Nope just pointing out that time and time again Trump makes you defenders look silly. 
Possible obstruction. Does any of this included destruction of blackberries, harddrives, bleach bit?
There is quite a bit difference between saying that no charges are appropriate and saying no decision was made on whether charges would be appropriate.
Time for congress to start a public trial going and impeachment process going as they promised you all.
Did I call it or did I call it!
Here are a few that I just posted in this thread, enjoy.
They didn’t say that either. They said they couldn’t reach that decision due to there not being enough evidence to support it “based on the facts and the applicable legal standards.” Not that no decision was made or that they weren’t attempting to prove obstruction. Clearly they were and failed.
The “doesn’t exonerate him” line cracks me up honestly. Innocent until proven guilty, you twits. Of course the report doesn’t exonerate him. The lack of evidence of his guilt does. There wasn’t enough evidence to bring a case against him.
Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.
Not that they weren’t trying their damnedest to do so. For over two years.
Then impeach or move on. The dems have been talking for over two years. The time for talking has passed.
Impeach is Congress’ job if crimes have been committed.
Personally, I would rather him lose in a landslide in 2020. Otherwise the cultists claim some sort of conspiracy.
1 Like
And Barr did not do that.
He did not have Trump read the report – we know that Trump doesn’t read documents. He went to Trump’s lawyers. And then everyone else mentioned in the report – they also got a sneak peek.
Barr is failing in the responsibility of the AG to maintain an appropriate distance from the Exec Branch. Not the first AG to do so, but he is perhaps the most blatantly partisan AG yet.
History will judge Barr for how his four page summary cherry picked the conclusions and will not judge him kindly.
How so? 
If he was joking… why would he immediately ask his campaign advisors to actually go find the emails? In which actual people setup companies and operations to find those emails.
Read the page referenced.
Actually that distinction goes to Holder! 
Think about it.
At the rally he was having a “Where’s Waldo” moment. He was clearly enjoying himself.
How could you possibly equate his follow-up actions to find the emails as having anything to do with asking Russia to hack her email server - which no longer existed. 
1 Like
You are having a hard time…
You said he was joking… “why would he seriously ask for Russians to find emails that no longer existed”
If he was joking… then why did he directly ask his campaign advisors, immediately following the press conference, to actually find her emails?
In which the people took that “joke” and stood up actual operations to find the emails?
Why would a joke go that far?
Why would that be a problem exactly? Because it wasn’t the Russians?
I just explained my take. Why can’t you simply accept it and move on?? 
That’s exactly what the report said:
“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would state so. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”
To frame it otherwise is completely misleading.
No it isn’t. I just quoted what it said. Not sure why you’re trying to paint it as otherwise since it’s there for everyone to read and not just take your spin for it.
Predictable…
Thanks for playing
