"I know! Let's put it in a format the progs will understand!"

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron

BOP

Well-Known Member

BOP

Well-Known Member
I bet none of you read it either. Most Trumpers were skeered to know the truth
I wouldn't say skeered so much as tarred. Most of us work during the day (which, by the way, is why Trump holds his rallies at night), working to pay for all the free chit leftists are bribing their potential voting base with. Speaking for me, and a couple dozen or so people I know, we're too tarred to wade through 480 pages of legalese.

And it wasn't for lack of trying. Especially since my first impression of the first part of the document was "White man speak with forked tongue."

So, there you have it.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Midnight Spanker still will not understand there was no obstruction
Says another guy who didn’t read the report.

BTW, I am pretty sure that comic reflects what the report does say since the article says it reads like an indictment
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
Says another guy who didn’t read the report.

BTW, I am pretty sure that comic reflects what the report does say since the article says it reads like an indictment
If what I did read was any indication, and PART of the reason I quit reading it, it read in such a way as to allow for almost any interpretation. That, my friend, is no mean feat, but that's what lawyers do best; double-speak.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't say skeered so much as tarred. Most of us work during the day (which, by the way, is why Trump holds his rallies at night), working to pay for all the free chit leftists are bribing their potential voting base with. Speaking for me, and a couple dozen or so people I know, we're too tarred to wade through 480 pages of legalese.

And it wasn't for lack of trying. Especially since my first impression of the first part of the document was "White man speak with forked tongue."

So, there you have it.
If what I did read was any indication, and PART of the reason I quit reading it, it read in such a way as to allow for almost any interpretation. That, my friend, is no mean feat, but that's what lawyers do best; double-speak.
You didn’t read very much if that is what you took from it. It was a bit repetitive, but not at all hard to read. I didn’t see any double speak. Mueller was clear in what he found and why he was unable to make a prosecutorial decision on the matters related to potus.
Give volume II a chance
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
You didn’t read very much if that is what you took from it. It was a bit repetitive, but not at all hard to read. I didn’t see any double speak. Mueller was clear in what he found and why he was unable to make a prosecutorial decision on the matters related to potus.
Give volume II a chance
I read it. No intent = no obstruction.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
If what I did read was any indication, and PART of the reason I quit reading it, it read in such a way as to allow for almost any interpretation. That, my friend, is no mean feat, but that's what lawyers do best; double-speak.
Doesn't get any more clear than:
If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.
 
Top