Are no democrats smart enough too...

Care to make substantive points? Making fun of typos doesn’t quite refute any of my substantive points. If your point is i’m dumb for making a typo and thus i can’t criticize anyone for being dumb; well, this just strengthens my position. The left can’t debate issues or policy, it’s rare. Since i’m dumb for making a typo, it invalidates all my arguments.

 

The left has perfected the art of diversion and triggering emotional responses as a way to appear to win arguments, without providing any substance.

Watch them debate. I particularly like watching Ben shapiro debating the left. Typical debate would be Shapiro listing 5-10 substantive points, backed up by coherent arguments and facts. The left often responds with something that triggers an emotional response (a laugh for instance) and that’s it.. they think they won. For example, a conservative may list fact after fact supporting position that there is no institutional racism in law enforcement and the left would respond with ‘i don’t know what you are talking about, really? there is no racism? Where have you been living?’ The crowd bursts out laughing and that’s the end of it, left wins, even though 0 substance has been provided. I see this time and time again.

Character assasination is another tool in their toolkit. ‘He’s a racist’ and there you go, opposing arguments abruptly invalidated.

In this forum, they often resort to ad hominems or short responses, making fun or attacking the poster.. 0 substance. We can add playing grammar police to their tool kit..

 

So you wang to jail him?

Would you jail hilary clinton too?

 

You think IQ is found in alphabets?

 

In a heartbeat!

But looks like the right has been so incompetent in investigating Hillary. I mean, unless she's innocent as a dove.

Look at the difference: Trump... a couple of years... easily proven guilty. Even though he's the President and hasn't hesitated for a second to abuse his power in order to obstruct the investigation. Hillary... 30 years investigating her and... nothing!

What's up with that?

 

Hilary admitted to deleting thousands of e-mails, some say that’s a crime. Why did she get away with it? Not sure

What crimes did trump commit? DOJ concluded, no collusion and no obstruction. You disagree with Barr and Rosenstein’s conclusions on obstruction? Why? Oh.. let me see you discredit them now.. go ahead. We can play this game all day, you discredit those you don’t agree with, i do same.. makes us two bozos not wanting to accept what doesn’t fit our narratives.

 

Only explanation I can think of is that those who say it's a crime are wrong.

Because all you have to do is read the Mueller report and Mueller's letters to know that they're lying.

Why would I discredit them? They discredited themselves.

Well, you admit that you do it. I don't. So there's a huge difference between us. I don't discredit them. I prove they lied. I have proven it again and again on multiple threads that I have opened. With quotes, references, videos.... Have you done the same?

Look. If you read my previous sig you would have seen that I do not post a single word here without first researching it thoroughly. You can admit you're a bozo. But I have worked hard to earn the right to not be one. I have shown it here every time. This doesn't mean I am always right. I can make mistakes. But there is a basis for everything I write.

Sorry dude... but we are not "mirror images"....

 

You can’t prove they lied because they didn’t lie. You have never proven it and never will. Stop discrediting yourself like this man.

Now you can certainly make arguments as to why you think Barr and Rosenstein were wrong to conclude there was not sufficient evidence for an obstruction case but to say they lied is bogus.. they didn’t. Facts are facts... everyone can twist facts but it won’t win you credibility.

 

Barr previously opined that it is technically impossible for a President to commit obstruction of justice, and I expect his assessment of the facts is a product of that opinion. Regardless, 802 former federal prosecutors assessed the evidence and said it's clearly sufficient to prosecute Trump for obstruction.

 

Same as the 10 million petitions to impeach trump. This gets old, partisans always write these bogus letters and submit these petitions, it is just getting disgusting to be honest.

In the end, the president did not impede the investigation and in fact was incredibly transparent by not using executive priviledge where he could have and providing an unprecedented number of documents. Mueller was allowed to finish, no? And everything mueller requested was provided to him.

Firing comey was not obstruction, comey has proven himself to be a disgrace, now selling books and personally attacking rosenstein. He broke protocols and was an attention wh ore.

And the whole investigation was PROVEN to be a big HOAX.. no collusion and so trump was right in considering or asking about removing mueller. This was a waste of american tax payer money and a hoax, now being investigated by Barr, being reviewed by a judge and under inspector general review. I would argue trump should’ve fired Mueller but he didn’t and he could’ve insisted, he didn’t. Even if he would’ve fired mueller, it wouldn’t have been obstruction... it would’ve been the right thing to do.. end a politically motivated and possibly corrupt investigation.

The honest truth, what the left wont tell you, is that they are now desparately trying to impeach trump as they know they can’t defeat him in 2020. The whole obstruction is laughable.. imagine fabricating false evidence to kick start a bogus investigation and then accusing victim of obstruction when he/she considers ending a corrupt investigation (but doesn’t). It’s laughable.. the left are now despartely trying to discredit Barr and rosenstein (their hero turned villain now) as they are very afraid of what may come out of all these reviews of how this bogus investigation got started. It’s desperate times...

 

Easily.

For example



But Mueller says again and again, in several places in the report, that they did not evaluate "collusion". Example:

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted
a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." (Page 2)​

I do not "twist facts". I quote them. Barr and Rosenstein weren't simply "wrong" to conclude there was no obstruction. Barr admitted that they didn't even look into the evidence. I do not make arguments about what I "think". I show facts.

So no... don't confuse me with you. You repeat wingnut media talking points. I research. I know what I'm talking about. You don't. There is an ocean of difference. You are obviously not used to somebody who bases their arguments on facts. Well... don't go too far. You might learn something. Again: this doesn't mean that I'm alway right. But it does mean that I have made the effort to look up what I'm posting. You should try it one day instead of just parroting Sean Hannity and the Trump TV echo chamber.

 

The DOJ did not conclude either of those things, and you were corrected on that on page 1

 

The IG has already rendered the last three FISA warrants to be invalid. Mueller continued to use information obtained through the FISA process in the DC Grand Jury.

Mueller and his buddies knew that their Carte Blanche cash cow had to come to an end because Barr would likely call them out on what they knew was bogus.

Weissman may now be in serious trouble if he doesn't come clean about the $10,000 dollar payout to George Papadopoulis in Europe while a team of FBI agents waited at Dulles to snag the money.

So Brennan thought it would be a good idea to use foreign intelligence spying in a sting operation that would culminate in the US. Brennan and Weissman had no valid active warrants to be doing what they did.

 

Perfect example. Deny, deny, deny... lose elections.

 

DOJ did, Mueller didn't. NO SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CHARGE FOR OBSTRUCTION. Official conclusion from Barr and Rosenstein. FACT. Not opinion, FACT. get outta here, i will ignore you from now on as you're just a troll....

 

All those guys are scared of what AG will find and what actions he will take. So their strategy is to destroy Barr, personally! It won't work! and impeach Trump, cause they can't beat him in 2020. You have to just sit back and laugh at this.... this is so great. The timing is perfect cause all this will be coming out as we approach election year. The dems never imagined things could turn like this... No collusion, no obstruction and now tables turned on Obama admin and the left, just as election year kicks in. It's popcorn time, sit back and enjoy the show!

 

Yes, and it would be great to be able to see Mueller under oath at an open hearing in either the House or Senate...

Nadler may end up opening a can of worms that he won't be able to control.

The only thing that might save Nadler is if Mueller repeatedly says that he can't comment on something currently under investigation, which in this case could include his entire investigation.

 

LOL!!! And you ask about smarts? LOL!!!

 

Just wanted to repost it. A lot of truth therein.

 

no, this is you interpreting things as you see fit, so things fit your narrative and you know it. This is a problem all over, people cannot remain neutral.
Barr quoted Mueller directly on many occasions 'no conspiracy by anyone in Trump campaign to commit crimes (interfering in election) by conspiring with Russia'. Something to this effect, i forget what language Mueller used but Barr quoted Mueller directly time and time again. Then Barr himself characterized this as no collusion as he addressed media, who have been incorrectly using the word collusion to mean Trump committing crimes, like conspire with Russia to hack DNC, interfere with election results and all this nonsense of Trump being a 'Russia agent'. We both know collusion is not a crime broadly speaking but there could be actions construed as collusion which could be criminal. So let's say Trump spoke to Russians about dirt on Hillary, this could be construed as collusion but NOT A CRIME. Mueller had to be specific as he was only looking at crimes but the crimes Mueller was seeking could also be construed as collusion.. like 'colluding' with Russians to hack into DNC or interfere with election process. This can also be construed as 'collusion'. So, clearly, What Mueller looked at were actions which indeed fell under 'collusion' but he couldn't just call it collusion as collusion is not a crime and other actions deemed to be collusion may not be crimes. So Barr didn't lie, collusion covers what Mueller looked at... FACT. Mueller couldn't find any evidence of Trump campaign conspiring with Russia in criminal activity, this does fall under collusion. Ontop of this, Mueller couldn't even find evidence that Trump 'colluded' on ANY fashion, even non-criminal actions. So when barr says no collusion, it's perfectly stated.... as Mueller couldn't find evidence of any actions, criminal or non-criminal that would fall under 'collusion'. The fact that mueller didn't specify collusion himself means nothing, he was forced to not mention it as he could only focus on criminal acts! So you are just spinning a wheel here that really can't spin...

You are now going with bogus left talking points. Why would Barr look at the evidence? are you saying that Barr shouldn't trust Mueller? Mueller did a very thorough, comprehensive investigation, that took 2 years. Barr based his conclusions on Mueller report, and Mueller's findings. Why would he look at all the evidence? This is NOT HIS JOB and anyone knows that. It was the special counsel's job to look at all the evidence and it took him 2 years! AG is NOT supposed to essentially re-construct and re-do the entire investigation by independently looking at the evidence, this was mueller's job. It is outlandish to make this claim and extremely idiotic but the left has to, as they are at a loss here. Barr based his conclusions on a very comprehensive report where Mueller made recommendations, laid out arguments, discussed evidence and it is just crazy to think Barr would basically not trust Mueller and go take 2 years himself to analyze the thousands pieces of evidence himself (thousands of documents, hundreds of interviews etc)... It was special counsel's job to look at the evidence and write report, AG just based his conclusions on report, standard protocol.

WRONG, you don't research, you repeat gibberish left talking points like Barr not looking at the evidence. ANYONE knows this is idiotic and way outside of the standard protocol as it's special counsel who was tasked with looking at evidence and AG reviews report. You keep hearing the radical left spewing this on CNN, MSNBC and what's written in NY times and you take it and run with it. You say i'm repeating wing nut talking points? LOL!!! projection, my friend. it is exactly what you are doing.

 

Uh, everything I said is an empirical fact. Lol

 

I’m sorry that you can’t accept facts, because they clash with your ideology. But the DOJ did not conclude there was no crime committed.

 

Physician heal thyself.

Trump doesn't play identity politics, he doesn't make divisive claims and accusations, he doesn't insults america's allies and arse-kiss its adversaries, he doesn't lies constantly about everything, he doesn't trash the ethics of the office, he doesn't retweet far right wing and russian propaganda, he doesn't call jew hating white supremacists fine people, nah, he's perfect. Is the dems that are the evil ones, with their big ideas and legal demands.

 

Salacious snd unverifiable.

 

Empirical and demonstrable.