Search results

  1. PsyOps

    Once again: NO COLLUSION

    Thanks for the tip. Since you've read the whole thing, what's your conclusion? Did Trump obstruct justice?
  2. PsyOps

    Once again: NO COLLUSION

    You have the wrong guy on this one.
  3. PsyOps

    Once again: NO COLLUSION

    And you aren't reading what I post. First of all... I have a job and am a busy person. I don't have the time you have to read a 400+ page report in a matter of a few days. Secondly... I have posted this several times. I am not saying Mueller should have or could have indicted Trump. I am...
  4. PsyOps

    Once again: NO COLLUSION

    I'm not sure where you get I didn't say this wasn't about intent. Intent lies the root of committing a crime like obstruction. Your first paragraph is nonsense. What do we need a special counsel for, if not to determine whether someone committed a crime or not? He found evidence enough to...
  5. PsyOps

    Once again: NO COLLUSION

    I've posted this before. It does seem this was his purpose. What prosecutor doesn't come to a conclusion about a crime? You either find someone guilty of that crime or the presumption of innocence takes precedence: "I can't find enough evidence to recommend prosecution of this crime...
  6. PsyOps

    Once again: NO COLLUSION

    You should stop assuming I haven't read it. I haven't read all of it, but I'm working on it. Conspiracy to commit murder is pretty easy to prove. Plans, written statements, verbal statements... I know someone personally who conspired to murder her husband. She hired someone to do the job and...
  7. PsyOps

    Trump Claims ‘World’s Greatest Memory’

    Here’s All 40 Times Hillary Clinton Told the FBI She Couldn’t Remember Something :dork:
  8. PsyOps

    Trump Claims ‘World’s Greatest Memory’

    Hillary Clinton used variations of 'I don't recall' 21 out of 25 times when answering questions about private email server in court filing :dork:
  9. PsyOps

    Volume II pgs 3-6

    You find reason to disparage my comprehension of English while exercising your own ignorance thereof. Mueller could find no criminality in anything Trump did. There is no law that would indict someone for looking guilty. But you go on and believe otherwise :dork:
  10. PsyOps

    Once again: NO COLLUSION

    Again, you're missing my point. Mueller was required to provide findings of crimes, not actually indict. He could have found that Trump obstruct and recommended action against him without actually indicting him. He didn't do this. There is no law that prevents him from saying "I have found...
  11. PsyOps

    Volume II pgs 3-6

    Is this the new narrative? He looks guilty, therefore he is? Can't get him on real crimes, so make up your own. Pathetic fool.
  12. PsyOps

    So much for "Game Over" and "Total Vindication"

    Still president. No criminal anything. NOTHING! You're a desperate pathetic fool.
  13. PsyOps

    Volume II pgs 3-6

    The only straw I'm grasping at is the factual straw that Mueller found no collusion by the president, his campaign, or any American; and that he could not make a definitive conclusion on obstruction. Last I check, we are in the USA and not North Korea, where a person is innocent until proven...
  14. PsyOps

    Volume II pages 1 and 2

    And for those (you) who don't understand what a 'finding' is... Mueller still could have reported that he found that Trump obstructed justice, yet he decided not to. He could recommended indictment, but he didn't. If Mueller knew, for certain, that Trump obstructed justice, he is obligated to...
  15. PsyOps

    Swallow before you read this

    That's why he earned the name Dan Blather.
  16. PsyOps

    This is the end of my presidency. I’m f*cked

    No matter... Still president.
  17. PsyOps

    Once again: NO COLLUSION

    If that's your interpretation of what I said, then I'd say you're off track. My point wasn't whether Mueller would indict anyone; my point was that he was unable to come up with any criminality regarding obstruction. Barr simply took it step further, in consultation with Mueller, Rosenstein...
  18. PsyOps

    Beto O’Rourke Donated Just 0.7% of His Income to Charity Since 2008

    I'm not sure what you even mean by this. I really don't give a damn about the other candidates.
  19. PsyOps

    Once again: NO COLLUSION

    I thought about that; that he was simply seeking legal avenues to shut down the investigation. Like I mentioned - Trump being an outsider is unfamiliar with what he can and can't legally do. But, he seemed to be hitting up every legal advisor he could find to find a way to shut this thing...
Top