Lol. You guys.
Can a brother get an answer?
They are the same. Mueller specifically talked at length about how Trump would not be able to do his job etc. etc. He could have easily done differently, it was a judgement call on is part.
Except what Hildawg did was technically illegal.
Its always a judgement call by a prosecutor. Whereas he hemmed and hawed, the DOJ didn’t and concluded no obstruction.
Congress is the only resource left. The Dems wouldn’t buy the Senate conclusion, the Mueller conclusion, the DOJ conclusion. Let the House Dems embarrass themselves.
What’s wrong with taking information from Russians?
You can’t work with the Russians to disseminate stolen information and scream “no collusion.” “Collusion is not technically a crime” is the correct rallying call.
No? You think Remington Steele’s “sources” didn’t steal their information he put in the Delusion Dossier?
Increasingly? I think you’re really underestimating how dumb they are. And more than a little.
You think you’re smarter than me?
Not even a hair of straying off GOP b.s.
Just your elections. 
Look over there…it’s another distraction that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Whataboutism Volume 67.
The topic is using Russian information.
They did NOT conclude no obstruction, why keep repeating that lie? There were eleven instances of Trump ordering underlings to obstruct justice.
1 Like
I am an avid poker player…
If after the flop I had a 60% chance of winning… and some told me information that would give me a 80% chance of winning… I’d take it. Only a dummy would say “no I’ll take my chances at 60%”
I apply the same logic to Hilary and the Dossier.
And Trump and the emails?
I’m not the one who is lying.
“Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein determined. The evidence collected by Mueller “is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense,” according to Barr’s four-page summary. The decision didn’t consider – and isn’t based on – whether a sitting president can be prosecuted, he wrote.”
Barr speaks for the DOJ, not Mueller, not Pelosi.
I do agree it is difficult to find the DOJ conclusion using google, as you keep getting Politico, NYTs, CNN, Vox etc opinions instead.
The topic is more specific than that… but I guess when you are defending clear corruption, using smoke screens is the best defense.
No it’s not. Look at the OP.
