POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

when did Ken starr brief clinton? hell, what was he impeached for? by Barr's logic, no underlying crime means no cover up crime is possible.

 

was he not briefed? what's the downside to briefing the white house first? i don't get it.

 

It makes no accusations of anything.

It finds no evidence of collusion (criminal acts of collusion).

It cannot make a determination of whether actions rise to obstruction.

I think that’s a fair take.

 

Does the report conclude that the evidence indicates no obstruction?

 

Yeah, but outside of each of these facts, Un is sort of right. Right?

 

Ken Starr was not the AG.

 

I’d prefer you answer my question that it based on my interpretation of the smart comment I thought you’d made, and not the dumb comment you actually meant.

I’ll carry both of us, TT. I’ll carry both of us.

Like Thelma and Louise, all the way over the cliff that is 2020.

 

ok, when did Reno brief him?

 

Ken Starr briefed the AG, and who briefed Clinton.

Just as has happened here.

But I agree on your larger point that a coverup certainly exists and that impeachment is the only remedy.

 

Does the Mueller report accuse Trump of either collusion or obstruction, TT?

Yes or No?

 

Depends.

Does it indicate that there is no evidence that you shove pineapples up your ass?

 

I was intending to say that it’s hard to believe that those leading the charge in DC actually thought the Mueller report was going to conclude collusion given how little was ultimately not already public. So I was speaking to the reckless stupidity of beating that drum if you actually know what’s going to come of it - and surely they knew.

 

Did you read my fist sentence?

 

Lazy

 

Yeah, but other than that - then what?!!

 

Are you sure that she didn't. And what difference does it make, the report is already written and it is within the Presidents right to see it and make redactions.

 

Correct. This is exactly correct.

No collusion.
No obstruction.

Which is exactly what I’ve been saying, and which is perfectly accurate, unless someone is so biased as to choose to stand on their head, instead.

 

It’s not lazy. You’re saying that the absence of Mueller’s exonerating Trump on the question of obstruction means the same as saying accusing him of it, and it doesn’t at all.

 

We agree.

Democrats are not the geniuses they love reminding everyone of, and in fact, are not only predominantly stupid, but have an uncanny knack for being able to literally [uck fay] up a damned brass monkey, or any similar thing / advantage.

Just dumb-dumb dopey shit.

 

I am saying that the conclusions of the report with regard to collusion and obstruction were different.

In one case Mueller clearly said that there was no evidence of willfully criminal activities with Russia.

In the other he said that the evidence obtained “the about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.”

Is the last section the equivalent of your pineapple theory? Yes or no?