We're also divided on comprehension...as hypocrisy reigns...

[nat4900]

We can fault the hypocrisy that is clearly manifested by both parties on some issues...and we can also fault the reading (or hearing) comprehension by poorly educated voters......But, let us review just how the now common phrase of "NO COLLUSION.....NO OBSTRUCTION" is interpreted based on partisanship....

First, lets look at how the stooge, Barr, interpreted (spun) Mueller's report on "No Collusion"....what Mueller actually stated is this:

“.....We did not have enough evidence to make a determination regarding conspiracy"​

Objectively, the above may be a legal assessment....but certainly not one that "clears" Trump and his horde of corrupt acolytes from the moral impact.

Second, lets us also look at how Barr "interpreted" the report and openly stating that there was "No Obstruction"............What Mueller actually stated both in his report and in yesterday's short statement, is this (somewhat paraphrased):

"....If we had evidence to clear Trump, we would have stated such..........under our Constitution there is only one means to charge [a sitting president] …” ​

Now, no one....unless highly partisan...... should interpret the above as Mueller having left the decision up to the stooge, Barr, to make a final "exoneration"......Rather, Mueller is clearly stating that the arbiter on the obstruction issue IS Congress.

 

[Jitss617]

We can fault the hypocrisy that is clearly manifested by both parties on some issues...and we can also fault the reading (or hearing) comprehension by poorly educated voters......But, let us review just how the now common phrase of "NO COLLUSION.....NO OBSTRUCTION" is interpreted based on partisanship....

First, lets look at how the stooge, Barr, interpreted (spun) Mueller's report on "No Collusion"....what Mueller actually stated is this:

“.....We did not have enough evidence to make a determination regarding conspiracy"​

Objectively, the above may be a legal assessment....but certainly not one that "clears" Trump and his horde of corrupt acolytes from the moral impact.

Second, lets us also look at how Barr "interpreted" the report and openly stating that there was "No Obstruction"............What Mueller actually stated both in his report and in yesterday's short statement, is this (somewhat paraphrased):

"....If we had evidence to clear Trump, we would have stated such..........under our Constitution there is only one means to charge [a sitting president] …” ​

Now, no one....unless highly partisan...... should interpret the above as Mueller having left the decision up to the stooge, Barr, to make a final "exoneration"......Rather, Mueller is clearly stating that the arbiter on the obstruction issue IS Congress.

Interpreted ? not guilty lol that’s what mueller gave to Barr

 

[nat4900]

Interpreted ? not guilty lol that’s what mueller gave to Barr

Go back to bed.........This thread is for grown ups.

 

[Thinker101]

We can fault the hypocrisy that is clearly manifested by both parties on some issues...and we can also fault the reading (or hearing) comprehension by poorly educated voters......But, let us review just how the now common phrase of "NO COLLUSION.....NO OBSTRUCTION" is interpreted based on partisanship....

First, lets look at how the stooge, Barr, interpreted (spun) Mueller's report on "No Collusion"....what Mueller actually stated is this:

“.....We did not have enough evidence to make a determination regarding conspiracy"​

Objectively, the above may be a legal assessment....but certainly not one that "clears" Trump and his horde of corrupt acolytes from the moral impact.

Second, lets us also look at how Barr "interpreted" the report and openly stating that there was "No Obstruction"............What Mueller actually stated both in his report and in yesterday's short statement, is this (somewhat paraphrased):

"....If we had evidence to clear Trump, we would have stated such..........under our Constitution there is only one means to charge [a sitting president] …” ​

Now, no one....unless highly partisan...... should interpret the above as Mueller having left the decision up to the stooge, Barr, to make a final "exoneration"......Rather, Mueller is clearly stating that the arbiter on the obstruction issue IS Congress.

So you seem to be having a problem with the word NO...as in NONE, NADA, ZILCH.

 

[Jitss617]

Interpreted ? not guilty lol that’s what mueller gave to Barr

Go back to bed.........This thread is for grown ups.

It is? So why do you start with fallacies like a 5th grader lol

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

We can fault the hypocrisy that is clearly manifested by both parties on some issues...and we can also fault the reading (or hearing) comprehension by poorly educated voters......But, let us review just how the now common phrase of "NO COLLUSION.....NO OBSTRUCTION" is interpreted based on partisanship....

First, lets look at how the stooge, Barr, interpreted (spun) Mueller's report on "No Collusion"....what Mueller actually stated is this:

“.....We did not have enough evidence to make a determination regarding conspiracy"​

Objectively, the above may be a legal assessment....but certainly not one that "clears" Trump and his horde of corrupt acolytes from the moral impact.

Second, lets us also look at how Barr "interpreted" the report and openly stating that there was "No Obstruction"............What Mueller actually stated both in his report and in yesterday's short statement, is this (somewhat paraphrased):

"....If we had evidence to clear Trump, we would have stated such..........under our Constitution there is only one means to charge [a sitting president] …” ​

Now, no one....unless highly partisan...... should interpret the above as Mueller having left the decision up to the stooge, Barr, to make a final "exoneration"......Rather, Mueller is clearly stating that the arbiter on the obstruction issue IS Congress.

How ever did your parents allow you to become so gawddam stupid?

No evidence, no crime. That's it.

 

[Thinker101]

We can fault the hypocrisy that is clearly manifested by both parties on some issues...and we can also fault the reading (or hearing) comprehension by poorly educated voters......But, let us review just how the now common phrase of "NO COLLUSION.....NO OBSTRUCTION" is interpreted based on partisanship....

First, lets look at how the stooge, Barr, interpreted (spun) Mueller's report on "No Collusion"....what Mueller actually stated is this:

“.....We did not have enough evidence to make a determination regarding conspiracy"​

Objectively, the above may be a legal assessment....but certainly not one that "clears" Trump and his horde of corrupt acolytes from the moral impact.

Second, lets us also look at how Barr "interpreted" the report and openly stating that there was "No Obstruction"............What Mueller actually stated both in his report and in yesterday's short statement, is this (somewhat paraphrased):

"....If we had evidence to clear Trump, we would have stated such..........under our Constitution there is only one means to charge [a sitting president] …” ​

Now, no one....unless highly partisan...... should interpret the above as Mueller having left the decision up to the stooge, Barr, to make a final "exoneration"......Rather, Mueller is clearly stating that the arbiter on the obstruction issue IS Congress.

Here, in America, you have to prove guilt, not innocence...much different than whatever shithole you must live in.

 

[nat4900]

Here, in America, you have to prove guilt, not innocence...much different than whatever shithole you must live in.

Sure, fuckhead...........The same application used by the OJ defense attorneys.....LOL

 

[Thinker101]

Here, in America, you have to prove guilt, not innocence...much different than whatever shithole you must live in.

Sure, fuckhead...........The same application used by the OJ defense attorneys.....LOL

Yep, and your point is?

 

[Justin Richardson]

Go back to bed.........This thread is for grown ups.

You "look" underage...are you sure you are even a grownup? Lol

 

[Third Party]

We can fault the hypocrisy that is clearly manifested by both parties on some issues...and we can also fault the reading (or hearing) comprehension by poorly educated voters......But, let us review just how the now common phrase of "NO COLLUSION.....NO OBSTRUCTION" is interpreted based on partisanship....

First, lets look at how the stooge, Barr, interpreted (spun) Mueller's report on "No Collusion"....what Mueller actually stated is this:

“.....We did not have enough evidence to make a determination regarding conspiracy"​

Objectively, the above may be a legal assessment....but certainly not one that "clears" Trump and his horde of corrupt acolytes from the moral impact.

Second, lets us also look at how Barr "interpreted" the report and openly stating that there was "No Obstruction"............What Mueller actually stated both in his report and in yesterday's short statement, is this (somewhat paraphrased):

"....If we had evidence to clear Trump, we would have stated such..........under our Constitution there is only one means to charge [a sitting president] …” ​

Now, no one....unless highly partisan...... should interpret the above as Mueller having left the decision up to the stooge, Barr, to make a final "exoneration"......Rather, Mueller is clearly stating that the arbiter on the obstruction issue IS Congress.

Granted-but it is the original premise I oppose-that Mueller is unbiased and accurate-and I don't believe either. But forget all that-Will the Democrats have the courage to impeach? If they do, will the voters punish them? Will Trump still be in office and re-elected? Stay tuned-same bat time, same bat channel!

 

[Hellokitty]

We can fault the hypocrisy that is clearly manifested by both parties on some issues...and we can also fault the reading (or hearing) comprehension by poorly educated voters......But, let us review just how the now common phrase of "NO COLLUSION.....NO OBSTRUCTION" is interpreted based on partisanship....

First, lets look at how the stooge, Barr, interpreted (spun) Mueller's report on "No Collusion"....what Mueller actually stated is this:

“.....We did not have enough evidence to make a determination regarding conspiracy"​

Objectively, the above may be a legal assessment....but certainly not one that "clears" Trump and his horde of corrupt acolytes from the moral impact.

Second, lets us also look at how Barr "interpreted" the report and openly stating that there was "No Obstruction"............What Mueller actually stated both in his report and in yesterday's short statement, is this (somewhat paraphrased):

"....If we had evidence to clear Trump, we would have stated such..........under our Constitution there is only one means to charge [a sitting president] …” ​

Now, no one....unless highly partisan...... should interpret the above as Mueller having left the decision up to the stooge, Barr, to make a final "exoneration"......Rather, Mueller is clearly stating that the arbiter on the obstruction issue IS Congress.

Mueller's job was to determine if TRUMP or anyone in his campaign colluded with Russia. Someone needs to ask Mueller when obstruction was added to the scope of his investigation. According to sources FBI McCabe open an obstruction investigation the day after Comey was fired. Mueller needs to answer when he determined TRUMP and no one in his campaign colluded with Russia, we know Rosenstein made public comments last June that no collusion was found yet Mueller continued his investigation for over another year. Why? Mueller dragging out the investigation looks like it was another failed entrapment attempt by Mueller.

 

[task0778]

The truth is that if Mueller had sufficient evidence to indict Trump for obstruction then he damn well would have done so. To believe otherwise is absolute nonsense, considering the bias of that special counsel investigation. There's nothing hypocritical about that at all.

 

[Pete7469]

How ever did your parents allow you to become so gawddam stupid?

No evidence, no crime. That's it.

We should file a class action suit against them for NOT getting an abortion.

 

[nat4900]

The truth is that if Mueller had sufficient evidence to indict Trump for obstruction then he damn well would have done so.

NO, moron........How many fucking times does Mueller have to tell you dimwits that under DOJ guidelines he CANNOT indict a sitting president.......Yesterday he OPENLY stated that the task in reviewing the evidence in his report and final determination MUST BE MADE BY CONGRESS.......not him or stooge Barr.

 

[nat4900]

Will the Democrats have the courage to impeach?

NO.......they will not.........The political calculation is that impeachment makes an idiot like Trump a "martyr"....prompting the most important voting bloc.....INDEPENDENTS....to side with him.......

Morally and ethically Trump SHOULD be impeached.....but politically impeachment is tantamount to a losing wager.

 

[Hellokitty]

The truth is that if Mueller had sufficient evidence to indict Trump for obstruction then he damn well would have done so. To believe otherwise is absolute nonsense, considering the bias of that special counsel investigation. There's nothing hypocritical about that at all.

Right and if Mueller couldn't charge he should have done all the work for congress to make the charge. Congress shouldn't have to bring anyone in for testimony or need any further documents, the fact they have to continue to investigate TRUMP after Mueller confirms there is nothing to be found against TRUMP.

 

[nat4900]

Congress shouldn't have to bring anyone in for testimony or need any further documents, the fact they have to continue to investigate TRUMP after Mueller confirms there is nothing to be found against TRUMP.

So, fuckheads like you "think" that Mueller has nothing to be found against Trump????
Really???...............how truly comfortable you must be lingering up Trump's ass.

 

[Doc7505]

We can fault the hypocrisy that is clearly manifested by both parties on some issues...and we can also fault the reading (or hearing) comprehension by poorly educated voters......But, let us review just how the now common phrase of "NO COLLUSION.....NO OBSTRUCTION" is interpreted based on partisanship....

First, lets look at how the stooge, Barr, interpreted (spun) Mueller's report on "No Collusion"....what Mueller actually stated is this:

“.....We did not have enough evidence to make a determination regarding conspiracy"​

Objectively, the above may be a legal assessment....but certainly not one that "clears" Trump and his horde of corrupt acolytes from the moral impact.

Second, lets us also look at how Barr "interpreted" the report and openly stating that there was "No Obstruction"............What Mueller actually stated both in his report and in yesterday's short statement, is this (somewhat paraphrased):

"....If we had evidence to clear Trump, we would have stated such..........under our Constitution there is only one means to charge [a sitting president] …” ​

Now, no one....unless highly partisan...... should interpret the above as Mueller having left the decision up to the stooge, Barr, to make a final "exoneration"......Rather, Mueller is clearly stating that the arbiter on the obstruction issue IS Congress.

~~~~~~
So what you are trying to say is Trump is guilty even though there is a lack of evidence to prove so. You don't need evidence to prove he's Not guilty. All people are Not Guilty until evidence proves other wise.. That's American Constitutional Law. Wait.... Guess you're using Marxist Socialist Law, whereas they know you are guilty first and will find a crime to fit the guilt.

"Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime." -- Lavrentiy Beria​

 

[Oddball]

We can fault the hypocrisy that is clearly manifested by both parties on some issues...and we can also fault the reading (or hearing) comprehension by poorly educated voters......But, let us review just how the now common phrase of "NO COLLUSION.....NO OBSTRUCTION" is interpreted based on partisanship....

First, lets look at how the stooge, Barr, interpreted (spun) Mueller's report on "No Collusion"....what Mueller actually stated is this:

“.....We did not have enough evidence to make a determination regarding conspiracy"​

Objectively, the above may be a legal assessment....but certainly not one that "clears" Trump and his horde of corrupt acolytes from the moral impact.

Second, lets us also look at how Barr "interpreted" the report and openly stating that there was "No Obstruction"............What Mueller actually stated both in his report and in yesterday's short statement, is this (somewhat paraphrased):

"....If we had evidence to clear Trump, we would have stated such..........under our Constitution there is only one means to charge [a sitting president] …” ​

Now, no one....unless highly partisan...... should interpret the above as Mueller having left the decision up to the stooge, Barr, to make a final "exoneration"......Rather, Mueller is clearly stating that the arbiter on the obstruction issue IS Congress.

If I had clear evidence that you don't suck dicks at the bus station, I would state such.

Prove that you don't.