A thread to discuss how ****ed up America is. (No Posts About The Wall)

Thread Rating: 7 votes, 4.43 average.
(7 votes)
Results 9,226 to 9,247 of 9247

  1. Post
    dang he obstructed investigation into a crime that was never committed. well you got my vote

  2. Post
    *facepalm* yep that's totally how obstruction of justice works

  3. Post
    If you obstruct an investigation into a crime where ultimately it turns out a crime wasn't committed you still obstructed justice jesus how ****ing hard is that to understand?

  4. Post
    kierbear wrote:
    If you obstruct an investigation into a crime where ultimately it turns out a crime wasn't committed you still obstructed justice jesus how ****ing hard is that to understand?
    Very, apparently. twice in 2 weeks I've had to explain it to different people.

  5. Post
    clockblock wrote:
    dang he obstructed investigation into a crime that was never committed. well you got my vote
    Collusion has to be towards a criminal goal; if myself and a friend collude to go to the pub, then obviously noone committed a crime. The report fails to establish conclusive evidence of a criminal conspiracy against the United States because a) there's a super high bar for that and b) the evidence and course of justice was so heavily obstructed.

    Like I've said, I'm happy to accept the finding but it's a mixed one for your man Trump.
    Last edited by frio; 21st April 2019 at 6:01 pm.

  6. Post
    Saw this in a shop in Vegas yesterday. Was too funny to not take a photo of.
    Name:  DF01BF54-A020-4E17-B146-527F166BC65E.jpeg
Views: 105
Size:  471.1 KB

  7. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    As Mueller clearly laid out, the DOJ regulations prevent him charging a sitting president, so he left it to Congress. He left a roadmap for Congress to do that.

    Here is a table of what Mueller found. Red is good for Trump, Green is bad.

    Attachment 225887
    well glad we had a 2 year investigation to reveal stuff we already knew

  8. Post
    CODChimera wrote:
    well glad we had a 2 year investigation to reveal stuff we already knew
    And how do we already know it? Because most of the MSM reporting was correct, as laid out in the report.

  9. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    And how do we already know it? Because most of the MSM reporting was correct, as laid out in the report.
    Funny that.


  10. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    And how do we already know it? Because most of the MSM reporting was correct, as laid out in the report.
    The medias pivot on the Russian issue was actually almost conspiracy level, like it doesn't make any sense. If they were pushing a conspiracy this whole time why would they give up and say they were wrong the moment Barr released his summary that didn't even outright say they were wrong?

    Barr and Trump obviously had this plan to spin the narrative by getting in front of the reports release but it's like parts of the MSM were involved in that plan as well. It's shit like this that allows Trump to bash the MSM so easily.

  11. Post
    The charge of obstruction of justice can not be proved, Trump didn't do anything actively to say 'stop the investigation', also very hard to prove obstruction of a non-crime.
    When Trump kept saying 'I think this is a with hunt, I wouldn't do that if i were you', it turned out to be sound advice, as Russian collusion was not found (The primary mandate of the whole report).

    We now enter into the second chapter, the hunters become the hunted.

    This whole situation is good for Trump.

  12. Post
    Lol ok Mr Q

  13. Post
    SlimPimp wrote:
    When Trump kept saying 'I think this is a with hunt, I wouldn't do that if i were you',.
    Yeah that sure sounds like Trump lol

  14. Post
    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    People here still don't think the hacking and dissemination to WikiLeaks was carried out by Russian government operatives? Jesus Christ. The DNI report 2 years ago made it clear enough and the names and addresses of the guys who did it in the earlier indictments were another fairly good clue, let alone the plain English Mueller conclusion. If you don't accept it by now you must have brain damage.
    Woah slow down there buster. What people generally seek when they adopt a sceptical position is independent evidence that corroborates the hypothesis.

    It's very possible there is conclusive evidence which is classified, yet has informed the officials who appear (to the public) to be making unsubstantiated claims. It's also possible this evidence does not exist. Depending on personality, this leaves people either following their loyalties or adopting a fairly detached position. Let's not be so easily offended by a little enlightened scepticism.

    Without more access, what we have on Mueller's reasoning is stuff like "authorship" of a spreadsheet, which conveniently matches a Google search for GRU staff. It's entirely possible the allegations are true and the perpetrators are incompetent enough to sign their documents for everyone to see. But this stuff is not exactly super-sleuthing - it's more in the vein of a movie script for the technophobic public.

  15. Post
    if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

    look at it this way: even if there was zero actual evidence (no IRA, no Mueller, no Trump etc) you would still be crazy to think that the Russian govt did not at least try to interfere in some way. "enlightened scepticism" what planet are you on srsly

  16. Post
    SlimPimp wrote:
    The charge of obstruction of justice can not be proved, Trump didn't do anything actively to say 'stop the investigation', also very hard to prove obstruction of a non-crime.
    When Trump kept saying 'I think this is a with hunt, I wouldn't do that if i were you', it turned out to be sound advice, as Russian collusion was not found (The primary mandate of the whole report).

    We now enter into the second chapter, the hunters become the hunted.

    This whole situation is good for Trump.
    Q believers are literally the most idiotic breed of conspiracy theorists bar none in my opinion.

  17. Post
    kierbear wrote:
    Q believers are literally the most idiotic breed of conspiracy theorists bar none in my opinion.
    I have no idea what a Q believer is, care to fill me in.

  18. Post
    sorceror wrote:
    even if there was zero actual evidence (no IRA, no Mueller, no Trump etc) you would still be crazy to think that the Russian govt did not at least try to interfere in some way
    I certainly agree with this - all countries exercise the power they have to serve their self-interest.
    sorceror wrote:
    "enlightened scepticism" what planet are you on srsly
    As for your question (?) one of the core enlightenment values is the ability to form independent opinions based on one's ability to reason. This is often expressed as scepticism in opposition to prevailing dogmatic viewpoints.

  19. Post
    SlimPimp wrote:
    I have no idea what a Q believer is, care to fill me in.
    Q is some troll on various chan websites that makes people mad by posting silly stuff.
    No idea why kierbear is obsessed with him TBH

  20. Post

  21. Post
    SlimPimp wrote:
    The charge of obstruction of justice can not be proved, Trump didn't do anything actively to say 'stop the investigation', also very hard to prove obstruction of a non-crime.
    When Trump kept saying 'I think this is a with hunt, I wouldn't do that if i were you', it turned out to be sound advice, as Russian collusion was not found (The primary mandate of the whole report).

    We now enter into the second chapter, the hunters become the hunted.

    This whole situation is good for Trump.
    He literally sent someone to threaten the attorney general.