I have no doubt that the hysterical frenzied Left will not accept that.
Once again: NO COLLUSION
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Oh, and also?
NO OBSTRUCTION
Maybe all the progs will set themselves on fire in protest. :fingerscrossed:
NO OBSTRUCTION
Maybe all the progs will set themselves on fire in protest. :fingerscrossed:
"White House voluntarily cooperated....didn't claim executive privilege, although the President would have been within his rights to do so...."
"No redactions were requested by the President, and were solely in the interest of national security per the intelligence community....."
Reporters: How could you not find a crime????
Barr: Because there wasn't one.
Barr: Because there wasn't one.
Reporters: But we wanted a crime! Are you sure?? Look again!
Barr: Sorry, not there.
Reporters: Can we ask Mueller directly? Will he testify before us??
Barr: Sure.
Reporters: We think you are trying to protect the President!
Barr: WTF is wrong with you?
Reporters: We don't believe you!
Barr: Oh well.
Barr: Sorry, not there.
Reporters: Can we ask Mueller directly? Will he testify before us??
Barr: Sure.
Reporters: We think you are trying to protect the President!
Barr: WTF is wrong with you?
Reporters: We don't believe you!
Barr: Oh well.
So, to recap:
Democrats do not accept the outcome of our 2016 election.
They do not accept the findings of the Mueller report.
They do not accept the conclusion of the DoJ.
In short, they are ****ing crazy.
Democrats do not accept the outcome of our 2016 election.
They do not accept the findings of the Mueller report.
They do not accept the conclusion of the DoJ.
In short, they are ****ing crazy.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Outstanding synopsis. Spot on
Outstanding synopsis. Spot on
It will be interesting to see how fake news CNN spins this.
Democrats: Mueller is fair! He will find crimes by this President!
Mueller: No collusion. No obstruction.
Democrats: We hate you, you partisan hack!
An original architect of the Trump-Russia collusion fable since the summer of 2016, Schiff shamelessly continues to lie to the American public with claims that the president and his team conspired with the Kremlin to win the presidential election. He is the Jussie Smollett of the collusion hoax, insisting a crime really occurred even when every piece of evidence not only refutes that it ever happened but shows he was one of the original perpetrators.
In March 2017, Schiff told “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd that there was “more than circumstantial evidence” to prove Team Trump was in cahoots with the Kremlin before the election. Much like the bleach and the rope and the MAGA hat-wearing thugs on lower Wacker Drive, however, that trove of evidence was just a prop. Schiff tried to halt the February 2018 release of a jaw-dropping memo authored by his predecessor chairman of the intelligence committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), that outlined the origins of the FISAgate scandal and how political propaganda funded by Democrats was presented to a secret court as evidence to get an order to spy on the Trump campaign before the election. He even demanded that Nunes step down from the committee.
Schiff’s misleading counter-memo, addressed to Congress, remains unedited even though it contains a number of allegations that are untrue in light of the facts. He’s been credibly accused of leaking classified and non-public information to the press.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/04/17/adam-schiff-the-medias-pin-up-doll/
In March 2017, Schiff told “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd that there was “more than circumstantial evidence” to prove Team Trump was in cahoots with the Kremlin before the election. Much like the bleach and the rope and the MAGA hat-wearing thugs on lower Wacker Drive, however, that trove of evidence was just a prop. Schiff tried to halt the February 2018 release of a jaw-dropping memo authored by his predecessor chairman of the intelligence committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), that outlined the origins of the FISAgate scandal and how political propaganda funded by Democrats was presented to a secret court as evidence to get an order to spy on the Trump campaign before the election. He even demanded that Nunes step down from the committee.
Schiff’s misleading counter-memo, addressed to Congress, remains unedited even though it contains a number of allegations that are untrue in light of the facts. He’s been credibly accused of leaking classified and non-public information to the press.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/04/17/adam-schiff-the-medias-pin-up-doll/
The Five will be "must see TV" this afternoon. My luck though, they will have Donna Brazile on the panel because Juan's head will have exploded.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
No surprise - they were the same way about Comey in 2016.
He was a hero after after July 5.
He immediately became a villain after late October.
Then a hero after Trump fired him and he leaked the memo.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
I’ll wait to read it myself. Barr’s explanation of the ‘no obstrustion’ Still sounds an awful lot like the ‘no intent’ decision. The only difference is who made the announcement
transporter
Well-Known Member
Spitbubble is working hard on her rationalizations!
Spitbubble hasn't read the report. (Spitbubble, likely will never read the report...like most on here)
Life must be so easy when you do nothing but sit back and let other tell you what to think.
Spitbubble hasn't read the report. (Spitbubble, likely will never read the report...like most on here)
Life must be so easy when you do nothing but sit back and let other tell you what to think.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Keep digging. Keep your hopes alive my friend.
PsyOps
Pixelated
'Spitbubble' is going on the people that actually read the report. Who are you relying on that shows a different conclusion - I mean other than your delusional concoctions of your brain cell.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
What digging. Barr clearly said Mueller identified 10 discrete instances where trump may have committed obstruction. He also said he didn’t see any criminal intent.
I’d like to read it for myself and decide. Are you just going to accept the AGs word for it?
This_person
Well-Known Member
"Intent" is a requirement for there to be obstruction, legally speaking.
"Intent" is not a requirement for there to be mishandling of classified material, legally speaking.