Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[PermissionToLand]

1) my initial comment you referenced from 2 years ago was not directed at you in any way. shape. or form. you know that. but you mention it here to purposely be misleading.

2) you responded to that post by implying I am a child. the fact that you directly insulted me led me to believe you were triggered. I had been insulted several times during 2017 by other liberals in this thread (as all Trump supporters in this thread were), and just figured for anyone to make it personal must be triggered. What is your opinion on why HTGTH board members stoop to low levels and personally insult fellow members?

3) thank you for admitting I do not make direct and personal insults.

4) you say its MY fault that YOU make personal insults against me, because I get under your skin. rather than play the victim, just take responsibility for your actions.

5) thank you for admitting I get under your skin. 

6) As far as being a troll, call me anything you want. But I post FACTS that are positive about trump, and then provide my view on them, and I get called a troll. Others post negative facts about trump and post their disgust about them….are they trolls too? (serious question.)

7) our arguing about who insulted who is making this boring thread even more unvisitable. How about we just agree not to personally insult each other going forward? (serious question.)

I’ll give you final response if you like. I will read it, but will not respond to it so this BS can end.

Haha, I knew you'd run away, tail between your legs, eventually!

1. I never claimed that was directed at me. It was an example of you being nothing but a troll. Thanks for proving it further by building a strawman. 

2.  There is no legitimate reason to call somebody "triggered  ". It's mockery. Stop hiding from your own words.

3. For the most part, yeah, as a trolling tactic (except when you are calling me a child, the same thing you complain about me doing Mr. Hypocrite). Way to dodge the rest of that comment though, like the troll you are.

4. That is the objective of trolling, to get under one's skin. You are the bully saying "if you don't want to hit yourself, just stop hitting yourself!". You're gaslighting. It is not others responsibility to deal with your abusive, sociopathic behavior. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to grow the fuck up and act like a real man and stop trying to prey on others.

5. Where did I say that? Quote me, or else you must be a liar... I pointed out your tactics. This has nothing to do with me, but standing up for the other innocent people you are preying upon with your sickness. I would call you an imbecile either way because it's a simple statement of a matter of fact. It's cute that you've deluded yourself into thinking these tactics work, but by suggesting they do, you are admitting to using them. There you have it ladies and gentlemen, sandman admits he's a troll!

6. No, you post laughable hyperbole and NEVER respond to anyone who calls it out for the FAKE NEWS that it is. Your TDS is raging.

7. Again, your trolling tactic is precisely to insult indirectly so you don't get banned. You're so experienced at trolling, you know how to skirt the rules. Says a lot.

You've also dodged where I pointed out you stirring up shit right after the election, despite your claims that is was "all the liberals". Where is the personal responsibility?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

It isn't conservative spin to say Mueller's performance wasn't good. Many pundits on the left had the same reaction such as Chuck Todd of NBC.

And Michael Moore (via Twitter):


Michael Moore
✔
@MMFlint

A frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions...I said it in 2017 and Mueller confirmed it today — All you pundits and moderates and lame Dems who told the public to put their faith in the esteemed Robert Mueller — just STFU from now on
34.2K
12:31 PM - Jul 24, 2019

 

Chuck Todd is a conservative. A moderate/centrist conservative, but a conservative all the same.  I know that blows your mind, but it's true.

Micheal Moore is an idiot.

You're not helping your case here, really.

It's the conservative message. It's the one getting prominent play on conservative Media.  And it's not the most likely explanation. And it's based off a preconceived, conservative, metric for what his performance should have been. In other words, its the message rattling around the conservative echo chamber.  Far more than it is from other news sources.

And we're arguing over a distraction.

If it makes you feel better to think Mueller looked like a doddard, then I'll leave you to it.  Since you can't assail the content of the report (or the hearing), and feel you need to discredit him based on....asking people to repeat some questions?....then have at it!

Edit: Some examples...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/07/25/graham_mueller_report_in_name_only_special_counsel_was_in_a_weakened_state.html

https://nypost.com/2019/07/24/muellers-testimony-equals-end-of-any-trump-impeachment-talk/

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/does-a-guilty-conscience-explain-muellers-fumbling-testimony/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/25/nolte-robert-mueller-isnt-senile-he-was-a-dirty-cop-forced-to-take-the-witness-stand/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/24/mueller-stymied-own-reports-definition-collusion/

Should I go on?  Practically every conservative news outlet has the same sort of headlines/conjecture on it's front page. Every prominent republican (member of congress or pundit) is conveying the same sort of message.

Michael Moore may be an idiot, but hes no conservative.  And he referred to Mueller as a frail old man.  So that sentiment goes beyond partisan opinions.

That's all I'm saying. If you dont share that opinion thats ok.

[pilferk]

Michael Moore may be an idiot, but hes no conservative.  And he referred to Mueller as a frail old man.  So that sentiment goes beyond partisan opinions.

That's all I'm saying. If you dont share that opinion thats ok.

Using your logic, if I can find ONE wacky conservative espousing some of the more wacky liberal propaganda on MSNBC (or worse), then it's not liberal propaganda.

Michael Moore has become the liberal equivalent of Alex Jones.  He's an idiot who espouses outrageous conspiracy theories.  ONE of them has been that Mueller is a conservative plant who was actually put in place  to ensure Trump didn't face justice, and that it was all a conservative conspiracy (including the injustice) to gin up the base.

I laid it out for you with examples.  This is far more prevalent in the conservative media than anywhere else.  It is on the lips of every conservative discussing the hearings (rather than the material, itself). It is the conservative message right now.  You can continue to try to throw singular exceptions to the rule, but you're proving my point, rather than detracting from it with your examples.

All you're trying to do is legitimize the conservative message of "The Doddard" theory. Instead of addressing what the actual substance of what the hearings/report was.

He wasn't charismatic.  He didn't shout.  I know that's the Trump metric for a "good performance" and Mueller failed to do that, so must be "low stah-meen-ah", in his (and his supporters) eyes.  But, in this case, he was there to essentially read the report to the masses (who won't read it).

Edit: The irony of a conservative relying on Michael Moore to make their case shouldn't be lost on anyone in this thread!

[tim_m]

I also just love how many Trump defenders are trying to spin it that there can be no obstruction since Mueller did not find prosecutory evidence of conspiracy to steal the election. That is not how the law works. If you interfere in an ongoing investigation even if the investigation ultimately finds the crime was not committed does not mean you are not guilty even if your attempts fail flat. If you interfere with the intent of altering the outcome even if unsuccessfully as Trump was you still attempted to interfere and that is a crime. (example. If i attempted to rob a bank but did not successfully get the money i am still guilty of attempted robbery.)

Here's my take:

If you successfully obstruct an investigation....and the investigators thus can't find sufficient evidence of that crime....how does it make sense that you can't prosecute for obstruction because you can't prove the initial crime was committed.  That's backwards, and circular, logic.

They are two separate entities, in the law, on purpose.

Yep but some of his base will go to these ridiculous lengths to justify his behavior. If you or i did these things we would spend the better part of a decade or more in a jail cell.

[pilferk]

All of this coming from supporters of a guy who has the syntax of a third grader is hilarious.

But he shouts! And he's charismatic! And he can wave his arms around real good and come up with (not so) clever nicknames!!

We know the Trump (and his supporters) bar for "a good performance".  It's got nothing to do with substance. In fact, the less substance the better.

You have to yell, and be combative/aggressive, and you have to indignantly talk over anyone who might be making a salient (but contrary) point.

Mueller didn't do that, and didn't recite prewritten talking points when providing substantive/verbose answers (which, admittedly, were few and far between), so therefore didn't put on a good performance, and thus must be a senile doddard who wasn't capable of presiding over the investigation.

It's all conservative clap trap.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Michael Moore may be an idiot, but hes no conservative.  And he referred to Mueller as a frail old man.  So that sentiment goes beyond partisan opinions.

That's all I'm saying. If you dont share that opinion thats ok.

Using your logic, if I can find ONE wacky conservative espousing some of the more wacky liberal propaganda on MSNBC (or worse), then it's not liberal propaganda.

Michael Moore has become the liberal equivalent of Alex Jones.  He's an idiot who espouses outrageous conspiracy theories.  ONE of them has been that Mueller is a conservative plant who was actually put in place  to ensure Trump didn't face justice, and that it was all a conservative conspiracy (including the injustice) to gin up the base.

I laid it out for you with examples.  This is far more prevalent in the conservative media than anywhere else.  It is on the lips of every conservative discussing the hearings (rather than the material, itself). It is the conservative message right now.  You can continue to try to throw singular exceptions to the rule, but you're proving my point, rather than detracting from it with your examples.

All you're trying to do is legitimize the conservative message of "The Doddard" theory. Instead of addressing what the actual substance of what the hearings/report was.

He wasn't charismatic.  He didn't shout.  I know that's the Trump metric for a "good performance" and Mueller failed to do that, so must be "low stah-meen-ah", in his (and his supporters) eyes.  But, in this case, he was there to essentially read the report to the masses (who won't read it).

Edit: The irony of a conservative relying on Michael Moore to make their case shouldn't be lost on anyone in this thread!

 The topic is subjective.  We are discussing opinion, not fact.

You come across that your opinion is the only correct one to have. One of the ways you take the fun out of the debate here.

Ill move on. Feel free to get the last word in, I know you want to

[sandman]

Q: "You believe that you could charge the president with obstruction of justice after he leaves office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

FAKE NEWS

DENIAL
 

Mueller clarified this statement to specifically point out that he was not talking about Trump/obstruction.

but you posted his quote without his clarification. totally out of context in a weak attempt to make it look like something it's not. or are you just not aware of the clarification? let me know.....are you a troll or just grossly misinformed? 

the sad part is you double down on it, while accusing me of being in denial. do you not see the irony?

(if you had gone with more than 3 emojis, maybe people would believe your bullshit. a few more clicks next time, bud.)

[pilferk]

As expected, GDP growth took a marked tumble in Q2 (though it just BARELY beat Wall Streets already pessamistic expectations) to 2.1%.  Wage growth also dropped.

Good news is consumer spending grew pretty substantially....though government spending is still growing by leaps and bounds, too, and making up a substantially larger portion of GDP than it has.

Again, a mixed bag.  The sky is definitely not falling. Recession is not imminent.

But we are not seeing the "at least 3% and maybe 4% and 5% or more" growth that Trump promised.  We are 100% in the Trump economy and we are seeing Obama levels of growth (or just under, in terms of job growth).  And in 4 of the past 6 quarters (aka the Trump economy), growth has failed to hit 3%.  In two of the last 4 we've failed to hit it by a substantial margin.  We'll have to see what Q3 brings.  Another sharp increase? Or a flattening out?

And no, this isn't because of the fed.

Trumps policies, and the tax cut he championed, isn't leading to the levels of growth he said it would.  Not in GDP and not in wage growth.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/26/us-gdp-second-quarter-2019.html

[PermissionToLand]

All of this coming from supporters of a guy who has the syntax of a third grader is hilarious.

But he shouts! And he's charismatic! And he can wave his arms around real good and come up with (not so) clever nicknames!!

We know the Trump (and his supporters) bar for "a good performance".  It's got nothing to do with substance. In fact, the less substance the better.

You have to yell, and be combative/aggressive, and you have to indignantly talk over anyone who might be making a salient (but contrary) point.

Mueller didn't do that, and didn't recite prewritten talking points when providing substantive/verbose answers (which, admittedly, were few and far between), so therefore didn't put on a good performance, and thus must be a senile doddard who wasn't capable of presiding over the investigation.

It's all conservative clap trap.

Is he working his way through the seven dwarfs? Dopey Mark Cuban, Sleepy Chuck Todd/Joe Biden (he even uses the same one multiple times)...

[PermissionToLand]

Michael Moore may be an idiot, but hes no conservative.  And he referred to Mueller as a frail old man.  So that sentiment goes beyond partisan opinions.

That's all I'm saying. If you dont share that opinion thats ok.

Using your logic, if I can find ONE wacky conservative espousing some of the more wacky liberal propaganda on MSNBC (or worse), then it's not liberal propaganda.

Michael Moore has become the liberal equivalent of Alex Jones.  He's an idiot who espouses outrageous conspiracy theories.  ONE of them has been that Mueller is a conservative plant who was actually put in place  to ensure Trump didn't face justice, and that it was all a conservative conspiracy (including the injustice) to gin up the base.

I laid it out for you with examples.  This is far more prevalent in the conservative media than anywhere else.  It is on the lips of every conservative discussing the hearings (rather than the material, itself). It is the conservative message right now.  You can continue to try to throw singular exceptions to the rule, but you're proving my point, rather than detracting from it with your examples.

All you're trying to do is legitimize the conservative message of "The Doddard" theory. Instead of addressing what the actual substance of what the hearings/report was.

He wasn't charismatic.  He didn't shout.  I know that's the Trump metric for a "good performance" and Mueller failed to do that, so must be "low stah-meen-ah", in his (and his supporters) eyes.  But, in this case, he was there to essentially read the report to the masses (who won't read it).

Edit: The irony of a conservative relying on Michael Moore to make their case shouldn't be lost on anyone in this thread!

 The topic is subjective.  We are discussing opinion, not fact.

You come across that your opinion is the only correct one to have. One of the ways you take the fun out of the debate here.

Ill move on. Feel free to get the last word in, I know you want to

I like how you make no counter argument and only comment to get the last word, while projecting your own desperation onto him. I'd say "clever", but it's not.

[PermissionToLand]

Mueller clarified this statement to specifically point out that he was not talking about Trump/obstruction.

but you posted his quote without his clarification. totally out of context in a weak attempt to make it look like something it's not. or are you just not aware of the clarification? let me know.....are you a troll or just grossly misinformed? 

the sad part is you double down on it, while accusing me of being in denial. do you not see the irony?

(if you had gone with more than 3 emojis, maybe people would believe your bullshit. a few more clicks next time, bud.)

TRIGGERED!!!   

(I'm trying to be more "civil", like you. How's it working?)

[sandman]

Mueller clarified this statement to specifically point out that he was not talking about Trump/obstruction.

but you posted his quote without his clarification. totally out of context in a weak attempt to make it look like something it's not. or are you just not aware of the clarification? let me know.....are you a troll or just grossly misinformed? 

the sad part is you double down on it, while accusing me of being in denial. do you not see the irony?

(if you had gone with more than 3 emojis, maybe people would believe your bullshit. a few more clicks next time, bud.)

TRIGGERED!!!   

(I'm trying to be more "civil", like you. How's it working?)

Its one of your few responses to me ever with no direct insults, no name calling, and no childish comments. So its basically one of your most civil responses to me ever. Kudos.

Now just stop posting fake news, and everyone will be happy.

[pilferk]

TRIGGERED!!!   

(I'm trying to be more "civil", like you. How's it working?)

And the obvious counterargument here is:

He did say it. You didn't provide an opinion. Just a quote.  A quote isn't "fake news", even if it was clarified later. If anything, it's simply incomplete context.

And his clarification didn't exclude Trump, either.  It was just not SPECIFIC to Trump (though it was, in a wink wink nudge nudge way...because what else was the topic of conversation). That was his clarification: Yes, if a president commits a crime in office, he can be indicted after leaving office.  And....as Mueller clearly says during the hearing, some of the interactions and acts of obstruction would rise to the level of criminality.  I mean, you have to put 2 and 2 together, here...he's not shouting 4 to stay inside DOJ guidelines.

His point was that he couldn't indict a sitting president, his report didn't exonerate him, and there were precisely two ways to pursue justice in cases like this (independent of Trump...in all cases) according to DOJ guidelines:

1) Impeach
2) Indict once they are out of office.

The implication here is pretty clear.  His clarification was a CYA, since DOJ told him to stay in bounds of the report, and, as he said, they couldn't even consider indictment (which, of course, means they would have without the standing opinion).

As we both know, the Fake News is the news shouted by Trump, and parroted by conservatives, since Barr was allowed to give a dishonest summary of the report:  NO COLLUSION!!!!! NO OBSTRUCTION!!!!!

[pilferk]

All of this coming from supporters of a guy who has the syntax of a third grader is hilarious.

But he shouts! And he's charismatic! And he can wave his arms around real good and come up with (not so) clever nicknames!!

We know the Trump (and his supporters) bar for "a good performance".  It's got nothing to do with substance. In fact, the less substance the better.

You have to yell, and be combative/aggressive, and you have to indignantly talk over anyone who might be making a salient (but contrary) point.

Mueller didn't do that, and didn't recite prewritten talking points when providing substantive/verbose answers (which, admittedly, were few and far between), so therefore didn't put on a good performance, and thus must be a senile doddard who wasn't capable of presiding over the investigation.

It's all conservative clap trap.

Is he working his way through the seven dwarfs? Dopey Mark Cuban, Sleepy Chuck Todd/Joe Biden (he even uses the same one multiple times)...

I'm gonna bet we get Grumpy Kamala Harris, next!!  Probably followed closely by Sneezy Pete Buttigieg!!!

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Some good news for border security -

https://apnews.com/5d893d388c254c7fa83a1570112ae90e

High court allows use of Pentagon funds for border wall

United States Border Patrol officers return a group of migrants back to the Mexico side of the border as Mexican immigration officials check the list, in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, Thursday, July 25, 2019. Mexico has received some 20,000 asylum seekers returned to await U.S. immigration court dates under the program colloquially known as "remain in Mexico." (AP Photo/Salvador Gonzalez)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to tap Pentagon funds to build sections of a border wall with Mexico.

The Supreme Court said Friday that it would lift a freeze on the money put in place by a lower court. The Supreme Court’s action means the Trump administration can tap the funds and begin work on four contracts it has awarded. Four liberal justices wouldn’t have allowed construction to start.

A trial court initially froze the funds in May and an appeals court kept that freeze in place earlier this month. The freeze had prevented the government from tapping approximately $2.5 billion in Defense Department money to replace existing sections of barrier in Arizona, California and New Mexico with more robust fencing.

[sandman]

TRIGGERED!!!   

(I'm trying to be more "civil", like you. How's it working?)

And the obvious counterargument here is:

He did say it. You didn't provide an opinion. Just a quote.  A quote isn't "fake news", even if it was clarified later. If anything, it's simply incomplete context.

And his clarification didn't exclude Trump, either.  It was just not SPECIFIC to Trump (though it was, in a wink wink nudge nudge way...because what else was the topic of conversation). That was his clarification: Yes, if a president commits a crime in office, he can be indicted after leaving office.  And....as Mueller clearly says during the hearing, some of the interactions and acts of obstruction would rise to the level of criminality.  I mean, you have to put 2 and 2 together, here...he's not shouting 4 to stay inside DOJ guidelines.

His point was that he couldn't indict a sitting president, his report didn't exonerate him, and there were precisely two ways to pursue justice in cases like this (independent of Trump...in all cases) according to DOJ guidelines:

1) Impeach
2) Indict once they are out of office.

The implication here is pretty clear.  His clarification was a CYA, since DOJ told him to stay in bounds of the report, and, as he said, they couldn't even consider indictment (which, of course, means they would have without the standing opinion).

As we both know, the Fake News is the news shouted by Trump, and parroted by conservatives, since Barr was allowed to give a dishonest summary of the report:  NO COLLUSION!!!!! NO OBSTRUCTION!!!!!

you WISH you could ignore me. and I certainly wish you could too, because you make this thread really boring.

Proving me right, yet again.

[pilferk]

Some good news for border security -

https://apnews.com/5d893d388c254c7fa83a1570112ae90e

High court allows use of Pentagon funds for border wall

United States Border Patrol officers return a group of migrants back to the Mexico side of the border as Mexican immigration officials check the list, in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, Thursday, July 25, 2019. Mexico has received some 20,000 asylum seekers returned to await U.S. immigration court dates under the program colloquially known as "remain in Mexico." (AP Photo/Salvador Gonzalez)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to tap Pentagon funds to build sections of a border wall with Mexico.

The Supreme Court said Friday that it would lift a freeze on the money put in place by a lower court. The Supreme Court’s action means the Trump administration can tap the funds and begin work on four contracts it has awarded. Four liberal justices wouldn’t have allowed construction to start.

A trial court initially froze the funds in May and an appeals court kept that freeze in place earlier this month. The freeze had prevented the government from tapping approximately $2.5 billion in Defense Department money to replace existing sections of barrier in Arizona, California and New Mexico with more robust fencing.

Be happy, now.

This is going to come back to bite the conservatives in the ass when a dem president takes office and decides to reappropriate money for pet projects (like Single payor) on a whim. 

It's a precedent that circumvents Article 1s specification that only congress can appropriate money.

Partisanship has now completely undermined the constitution.  Checks and balances are now completely dead and congress is basically irrelevant.  The SC just neutered one of their singular powers of control on the Executive branch.

[PermissionToLand]

Mueller clarified this statement to specifically point out that he was not talking about Trump/obstruction.

but you posted his quote without his clarification. totally out of context in a weak attempt to make it look like something it's not. or are you just not aware of the clarification? let me know.....are you a troll or just grossly misinformed? 

the sad part is you double down on it, while accusing me of being in denial. do you not see the irony?

(if you had gone with more than 3 emojis, maybe people would believe your bullshit. a few more clicks next time, bud.)

TRIGGERED!!!   

(I'm trying to be more "civil", like you. How's it working?)

Its one of your few responses to me ever with no direct insults, no name calling, and no childish comments. So its basically one of your most civil responses to me ever. Kudos.

Now just stop posting fake news, and everyone will be happy.

Oh how your standards change when your own words are used against you.

Now just stop posting fake news, and everyone will be happy.

And my very first response to you was: "You should know that using the word "snowflake" discredits your opinion in adult company."

No insults there at all. You are trying to rewrite history with your FAKE NEWS.

[PermissionToLand]

And the obvious counterargument here is:

He did say it. You didn't provide an opinion. Just a quote.  A quote isn't "fake news", even if it was clarified later. If anything, it's simply incomplete context.

And his clarification didn't exclude Trump, either.  It was just not SPECIFIC to Trump (though it was, in a wink wink nudge nudge way...because what else was the topic of conversation). That was his clarification: Yes, if a president commits a crime in office, he can be indicted after leaving office.  And....as Mueller clearly says during the hearing, some of the interactions and acts of obstruction would rise to the level of criminality.  I mean, you have to put 2 and 2 together, here...he's not shouting 4 to stay inside DOJ guidelines.

His point was that he couldn't indict a sitting president, his report didn't exonerate him, and there were precisely two ways to pursue justice in cases like this (independent of Trump...in all cases) according to DOJ guidelines:

1) Impeach
2) Indict once they are out of office.

The implication here is pretty clear.  His clarification was a CYA, since DOJ told him to stay in bounds of the report, and, as he said, they couldn't even consider indictment (which, of course, means they would have without the standing opinion).

As we both know, the Fake News is the news shouted by Trump, and parroted by conservatives, since Barr was allowed to give a dishonest summary of the report:  NO COLLUSION!!!!! NO OBSTRUCTION!!!!!

Absolutely, and I didn't know it had been later clarified, so there was no context for me to withhold. But of course, trying to explain something calmly like a rational adult is too much for ol' Sandman to grasp. He only sees the world in hyperbole and histrionics.

It is pretty ridiculous though, that Mueller wouldn't even read parts of his own report verbatim out loud. Saying "it's in the report" is one thing, but refusing to even corroborate what is in the report is just obtuse.

Also this whole "precedent" not to indict a sitting president traces back to nothing more than a DOJ memo from the Nixon administration, of all places. What a perversion of the entire concept of precedent, to follow that of the single most corrupt prior president on the subject of his accountability...

[PermissionToLand]

And the obvious counterargument here is:

He did say it. You didn't provide an opinion. Just a quote.  A quote isn't "fake news", even if it was clarified later. If anything, it's simply incomplete context.

And his clarification didn't exclude Trump, either.  It was just not SPECIFIC to Trump (though it was, in a wink wink nudge nudge way...because what else was the topic of conversation). That was his clarification: Yes, if a president commits a crime in office, he can be indicted after leaving office.  And....as Mueller clearly says during the hearing, some of the interactions and acts of obstruction would rise to the level of criminality.  I mean, you have to put 2 and 2 together, here...he's not shouting 4 to stay inside DOJ guidelines.

His point was that he couldn't indict a sitting president, his report didn't exonerate him, and there were precisely two ways to pursue justice in cases like this (independent of Trump...in all cases) according to DOJ guidelines:

1) Impeach
2) Indict once they are out of office.

The implication here is pretty clear.  His clarification was a CYA, since DOJ told him to stay in bounds of the report, and, as he said, they couldn't even consider indictment (which, of course, means they would have without the standing opinion).

As we both know, the Fake News is the news shouted by Trump, and parroted by conservatives, since Barr was allowed to give a dishonest summary of the report:  NO COLLUSION!!!!! NO OBSTRUCTION!!!!!

you WISH you could ignore me. and I certainly wish you could too, because you make this thread really boring.

Proving me right, yet again.

God, you're so sad. You couldn't even edit it to make it look like he was replying to you instead of me. How many times have you broken into his house to sniff his underwear this week?

He's just not into you. Time to let it go and move on, honey...

But hey, thanks for proving me right, yet again, about your being ignored by people as a result of your trolling behavior. And because you just can't stand that, you continue to attempt to troll them even when they are not relying to you.

I know, personal responsibility for your behavior is tough. Buck up, kiddo.