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.
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.
Covering your ass, Jim Acosta by projecting your foibles on me? Weigh ta go.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 failingsI am proud to be ignorant if the emotional forces which drive me to act like a brat in a sandbox like you.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.
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.
Still behind I see. There is only one interpretation. Your "interpretation" comes from ignorance. Read the report.
/——/ We have no clear evidence you didn’t steal a car last night. Turn yourself in at the nearest police station. How could you?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!
Covering your ass, Jim Acosta by projecting your foibles on me? Weigh ta go.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 failingsI am proud to be ignorant if the emotional forces which drive me to act like a brat in a sandbox like you.You're proud to be ignorant. Nice.
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.
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!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 failingsI am proud to be ignorant if the emotional forces which drive me to act like a brat in a sandbox like you.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.
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.
Still behind I see. There is only one interpretation. Your "interpretation" comes from ignorance. Read the report.
Thanks for putting me to sleep with your dismal drivel. 
Get over yourself. Removing the Orange Criminal puts Pence in the White House. How does that "negate" the election?
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?
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!
/——/ 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. MoronGet over yourself. Removing the Orange Criminal puts Pence in the White House. How does that "negate" the election?
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.
I've read some of it....and I saw a lot of "He said....She said" which is hearsay.Bullshit.Again.....if there were no obstructive acts.....there was no obstruction..What ten instances were those, specifically?
What ten instances were those, specifically
Tsk..Tsk....someone didn't read the report.
View attachment 263046
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.
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.
Not what he said at all, gay blade.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!
I've read some of it....and I saw a lot of "He said....She said" which is hearsay.Bullshit.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.
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 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.
I love the mocking and insulting.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've read some of it....and I saw a lot of "He said....She said" which is hearsay.Bullshit.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.
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 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.
I've read some of it....and I saw a lot of "He said....She said" which is hearsay.Bullshit.What does this have to do with what I posted?
The red is evidence of obstructive acts.
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 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 fuck up for once.
Yeah.....Mueller wanted to head the FBI and Trump said no.I've read some of it....and I saw a lot of "He said....She said" which is hearsay.Bullshit.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.
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 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?I've read some of it....and I saw a lot of "He said....She said" which is hearsay.Bullshit.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.
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 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.
