambiguous about those 11 words.

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

LOLOL

Exactly which part of, he could have but chose not to, leaves you blabbering like a wiggling bowl of jello?

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

 

[Faun]

Mueller could have concluded that crimes had been committed in his report if he had the evidence of such. Concluding that crimes have been committed is separate from the ability to indict a setting president. Had the Mueller report exposed Trump of committing high crimes or misdemeanors by laying out the evidence, the democrat led house would most certainly impeach Trump.

There WAS NO MUELLER REPORT. It was a façade made to look like an investigation, with a report at the end. Mueller was a quarter of a Million $$ ACTOR, who had to do nothing more than pose for cameras, and say nothing.

Know why it took so LONGGGGG ? Because the longer it took, the more money the masterminds (Wiseman & Co.) were sucking out if it.

Wanna know how these things really tick ? Always follow the MONEY TRAIL.

It reads like a pre-law comic book. The authors - whoever they were - needed to justify the 2 yrs and $35 million wasted so they fluffed their findings into a 448 page travesty. They could have started and ended with the only words that would matter to any judge, jury, or defense attorney: "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."
BOOM!!! Case closed … let's have a Mueller Beer.

LOLOL

If the case were truly closed, you wouldn't need that ellipsis.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Mueller could have concluded that crimes had been committed in his report if he had the evidence of such. Concluding that crimes have been committed is separate from the ability to indict a setting president. Had the Mueller report exposed Trump of committing high crimes or misdemeanors by laying out the evidence, the democrat led house would most certainly impeach Trump.

There WAS NO MUELLER REPORT. It was a façade made to look like an investigation, with a report at the end. Mueller was a quarter of a Million $$ ACTOR, who had to do nothing more than pose for cameras, and say nothing.

Know why it took so LONGGGGG ? Because the longer it took, the more money the masterminds (Wiseman & Co.) were sucking out if it.

Wanna know how these things really tick ? Always follow the MONEY TRAIL.

It reads like a pre-law comic book. The authors - whoever they were - needed to justify the 2 yrs and $35 million wasted so they fluffed their findings into a 448 page travesty. They could have started and ended with the only words that would matter to any judge, jury, or defense attorney: "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."
BOOM!!! Case closed … let's have a Mueller Beer.

LOLOL

If the case were truly closed, you wouldn't need that ellipsis.

I just enjoy mocking you. It is so easy. I sucks I cannot do it in person to your face.

 

[JoeMoma]

10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

The article's author is a liar, and you are an idiot to keep citing this moron. How many times do people have to play back / re-post Mueller's own words from his testimony before Congress, during which time he clearly stated he and his team did NOT FIND EVIDENCE to declare he obstructed Justice or to indict him? Every time you declare that he DID obstruct justice in the face of Mueller's own words you sound as feeble and as confused as Mueller did much of the time during his testimony.

Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope.
The 10 instances of obstruction cited in the linked article come directly from the report.
Like I said. You dopes have no clue what Mueller said in his testimony.

Mueller's report did not conclude that a crime had been committed. Congress is welcome to make that conclusion and impeach. Of course The House of Representatives could theoretically impeach the president for having two scoops of ice cream if they can muster up the votes.

Conversely, it did not conclude that crimes had not been committed either.

Which means nothing actionable was produced by the report. Pair that with the presumption of innocence and we find there is no need for a conclusion that no crime was committed.

 

[protectionist]

Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope.
The 10 instances of obstruction cited in the linked article come directly from the report.
Like I said. You dopes have no clue what Mueller said in his testimony.

The fallacy of the CBS Rahn article you refer to is in the very first sentence of it.

"Although the special counsel's report on Russian interference does not come to a conclusion as to whether President Trump obstructed justice, Robert Mueller's team did examine 10 "discrete acts" in which he may have done so."

There is no "Although". By not coming to a conclusion, that IS a conclusion itself.

The conclusion is obstruction of justice didn't occur. If if had, THAT would have been the conclusion. Thus, the words "he may have done so" are a fallacy.

Rahn needs to think more before tapping his keyboard. You too.

And since the whole thing was nothing but a ruse, it is all MOOT.

Click this link for an hour of wasted time >>

Publicly released Mueller Report

 

[Hutch Starskey]

2 yrs
$25mil
No conspiracy no obstruction
How much more do you need?
Even CNN says the Republicans won

You're a smart guy, why don't you read the report? That's not what it says.

Too late.
They've become rhetorical kamikazes. They've passed the the failsafe point and no longer have enough fuel to get back.

Does it hurt to be as mentally retarded as you?

Truthfully?
It hurts me to realize that in the time we find ourselves, there are so many grown people in places of great authority who have completely sold out to cynical surrender.

Not American greatness.

Plenty to go around.

It hurts me more that my kids have to grow up in the world with illogical people like you living in it. PC pussies.

You mad, bro?
You seem frustrated.

 

[Faun]

When you talk like an idiot you get treated like an idiot. Mueller never said there is not enough evidence to indict. Not once. Not in his report and not in his testimony. Those are your words, not his.

If there were enough evidence he would. Stating there was not enough to find a crime is the same thing. You pussy. Honestly. You’re a pussy. A wimp. A coward. If there was a smidgeon of wrongdoing he would have been impeached and the Leftists on MSNBC and CNN would not be crying.

"If there were enough evidence he would."

LOLOL

He said he couldn't because a sitting president can't be indicted. You'll never understand that because you lack the ability.

He could recommend it. He completely retracted what he said to Lieu about obstruction and the report always stated there was no conspiracy. These are facts. Pussies like you don’t have the mental capacity to understand basic English.

He could have but he said he chose not to because a sitting president can't be indicted.

Obviously, you'll never understand this.

Do you think Mueller reached the same level of innocence in volume two as he did in volume one?

LMAO. He can be impeached. And Mueller specifically stated there was no conspiracy. I didn't realize you were an anti Trump hack. Wow. Awesome.

"And Mueller specifically stated there was no conspiracy."

Correct. A glaring difference from volume two which was about obstruction where he didn't say specifically there was no obstruction.

Volume one clearly exonerated trump. Volume two clearly did not.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller

The article's author is a liar, and you are an idiot to keep citing this moron. How many times do people have to play back / re-post Mueller's own words from his testimony before Congress, during which time he clearly stated he and his team did NOT FIND EVIDENCE to declare he obstructed Justice or to indict him? Every time you declare that he DID obstruct justice in the face of Mueller's own words you sound as feeble and as confused as Mueller did much of the time during his testimony.

Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope.
The 10 instances of obstruction cited in the linked article come directly from the report.
Like I said. You dopes have no clue what Mueller said in his testimony.

Mueller's report did not conclude that a crime had been committed. Congress is welcome to make that conclusion and impeach. Of course The House of Representatives could theoretically impeach the president for having two scoops of ice cream if they can muster up the votes.

Conversely, it did not conclude that crimes had not been committed either.

Which means nothing actionable was produced by the report. Pair that with the presumption of innocence and we find there is no need for a conclusion that no crime was committed.

Nope. It doesn't mean that at all. The day Trump leaves the WH, he can be snatched up and perp walked.

 

[SAYIT]

When you talk like an idiot you get treated like an idiot. Mueller never said there is not enough evidence to indict. Not once. Not in his report and not in his testimony. Those are your words, not his.

If there were enough evidence he would. Stating there was not enough to find a crime is the same thing. You pussy. Honestly. You’re a pussy. A wimp. A coward. If there was a smidgeon of wrongdoing he would have been impeached and the Leftists on MSNBC and CNN would not be crying.

"If there were enough evidence he would."

LOLOL

He said he couldn't because a sitting president can't be indicted. You'll never understand that because you lack the ability.

He could recommend it. He completely retracted what he said to Lieu about obstruction and the report always stated there was no conspiracy. These are facts. Pussies like you don’t have the mental capacity to understand basic English.

He could have but he said he chose not to because a sitting president can't be indicted.

Obviously, you'll never understand this.

Do you think Mueller reached the same level of innocence in volume two as he did in volume one?

LMAO. He can be impeached. And Mueller specifically stated there was no conspiracy. I didn't realize you were an anti Trump hack. Wow. Awesome.

And the report could have said Trump committed a crime or crimes (instead of stating he did not) leaving his boss - the USAG - to decide whether or not to indict and/or congress to impeach.

Faun claims to accept that Trump committed no crimes yet authors dozens of posts that expose his belief that Trump is guilty of something. In other words, he pretends to be rational.

 

[Faun]

He could recommend it. He completely retracted what he said to Lieu about obstruction and the report always stated there was no conspiracy. These are facts. Pussies like you don’t have the mental capacity to understand basic English.

He could have but he said he chose not to because a sitting president can't be indicted. Obviously, you'll never understand this...

You're fucking CLUELESS. The report was an internal DOJ doc. Mueller could have concluded anything he chose to. He chose "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Bend, fold, and mutilate to your heart's content but there is NOTHING ambiguous about those 11 words.

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

LOLOL

Exactly which part of, he could have but chose not to, leaves you blabbering like a wiggling bowl of jello?

Faun, I thought you were a jerk but logical. Now I see you as a wimp and illogical. Not that you care but you are failing miserably here.

"Not that you care"

LOL

You can't even git that right. I would care .... if you were right; but you're not.

 

[protectionist]

It's Mueller Time!

Mueller did not write the report. He is just a senile figure head. This was a political hit job. Mueller made a fool of himself.

But he made a quarter of a MIllion $$ in the process, paid to him by Wiseman, Rosenstein and the scammers.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope.
The 10 instances of obstruction cited in the linked article come directly from the report.
Like I said. You dopes have no clue what Mueller said in his testimony.

The fallacy of the CBS Rahn article you refer to is in the very first sentence of it.

"Although the special counsel's report on Russian interference does not come to a conclusion as to whether President Trump obstructed justice, Robert Mueller's team did examine 10 "discrete acts" in which he may have done so."

There is no "Although". By not coming to a conclusion, that IS a conclusion itself.

The conclusion is obstruction of justice didn't occur. If if had, THAT would have been the conclusion. Thus, the words "he may have done so" are a fallacy.

Rahn needs to think more before tapping his keyboard. You too.

And since the whole thing was nothing but a ruse, it is all MOOT.

Click this link for an hour of wasted time >>

Publicly released Mueller Report

That is not the conclusion, dope.
Mueller explained that to the world just two days ago. You missed it because you are incompetent and a fool.

 

[SAYIT]

Mueller could have concluded that crimes had been committed in his report if he had the evidence of such. Concluding that crimes have been committed is separate from the ability to indict a setting president. Had the Mueller report exposed Trump of committing high crimes or misdemeanors by laying out the evidence, the democrat led house would most certainly impeach Trump.

There WAS NO MUELLER REPORT. It was a façade made to look like an investigation, with a report at the end. Mueller was a quarter of a Million $$ ACTOR, who had to do nothing more than pose for cameras, and say nothing.

Know why it took so LONGGGGG ? Because the longer it took, the more money the masterminds (Wiseman & Co.) were sucking out if it.

Wanna know how these things really tick ? Always follow the MONEY TRAIL.

It reads like a pre-law comic book. The authors - whoever they were - needed to justify the 2 yrs and $35 million wasted so they fluffed their findings into a 448 page travesty. They could have started and ended with the only words that would matter to any judge, jury, or defense attorney: "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."
BOOM!!! Case closed … let's have a Mueller Beer.

LOLOL

If the case were truly closed, you wouldn't need that ellipsis.

You claim to accept - as the report clearly states - that Trump committed no crimes. If you were telling the truth you wouldn't spend so much time posting otherwise.

The Muel Team could have started and ended with the only words that would matter to any judge, jury, or defense attorney: "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

 

[Faun]

He could recommend it. He completely retracted what he said to Lieu about obstruction and the report always stated there was no conspiracy. These are facts. Pussies like you don’t have the mental capacity to understand basic English.

He could have but he said he chose not to because a sitting president can't be indicted. Obviously, you'll never understand this...

You're fucking CLUELESS. The report was an internal DOJ doc. Mueller could have concluded anything he chose to. He chose "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Bend, fold, and mutilate to your heart's content but there is NOTHING ambiguous about those 11 words.

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

LOLOL

Exactly which part of, he could have but chose not to, leaves you blabbering like a wiggling bowl of jello?

We do not prosecute nor should congress persecute anyone found to not have committed a crime, and for one who claims to accept that no Trump criminality was uncovered, you certainly spend a lot of time arguing otherwise.

The Mueller report intentionally does not reach towards any conclusions regarding guilt or innocence in volume two. It merely lays out the evidence found and leaves it to the discretion of the reader to determine.

 

[SAYIT]

Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope.
The 10 instances of obstruction cited in the linked article come directly from the report.
Like I said. You dopes have no clue what Mueller said in his testimony.

The fallacy of the CBS Rahn article you refer to is in the very first sentence of it.

"Although the special counsel's report on Russian interference does not come to a conclusion as to whether President Trump obstructed justice, Robert Mueller's team did examine 10 "discrete acts" in which he may have done so."

There is no "Although". By not coming to a conclusion, that IS a conclusion itself.

The conclusion is obstruction of justice didn't occur. If if had, THAT would have been the conclusion. Thus, the words "he may have done so" are a fallacy.

Rahn needs to think more before tapping his keyboard. You too.

And since the whole thing was nothing but a ruse, it is all MOOT.

Click this link for an hour of wasted time >>

Publicly released Mueller Report

That is not the conclusion, dope.
Mueller explained that to the world just two days ago. You missed it because you are incompetent and a fool.

Is this what you mean by a conclusion, Jackass "... this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime..."

Case closed. Let's take a 6 week vacation.

 

[dannyboys]

The article's author is a liar, and you are an idiot to keep citing this moron. How many times do people have to play back / re-post Mueller's own words from his testimony before Congress, during which time he clearly stated he and his team did NOT FIND EVIDENCE to declare he obstructed Justice or to indict him? Every time you declare that he DID obstruct justice in the face of Mueller's own words you sound as feeble and as confused as Mueller did much of the time during his testimony.

Mueller never said that in his testimony, dope.
The 10 instances of obstruction cited in the linked article come directly from the report.
Like I said. You dopes have no clue what Mueller said in his testimony.

Mueller's report did not conclude that a crime had been committed. Congress is welcome to make that conclusion and impeach. Of course The House of Representatives could theoretically impeach the president for having two scoops of ice cream if they can muster up the votes.

Conversely, it did not conclude that crimes had not been committed either.

Which means nothing actionable was produced by the report. Pair that with the presumption of innocence and we find there is no need for a conclusion that no crime was committed.

Nope. It doesn't mean that at all. The day Trump leaves the WH, he can be snatched up and perp walked.

Obviously you have never heard of the statute of limitations.
If Trump gets another term he will never be charged.
If he loses in 2020 the SC will end up refusing to hear the case against him.
WIN WIN for President Trump!

 

[Strange]

So after what, 2 years of media hysterics both implying and directly accusing Trump of being a Traitor and shoving it down everyones throat all day every day with "bombshell" after "bombshell"... Those same morons have now done a complete 360 and moon-walked their way into Obstruction without even skipping a beat or apologizing or admitting they were wrong.

"You obstructed justice of an investigation that we planted and amplified that turned out to be false"

~ The left.