Mueller’s team. Who did you think I meant? 
You keep repeating that I quoted Giuliani when I reposted someone else’s quote. Give it a rest.
Mine. That’s why I keep calling you out on it. You still haven’t owned up to it. Imagine that.
No… it wasn’t that they didn’t have the evidence of obstruction… I mean if one would actually read the report, Mueller explicitly says that the reasoning behind not interviewing the President was that it would take too long and he had enough evidence.
What the report does say is that a sitting President cannot be indicted but charges can certainly be filed once he leaves office.
Doesn’t sound good to me.
Why don’t you just link to the report itself, instead of trying to tell everyone what you think is in it? Here, let me help.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-the-mueller-report/
I only have to tell people what is in it because they are making factual errors about it.
Right, because the report can’t speak for itself. We need people like you to interpret it for us.
Most of the people he is speaking to haven’t and won’t read it for themselves and are relying on talking heads to interpret it for them.
Well when one keeps getting the facts wrong about it…
1 Like
Barr didn’t do a good job of interpreting it. Some of those misleading statements seem to be repeated.
I agree. @Jezcoe totally needs to stop discussing the contents of the hottest political topic of the day. What does he think this is, a political discussion forum?
1 Like
Even when I own up to it, you continue to complain about it.
All right. I cited your Rudolf Giuliani quotation. I apologize to you. I apologize to all you descendants unto the generations. I understand that citing your Giuliani quotation is an act worse than treason, worse than blasphemy, worse than human trafficking
Now are you satisfied?
1 Like
Is that picture fake?
If it’s not provable, it didn’t happen legally.
he didn’t interview the President because the President told him to go ■■■■ himself.
You haven’t.
Not all of it no, but I have searched the index for the parts I felt were most relevant and read a good portion of it in doing so.
Good of you to admit it. Now stop criticizing people for not doing what you yourself have not done.
I freely admit not reading it nor will I. My days of reading 300 page government reports written by lawyers are long over.
I will eventually search and cut and paste parts if they confirm my bias. If not, they can go to the Smithsonian.
I’ve read a good portion of it where you admit to not reading any of it at all. Not quite the same thing
