Oh and
Trump FTW.




I'll agree that there was nothing new on the information. But the information as it was is that Trump campaign officials did cooperate with Russians and that Trump obstructed Justice. The report did not indicate "No collusion and no obstruction."SDHornet wrote:Saw some clips of Muellers testimony, definitely didn't look good for him. Expected nothing new on the information front and that's exactly what we got.
Oh and![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
at jellybelly and any other dumbass that bought into and is still clinging to this nothing burger Russian Collusion Hoax.
Trump FTW.
![]()
![]()
![]()


Impeachment is now and has always been a political exercise, John. Even to the Founders.JohnStOnge wrote:I don't think impeachment was designed to be political. I think that in today's context it IS. But I don't think that was the idea.
I think, for instance. The Mueller could have concluded that Trump was guilty of crimes and the Republicans would not go along with impeachment followed by removal from office. They would, instead, attack the investigation.
So it's political. But I don't think that's what the Framers were contemplating. I think there is a pretty good chance that the Framers would've said that if a President is doing things like trying to impede investigation into a foreign government's effort to influence an election and tell a White House Counsel to create a false record he should be removed from office.

Caught that, didya?SDHornet wrote:And there's your 2nd part to the quote in jellybelly's sig. Well done.CID1990 wrote:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it was his tweets about witch hunt, potentially firing Mueller, etc.... stuff like that.css75 wrote:I hear a lot of Dems say he obstructed, just what did he obstruct?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A hostile foreign power? Hey now, don't talk about Russia like that. The 80's called. They want their foreign policy back.Skjellyfetti wrote:An investigation into a hostile foreign power interfering in our election and whether anyone in the Trump campaign conspired with them.css75 wrote:I hear a lot of Dems say he obstructed, just what did he obstruct?
There's a thread about it here somewhere if you want a refresher.




This is Weissman. I think his online calendar shows discussions related to this.BDKJMU wrote:Wow, if true Mueller is a crook..
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/papado ... -bills.amp

Well Weissman worked under Mueller. So Mueller had to be behind it, or he was clueless about what was going on with the the investigation he was in charge of.SeattleGriz wrote:This is Weissman. I think his online calendar shows discussions related to this.BDKJMU wrote:Wow, if true Mueller is a crook..
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/papado ... -bills.amp
Papadopoulos really threw them when he didn't bring the cash back with him.


BDKJMU wrote:Mueller- what a lying POS...

He can still serve his country and fuck numerous people over in the process.∞∞∞ wrote:BDKJMU wrote:Mueller- what a lying POS...![]()
![]()
![]()
I love that a man who's served his country faithfully throughout life is a lying POS...
...but BDK will be the first to suck Trump's cock when he gets the chance.

Sort of like Colin Powell, huh?∞∞∞ wrote:BDKJMU wrote:Mueller- what a lying POS...![]()
![]()
![]()
I love that a man who's served his country faithfully throughout life is a lying POS...
...but BDK will be the first to suck Trump's cock when he gets the chance.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.∞∞∞ wrote:BDKJMU wrote:Mueller- what a lying POS...![]()
![]()
![]()
I love that a man who's served his country faithfully throughout life is a lying POS...
...but BDK will be the first to suck Trump's cock when he gets the chance.


I wasn't crazy. This author caught the fact that Mueller was not supposed to say anything about the Internet Research Agency because they abandoned the claim in court.SeattleGriz wrote:What are you talking about? You obviously have not read anything outside of your echo chamber.JohnStOnge wrote:I think Mueller did fine today. Of course the information is the same. We already knew that there were interactions between the Trump campaign and Russia. We already knew Trump obstructed Justice but there was no charging analysis because Trump is President and the DOJ has taken the position that a sitting President can't be indicted.
About the only thing new we learned is that Trump provided dishonest answers in his written responses.
Mueller and the DOJ were told to stop saying the Russians used Bot farms, because they had not proven that. Just speculation.
On the other side of Mueller's claim, it is being contested in Roger Stones trial that the Russians hacked the DNC. The FBI never got to look at the server. They only got a draft preliminary report as proof. How can you say the DNC was hacked without even getting a chance to physically look at the servers?
Both legs of the Russian interference have either crumbled, or are in process.
Solicitors must have a heyday on you. Buy this snake oil and...
I still love you though. No homo
89Hen wrote:Is this still a thing?

Jelly and this thread:89Hen wrote:Is this still a thing?


CID1990 wrote:Jelly and this thread:89Hen wrote:Is this still a thing?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
