- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 10,361
- Reaction score
- 2,438
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
So what so what?
exactly.
So what so what?
So what?
Oh, scratch my last post to you. You've clearly just given up trying to make sense of anything.
You didnt hear that from me. Im a vocal advocate about giving out immunity if it get to the truth and help get who is at the top.That's funny because when there was talk of Clinton's IT specialist getting immunity, that's all we heard about from righties is how that proved he and Clinton were guilty. Now you guys are like "Oh it's not proof of guilt, he's just trying to protect himself". Funny how partisanship works like that.
What a remarkable claim. Do you have remarkable evidence to support that?
exactly.
I remember that with trump and criticized for it. Immunity is sn i.portant mechanism in our justice system.Flynn and Trump indicated that wanting immunity indeed was evidence of wrongdoing. They said so several times during the compaign.
what do we do with witches? burn them burn them.
so what else burns? wood
what else does wood do? it floats it floats.
precisely.
now what else floats? small pebbles, a duck.
correct so if she weighs as much as a duck she must float and then she is made out of wood and therefore a witch.
and what do we do with witches? burn them.
pretty much the logic being applied here.
collusion no evidence.
comey already admitted in under oath that no obstruction took place.
so unless they are going to say that he lied. they don't have much evidence since
even the Deputy director stated the same thing in a news report.
so unless the FBI is going to just make up something they have little evidence with an obstruction charge.
the fact that this continues to go on like this is amazing.
I find it interesting that the DOJ had way more evidence on Clinton than they do on trump since there isn't any
and nothing came out of it.
but this is what happens when you have a DOJ that isn't corrupt.
however this stuff needs to end.
I remember that with trump and criticized for it. Immunity is sn i.portant mechanism in our justice system.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
glad you agree with me.
yes. It is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury...signifying nothing.
A little morning shakespeare to get going.
No. But this is what Trump pushed us to. The house was going to investigate this matter. And if they had and said nothing happened then I'd readily accept that. But instead they partnered with the lead of the investigatory body and played politics and got him to leak certain info in a certain way to narrate a false story. So there goes that. If James Comey and the FBI had a full investigation and said there was no collusion, I'd accept that. But instead Trump tried to strong arm Comey and then fired him all the while lying about why he was firing him. So there goes that.
Now we have the special council. Right here and right now I can happily agree that if he comes back and says "We can't find any laws that were broken, at best we found some actions that were just a bit off, but no laws broken" Then you won't hear anything more about Russia from me.
I'm not sure if most liberals will let it drop if the special council says nothing wrong occurred, but I am.
One of the big problems here is that you don't see just how similar this is on both sides. If Hillary won, republicans would still be investigating her emails and Benghazi even though it's been investigated to death and the findings have been reported.
You said that the WaPo got EVERY story wrong before the one reporting that Trump is under investigation. Can you support that claim? No more silly non-sequitur rants, please.
I just showed you. all these anonymous reports before this one have been wrong.
Comey blew the obstruction out of the water.
there is no evidence of collusion.
so far all the other reports have been a bust as well.
you continue to believe anonymous reports I will wait for facts.
No. But this is what Trump pushed us to. The house was going to investigate this matter. And if they had and said nothing happened then I'd readily accept that. But instead they partnered with the lead of the investigatory body and played politics and got him to leak certain info in a certain way to narrate a false story. So there goes that. If James Comey and the FBI had a full investigation and said there was no collusion, I'd accept that. But instead Trump tried to strong arm Comey and then fired him all the while lying about why he was firing him. So there goes that.
Now we have the special council. Right here and right now I can happily agree that if he comes back and says "We can't find any laws that were broken, at best we found some actions that were just a bit off, but no laws broken" Then you won't hear anything more about Russia from me.
I'm not sure if most liberals will let it drop if the special council says nothing wrong occurred, but I am.
One of the big problems here is that you don't see just how similar this is on both sides. If Hillary won, republicans would still be investigating her emails and Benghazi even though it's been investigated to death and the findings have been reported.
a perfect description of right wing support for Trump. Well done!!!!
Its all in the covfefe.
I just showed you. all these anonymous reports before this one have been wrong.
Comey blew the obstruction out of the water.
there is no evidence of collusion.
so far all the other reports have been a bust as well.
you continue to believe anonymous reports I will wait for facts.
The only thing these investigations have proven so far is:
1. The media is more corrupt than the accusations they're trying to pin on the administration.
2. The FBI is akin to the Keystone Cops.
Are you not aware of the cognitive dissonance displayed so abjectly in this post?
lol
in our ADD addled, Reality TV society we don't want to have to do anything that requires thinking. Why do you think hyper-partisanship has risen to such levels? Nope, we just want the knee jerk reaction and the drama. Which is pretty much how we ended up with Trump.
I always have been careful of anonymous news. But you used to be relatively sure of its having been well vetted, if nyt or wp published it. That he is seemingly warning of publications in the wp is interesting in confirming my impression.
Why do you think Trump fired Comey and then told Russia it took great pressure off him?