Are no democrats smart enough too...

sorry, no hate speech allowed, not my rule, part of the Facebook TOS

 

You keep trying to justify it to yourself. And, of course, you can't.

Anybody who follows this discussion can see that I don't interpret anything. I don't add or remove anything. The quotes speak for themselves, and they could not be more straightforward: Mueller states that he is not referring to collusion (quotes given). Barr states that Mueller was referring to collusion (quotes given).

You can go on forever trying to twist the facts in your mind, hoping to find some way to justify Barr. And you might even succeed in your own mind. But what is written is in the real world. And whatever happens in your mind is not going to change that.

 

he's better that the others, not as honest and fearless as Tulsi. Tulsi will actually have the courage to go after the left for identity politics, Pete won't dare. Tulsi will actually dare agree with Trump when she thinks Trump is doing something good, Pete won't dare.

 

is hate speech what the left riots about when someone like Ben Shapiro goes to speak about conservative values? you have a different definition of hate speech than I do.

 

Probably the same kinds of creeps who cheered on the endless investigations into Clinton’s two bit land deal and subsequent blow job impeachment or the endless Benghazi hearings. Rabid political hacks come in all political flavors.

 

The DOJ absolutely did and a prosecutor never exonerates anyone. This has the snake Weismann's fingerprints all over is and he has often used illegal means to gain charges and has been shot down by SCOTUS 9-0 before. The report was for Congress since they could find nothing to charge so the useful idiots are playing along due to ignorance.

 

you are LYING, Barr never said Mueller said collusion, Barr quoted Mueller, i showed you exactly what Barr said. He QUOTED Mueller word for word and then said 'In other words' and 'Put another way'.. 'no collusion to commit crimes'. You know what it means when someone states 'In other words' or 'put another way'? I'll help you, it's their own interpretation of what someone else states. The collusion was Barr's own words and interpretation of what Mueller concluded. He's not lying, never lied. Barr's interpretation is ACCURATE as collusion to commit a crime is pretty much same as conspiracy to commit crime.

You can't seem to distinguish between someone quoting someone word for word vs someone providing his own interpretation of what someone else stated (hint, Barr did both, read). It appears you have never heard someone state 'In other words' or 'put another way', are you foreign? is English not your first language?

In the end, Mueller report didn't find any evidence that Trump campaign colluded with Russia to commit a crime, this would be ILLEGAL, CRIMINAL, same as conspiring to commit a crime. Barr quoted Mueller accurately and then provided an accurate interpretation by using collusion (his own words) as it related to specific crimes. Barr is smarter than you (much smarter i would bet) so he will never allow someone like you catch him on a lie, he was clever in his remarks.

 

Nope. The DOJ did no such thing.

 

oh yes they did. AG Barr did.

 

Nope.

 

no clue what your talking about, I think either party espousing hate speech or violence on face book shoudl be banned

I woudl say the same if they were doing it here... it violates the TOS of both

 

"...Put another way, the special council found no collusion..."

The special council specifically, forcefully and quite repeatedly separated his investigation from any reference to "collusion". Quotes given. End of story.

So egregious is the AGs dishonesty, that the special council has had to repeatedly complain about how the report has been mishandled and the "confusion" the AG has caused. So your position is indefensible in the face of the facts

I don't really understand why you keep going on and on about this. The facts are there.

 

Evidently you are not aware of recent events.

 

I’m aware of the evidence, and the conclusions reached by the FBI, lol. They did not conclude no crime was committed.

 

Oh, you mean no conclusions after 4 investigations? Those conclusions?

A prosecutor either brings charges or does not bring charges. Since Mueller stated no charges that is defacto exoneration. No prosecutor exonerates anyone.

Learn the law and try to differentiate between the law and partisan politics.

 

No it doesn't. It means you can't indict a sitting President. But he can be indicted as soon as he is out of office.

"The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office."​

 

No. The conclusion that trump was not exonerated.

Except for the fact it was clearly stated in the report, that trump was not exonerated. Lol.

I know the law. I can also read the English language. It’s written in perfectly clear English that trump was not exonerated. Lol

 

This is what our politics have become today, a divide and conquer strategy in search for votes. Opposition research, digging for dirt, mud slinging, all with the goal of making the people hate the other guy more than they hate you. What was it old Abe Lincoln said, "A house divided cannot stand?"

Our elections has ceased to be about ideas, possible solutions to our problems, visions for the future. Elections today are all about negative personal attacks, muck raking.

 

yup, yep.

you are a very confused person, can't seem to know the difference between one's own conclusion and directly quoting someone. Barr accurately quoted Mueller on many occasions and then, in his own words, determined that what Mueller stated points to no collusion to commit crimes. This determination is accurate, and Barr's determination. It doesn't matter that Mueller stated coordination, conspiracy, cooperation and not collusion, it doesn't matter at all. Mueller's report doesn't refute what Barr said. Nowhere in the Mueller report will you find anything that refutes what Barr stated. Simply stating they didn't want to use word collusion doesn't mean that Barr's statement of 'no collusion to commit crimes' is false, these are not contradictory statements. I don't think you can follow me here so i will just keep posting this again and again, like a bot. Maybe you will get it through repetition.

 

Nope

 

and this is why Hilary Clinton lost.... she decided to run a smear campaign instead of selling ideas, policy. Her core message was 'Vote for me cause i'm a woman and the opponent is a racist, misogynist, bigot, loose cannon, dangerous authoritarian and oh yeah, his supporters are deplorable.' She lost an election she should've won EASILY! She didn't even bother visiting some states she thought she had in the bag...

and these candidates didn't learn a thing.

 

oh i see, i get it. DOJ's exoneration of Trump on obstruction is invalid because Barr is a crook. Ah, i finally get it..

 

You are accusing me of what you have done for years, and I will continue to expose you for doing it.

 

They keep talking about Mueller and FBI as if the head of the DOJ doesn’t exist. AG Barr reached the conclusion that there wasn’t evidence to support a charge of obstruction. He cleared trump on obstruction. He’s the head of DOJ.. he publicly made those statements. He’s mueller’s boss and fbi’s boss, some seem to forget that.

 

Actually, the only one you expose is yourself, everytime you post.