Coming death of this Russian Collusion conspiracy

[tnt]

@peek-a-boo

The DOJ stated as much. They have the final word.

Where? Show me a quote. Barr never said that.

[tnt]

@peek-a-boo

Once again there was no collusion. Get over it.

That’s not what the report finds.

[kingarthur65]

@peek-a-boo

Not a chance. I wasn’t born yesterday.

I don’t feel the need to convince you of anything. I really don’t care what you think to be honest.

It has already been established that there was no collusion and that there was no obstruction. nuff said.

Where do you get that? You keep claiming it but just by stating it doesnt make it true.

You said NO collusion and NO obstruction. How do you come to that conclusion?

[madasheck]

@conan

Either the media did the investigation for Mueller and his band of idiots…or those idiots been leaking to media entire time.

So which is it lib?

The _real_media — the one you kept saying was fake – was overwhelmingly accurate, con. Eat your peas.

[MarkyS]

But that is the problem.

You are interpreting Trump’s actions as trying to obstruct when what he was doing was trying to get it to conclude quickly, because it was tearing us all apart andmamking governing harder for all.

If he is NOT guilty he is not trying to HIDE anything, which is the true nature of obstruction - you are trying to stop the discovery of your guilt. There is NO legitimate reason to stop the discovery of your innocense, so to claim he wanted to is DUMB.

Barr and Rosenstein agree.

He wanted it over, and as quickly as possible. He was innocent and it was a nightly horror show on TV that was bogus.

M

[coolidge]

Thats not new. Many were talking about that at the onset of the wild witch hunt. It wasnt surprising when sessions lost his job for not doing his job.

[tnt]

@MarkyS

Clinton was impeached for trying to get people to lie under oath and for his own lies in his depositions.

Those are crimes he did commit.

He thus INTENDED to obstruct justice with lies.

M

Trump repeatedly ordered people to lie.

[tnt]

@MarkyS

Where did i say he can decide for them what the investigation will yeild???

What I said is he can decide if the investigation is going off the rails because of the investigators.

There is no difference between these two.

The president doesn’t get to decide what is off the rails any more than you or I do.

[tnt]

@MarkyS

But that is the problem.

You are interpreting Trump’s actions as trying to obstruct when what he was doing was trying to get it to conclude quickly, because it was tearing us all apart andmamking governing harder for all.

If he is NOT guilty he is not trying to HIDE anything, which is the true nature of obstruction - you are trying to stop the discovery of your guilt. There is NO legitimate reason to stop the discovery of your innocense, so to claim he wanted to is DUMB.

Barr and Rosenstein agree.

He wanted it over, and as quickly as possible. He was innocent and it was a nightly horror show on TV that was bogus.

M

Again, not his place to dictate the pace of the investigation. Any more than it is yours or mine.

[peek-a-boo]

Page 3 of Barr’s summary report.

[peek-a-boo]

Seriously?

[MarkyS]

He is saying you can interpret the President’s actions as you want to.

I gave the Comey firing as an example.

But Barr and Rosenstein go further. They say yes, you CAN interpret actions either way, but it only makes sense to interpret them with the full knowledge that the President is NOT guilty of the charge of conspiracy. He had no intention of obstructing the truth. The TRUTH was on his side.

M

[peek-a-boo]

I’m done playing games with you.

[tnt]

@peek-a-boo

Seriously?

what do you call handing the russians polling data so they can tailor their efforts to specific states?

[peek-a-boo]

There was no collusion found by Mueller. Continuing to cherry pick pieces of underlying data doesn’t change Mueller’s conclusion.

We are done.

[tnt]

@MarkyS

He is saying you can interpret the President’s actions as you want to.

I gave the Comey firing as an example.

But Barr and Rosenstein go further. They say yes, you CAN interpret actions either way, but it only makes sense to interpret them with the full knowledge that the President is NOT guilty of the charge of conspiracy. He had no intention of obstructing the truth. The TRUTH was on his side.

M

I realize this is just a partisan game for you, but please, think for a minute about how absurd that argument is.

If, for example, OJ Simpson tampered with the evidence, then was found not guilty, could he then say “look, I didn’t obstruct because obviously I didn’t do it - I was found not guilty.”

Or, and honest to god innocent man, accused of murder, but afraid of someone ratting him out - he knows full well he didn’t do it…that is in fact the truth. He tampers with a witness, intimidates them - no obstruction because he knew he was innocent?

[tnt]

@peek-a-boo

There was no collusion found by Mueller. Continuing to cherry pick pieces of underlying data doesn’t change Mueller’s conclusion.

We are done.

Can you answer the simple question? What do you call that?

I’m genuinely curious.

[peek-a-boo]

Trump didn’t tamper with evidence.

[MarkyS]

Actually, you’re wrong.

If he thinks the investigation is stalled and for the wrong reasons, he has every right to order a new investigation and/or a new investigator, as he did with Comey.

He knew Comey knew he was not guilty and he knew that Comey wasn’t making that clear fast enough.

M

[peek-a-boo]

It is an irrelevant question.

THERE WAS NO COLLUSION.

Nothing else matters.

Geeze!