Well, what do you know? No Collusion, No Obstruction!
Do you think we government can move on to more pressing business now?
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
akindheart · 61-69, F
@cherokeepatti absolutely. let the fun begin
anythingoes477 · M
Not exactly no collusion, no obstruction.
Trump branded a conspiracy with Russia to intervene in our election all along as "collusion"....but "collusion" is not a crime. It's not a legal term......it's a term used by the media. So to then say I am not guilty of collusion means what? It means I am not guilty of a term that one can be guilty of.
By BRANDING Russia election meddling "collusion" 20 times a day in Tweets---Trump made this whole issue a matter of one charge---that don't exist...except in the minds of the public and the media. It is like saying they are investigating me for tomfoolery....but tomfoolery isn't a crime--so when they say we will not charge you with tomfoolery--that means I'm totally exonhernated of ANY wrongdoing. That's wrong on at least 2 counts. One--not being "charged" by someone YOU appointed to do the charging don't mean you're innocent. It means the man you appointed is paying you back. And 2--"collusion" is not a legal term to charge anyone with in the beginning.
Trump was not charged with "collusion"---because "collusion" is not a legal crime as I said. "Conspiracy" is the crime and the report does NOT say Trump or his campaign team did not CONSPIRE with Russia. So this is a word game. In fact this report does not deal with the actions of the Trump campaign team per se at all in terms of CHARGING "them" with conspiracy with Russia to intervene in our elections. It only deals with did Trump do it himself--personally. It deals with the laying out of supporting evidence to point to a crime "that Trump did personally"....but it was not Mueller's job to CHARGE the campaign staff. That is the AG's job and if no charges are filed---that is at the AG's discretion. So does that mean "EVERYONE is totally innocent"? No....it simply means the AG will not charge anyone. That's NOT totally innocent.
On obstruction......there was no Mueller determination on this at all. Mueller did not find Trump guilty or not guilty of obstruction....he simply laid out in the report what was found to be said and done and then by law Mueller has to leave the actual charging of a crime to the AG...who in this case (predictably) did not charge trump. No surprise there. In his interview to get the AG appointment last August Barr publicly announced that he "would NEVER charge a sitting president with anything if he was named AG because in his mind a sitting president can't be charged with a crime". So it's no shock Barr didn't CHARGE trump with obstruction.....but it no way means he did not obstruct justice with the firing of Comey, etc. In fact Trump openly admitted several times in live interviews--on tape---he did get rid of Comey for just that reason.
So by Trump's own words he DID obstruct. And when he stood on that stage in the 2nd debate and openly ask Russia to help find missing emails on an election opponent he DID openly ask the Russians to enter into a conspiracy with his campaign to affect the election outcome. The fact Barr did not CHARGE is the keyword. The actions and admissions to both charges came out of Trump's own mouth...recorded on video.....but Barr is on the same team as Trump----and because of that he won't CHARGE Trump. By no stretch of the imagination does that mean not guilty---it means just what Barr said---"not charged".
Moving on is a nice ida, but won't happen. Not until we get what paid for--BOTH SIDES---a report--not a boiled down conclusion from a team player.
Trump branded a conspiracy with Russia to intervene in our election all along as "collusion"....but "collusion" is not a crime. It's not a legal term......it's a term used by the media. So to then say I am not guilty of collusion means what? It means I am not guilty of a term that one can be guilty of.
By BRANDING Russia election meddling "collusion" 20 times a day in Tweets---Trump made this whole issue a matter of one charge---that don't exist...except in the minds of the public and the media. It is like saying they are investigating me for tomfoolery....but tomfoolery isn't a crime--so when they say we will not charge you with tomfoolery--that means I'm totally exonhernated of ANY wrongdoing. That's wrong on at least 2 counts. One--not being "charged" by someone YOU appointed to do the charging don't mean you're innocent. It means the man you appointed is paying you back. And 2--"collusion" is not a legal term to charge anyone with in the beginning.
Trump was not charged with "collusion"---because "collusion" is not a legal crime as I said. "Conspiracy" is the crime and the report does NOT say Trump or his campaign team did not CONSPIRE with Russia. So this is a word game. In fact this report does not deal with the actions of the Trump campaign team per se at all in terms of CHARGING "them" with conspiracy with Russia to intervene in our elections. It only deals with did Trump do it himself--personally. It deals with the laying out of supporting evidence to point to a crime "that Trump did personally"....but it was not Mueller's job to CHARGE the campaign staff. That is the AG's job and if no charges are filed---that is at the AG's discretion. So does that mean "EVERYONE is totally innocent"? No....it simply means the AG will not charge anyone. That's NOT totally innocent.
On obstruction......there was no Mueller determination on this at all. Mueller did not find Trump guilty or not guilty of obstruction....he simply laid out in the report what was found to be said and done and then by law Mueller has to leave the actual charging of a crime to the AG...who in this case (predictably) did not charge trump. No surprise there. In his interview to get the AG appointment last August Barr publicly announced that he "would NEVER charge a sitting president with anything if he was named AG because in his mind a sitting president can't be charged with a crime". So it's no shock Barr didn't CHARGE trump with obstruction.....but it no way means he did not obstruct justice with the firing of Comey, etc. In fact Trump openly admitted several times in live interviews--on tape---he did get rid of Comey for just that reason.
So by Trump's own words he DID obstruct. And when he stood on that stage in the 2nd debate and openly ask Russia to help find missing emails on an election opponent he DID openly ask the Russians to enter into a conspiracy with his campaign to affect the election outcome. The fact Barr did not CHARGE is the keyword. The actions and admissions to both charges came out of Trump's own mouth...recorded on video.....but Barr is on the same team as Trump----and because of that he won't CHARGE Trump. By no stretch of the imagination does that mean not guilty---it means just what Barr said---"not charged".
Moving on is a nice ida, but won't happen. Not until we get what paid for--BOTH SIDES---a report--not a boiled down conclusion from a team player.
View 12 more replies »
Budwick · 70-79, M
@anythingoes477 tHANKS FOR YOUR UNBIASED INPUT, YOU COMMON SLUG.
anythingoes477 · M
@Budwick In 2 years Trump will be gone. With any luck the man with the sickle will come visit you. Dump two trash containers at the same time. Time for you to go. I have NOTHING in common with traitors or Russian sympathizers. You are both.
Budwick · 70-79, M
@anythingoes477 [quote]In 2 years Trump will be gone[/quote]
Until then, STFU.
Your boy Mueller does not share your views.
Until then, STFU.
Your boy Mueller does not share your views.
TexChik · F
Nope you don’t just say thank you to the scum ( on both sides of the isle) who just attempted to over throw the President of the United States . You gather evidence and indict them and put them away . It started with those who perpetrated the Steele dossier and the used it to try and to get rid of the President .
4meAndyou · F
Not likely. The Dems have only one agenda, obtaining and keeping power, and they are not likely to do anything that will actually qualify as legislature any time soon. I have about given up on expecting anything from Congress. Hopefully the President will be able to get some things done.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
RodionRomanovitch · 56-60, M
RodionRomanovitch · 56-60, M
@Budwick 'questioning the validity of NATO,' - what is it exactly that you fail to understand there ?
'pull out of Syria - What's wrong with that?' - nothing at all if you want to surrender any influence you had in the region and leave the field wide open for Russia (and Iran).
'ceasing military co-operation with South Korea - You might want to explain THAT claim further too.' - Trump cancelled military maneouvres with South Korea and admitted later that it was at Putin's suggestion. He's also threatened to pull US troops off the peninsula , another Kremlin policy objective.
Parsing my words to your own advantage only works if you can actually disprove anything that I am saying.
'pull out of Syria - What's wrong with that?' - nothing at all if you want to surrender any influence you had in the region and leave the field wide open for Russia (and Iran).
'ceasing military co-operation with South Korea - You might want to explain THAT claim further too.' - Trump cancelled military maneouvres with South Korea and admitted later that it was at Putin's suggestion. He's also threatened to pull US troops off the peninsula , another Kremlin policy objective.
Parsing my words to your own advantage only works if you can actually disprove anything that I am saying.
Budwick · 70-79, M
@RodionRomanovitch [quote]questioning the validity of NATO,[/quote]
Get off your high horse asshole - I can see you edited your comment.
So what if Putin has a good idea?
Get off your high horse asshole - I can see you edited your comment.
So what if Putin has a good idea?
RodionRomanovitch · 56-60, M
@Budwick 'So what if Putin has a good idea?' .....and that's your considered response ?
There's only one asshole here mate ..... and it's certainly not me.
lmfao@u 😄
There's only one asshole here mate ..... and it's certainly not me.
lmfao@u 😄
SheikYerbouti · 51-55, M
Budwick · 70-79, M
@SheikYerbouti Hmmm, hows the market responded to the news of no collusion, no obstruction?
SheikYerbouti · 51-55, M
@Budwick Overall it's down. Nike stock for sure
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
SW-User
@jackjjackson 😆
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Budwick · 70-79, M
@polyandrym66 Of course there's the tens of thousands she erased, Bleach Bitted, are on smashed hard drives.
That alsmost sounds like Obstruction, doncha think?
That alsmost sounds like Obstruction, doncha think?
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@Harriet03 Wishful thinking
Harriet03 · 41-45, F
@HoraceGreenley Its all starting to unravel now!! Barrs been rumbled.... lol
PrivateHell · M
Hello? What about the current political climate makes you think that would be even a remote possibility? Of course they aren't going to let it go!
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
@anythingoes477 Actually the Special Counsel can and did bring many charges. Look at the indictments that were issued.
And the AG's summary stated that regarding the obstruction of justice charge, that there was neither proof that it happened nor exoneration. Regarding the conspiracy/collusion with the Russians, the AG summary did state clearly that there was none found. In fact it stated that despite multiple Russian attempts to conspire with the campaign, the campaign did not engage with them, as we would expect from an "America First" themed campaign.
But the much bigger issue for me, and that everyone seems to be forgetting, is that the Special Counsel did, emphatically [b]DID[/b], find multiple active Russian efforts to meddle in our politics and to sow discord. That is what we should be talking about because if we don't it will simply continue.
And the AG's summary stated that regarding the obstruction of justice charge, that there was neither proof that it happened nor exoneration. Regarding the conspiracy/collusion with the Russians, the AG summary did state clearly that there was none found. In fact it stated that despite multiple Russian attempts to conspire with the campaign, the campaign did not engage with them, as we would expect from an "America First" themed campaign.
But the much bigger issue for me, and that everyone seems to be forgetting, is that the Special Counsel did, emphatically [b]DID[/b], find multiple active Russian efforts to meddle in our politics and to sow discord. That is what we should be talking about because if we don't it will simply continue.
annie616pop · 26-30, F
@sarabee1995 Well done! 👍️ 👍️ 👍️
annie616pop · 26-30, F
@anythingoes477 Excellent differentiation between collusion and conspiracy. Thank you!!
revenant · F
they will not give up that easily
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.