Trump will be Re-elected

I ran off to things like work, family, play, fun, oh, and the shooting range.

 

That's not true. The not trumpers make statements like, "He's the most damaging traitor in our nation's history, is that specific enough?" instead of doing research and offering substantiated accounts of traitorous acts by the President.

 

I've seen your post 173 which does not seem very informative to me.

 

Read the Mueller Report.

 

It was very informative, but not as informative as this post was:

 

Who are you kidding? I offered you the chance to post the most damning criminal charge from the Mueller Report on post #240 and you bailed.

 

I need to get back to the range.

1911s & AR15s

 

You don't see Trumps guilt cause you doing it wrong.

I bet your one of those innocent until proven guilty types...

You gotta go into the report knowing Trump is guilty and unless you find 101 things to prove he is not, then he is guilty.

 

Remember, Hillary Clinton was guaranteed to win the presidency in 2016. There are no guarantees in this world except taxes and death. No and's, if's or but's.

 

I didn't "bail" on anything. I just haven't gotten to it yet.

Is that OK, boss?

 

Uh, no. You have to actually read the report to see that.

I have. You guys haven't.

See?

 

And you saw the "guilt" you saw, nothing new there. It's why juries often don't agree even with exactly the same evidence.

 

Umm, no.

I saw it quite plainly in the report. Which I read. Which you have not read.

The Mueller Report was meant for Congress and the American people.

The people who seem to imagine that he's magically "exonerated" have, on numerous occasions, boasted of not reading the report. Many of them are, embarrassingly, elected officials.

 

I didn't think it was anything to research, I thought you just knew it and could tell me. If you don't already know what the most damning criminal charge from the Mueller Report is, and you need to research it to find out, what in the world where you talking about? Your multiple comments to posters to "read the Mueller Report" lead me to think you actually knew what you were talking about. As it turns out, you've never read the Mueller Report and wanted someone else to read it to tell you what it said.

You've been a total waste of time.

 

It's over 400 pages, and there are a a number of terrible things that Bonespurs did which are outlined in the report. Only someone who has no familiarity with the Mueller Report would post what you did. Read the damned thing so that you can engage in informed dialogue about it instead of pulling a lame stunt about an imaginary shot clock in your noggin.

In my incredibly humble opinion, this is likely the worst--and this is a close race, because the traitor asked Sessions to "unrecuse himself" and end the investigation!:

“Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”

 

Mueller is ancient history. Trump was exonerated. All the Mueller report did was vet Trump for the next election. Thanks Democrats!

 

How people can still express this long-debunked opinion is mind-blowing. This is so off-base and incorrect that you ought to be ashamed:

"IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

 

Finally, after what, almost a week, you finally brought something to the table.

OK, depending on what the "substantial evidence" is, that well could have been an article of impeachment. So why didn't it? This report came out a year ago, and we just had an impeachment. Why wasn't this included? Something to do with the "substantial evidence?"

 

The Dems made a political miscalculation. He should've been impeached as soon as the report came out. Failing to impeach him for what was in the Mueller Report hardly means that he was magically "innocent".

 

Or it could have just been BS.

 

Why do you make a wild guess without reading the report? You think Mueller made it all up?

 

Are you still doing all of those things, or could we take a moment of your time so that you can discuss basic economics?

 

I think the system worked as designed.

Case over.

Time to move on and stop whining about why the attempt failed.

 

I'm not whining. I'm pointing out facts.

I noticed that you can't dispute the contents of the Mueller Report.

 

No need too. Case over. Attempt failed.

Impeachment attempt failed as well.

Now we are onto Corona is Trumps fault.

When that fails we will move on to election fraud and voter suppression after Trump wins in Nov.

The whatever else the left comes up with the try and unseat a POTUS they can not beat at the voting booth.