It's true; fake news is a problem.

[Enoch07]

Why do you care so much about supporting the 1%, what have they done for you personally??

I don't.

I just like freedom over oppression.

 

[Lyndon]

You support the freedom of the 1% to rip off the rest of us, no doubt!!

 

[Enoch07]

You are wilfully confusing an investigation and the real news reporting on that investigation with a belief that Trump actually colluded. In this country an investigation is required before a decision about a crime having occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. CNN and other media outlets reporting the fact that an investigation was really occurring.

Apologetics will do you no good here.

The fake news CNN and MSNBC was not objectively reporting on what was going on. They was pushing a false narrative of guilt for 3 years before the Mueller report was complete.

All of you who are trying to pretend this didn't happen are just making yourselves look even more foolish.

Trump used the investigation to whip up his fan base saying he is being treated so unfairly..

He was correct though. He would have looked the fool, had prosecutable evidence been found.

Now obstruction is looking like it is well substantiated so calling the whole investigation fake news is really stretching credulity. We were all a witness to Trump's efforts to obstruct justice.

Nah Barr accurately portrayed Muellers conclusion that there was not enough evidence to suggest conspiracy (collusion for the left wingers), or obstruction. Funny thing is, as the story unfolds, the "collusion" you're so obsessed with, appears to be entrapment ordered by Obama....can't indict a sitting president, but maybe we can incarcerate a real traitor to the American people.

 

[Enoch07]

You support the freedom of the 1% to rip off the rest of us, no doubt!!

You are just as free as I and anyone else.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Apologetics will do you no good here.

The fake news CNN and MSNBC was not objectively reporting on what was going on. They was pushing a false narrative of guilt for 3 years before the Mueller report was complete.

All of you who are trying to pretend this didn't happen are just making yourselves look even more foolish.



He was correct though. He would have looked the fool, had prosecutable evidence been found.



Nah Barr accurately portrayed Muellers conclusion that there was not enough evidence to suggest conspiracy (collusion for the left wingers), or obstruction. Funny thing is, as the story unfolds, the "collusion" you're so obsessed with, appears to be entrapment ordered by Obama....can't indict a sitting president, but maybe we can incarcerate a real traitor to the American people.

How could Obama order anything, including something that would entrap the president? This does not make any sense.

I remember when Obama first took office, all the conservatives kept ranting about how Bush was no longer president and the liberals should quit bringing him up. I guess that only works one way.

 

[Enoch07]

How could Obama order anything, including something that would entrap the president? This does not make any sense.

Obama was the President in 2014/2015.

He along with other tried to lure Trump into "collusion". You really should read the Mueller report, it's quite enlightening!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Obama was the President in 2014/2015.

He along with other tried to lure Trump into "collusion". You really should read the Mueller report, it's quite enlightening!

You should really read the Mueller Report as well. I am not even sure why I bothered to respond, knowing the answers I would receive.

 

[Enoch07]

You should really read the Mueller Report as well. I am not even sure why I bothered to respond, knowing the answers I would receive.

Hey you are the one who didn't know Obama was the President during the time when the alleged "collusion" took place. Dont't blame me for your ignorance.

 

[sealchan]

Apologetics will do you no good here.

The fake news CNN and MSNBC was not objectively reporting on what was going on. They was pushing a false narrative of guilt for 3 years before the Mueller report was complete.

Any examples where either of these news outlets stated Trump was guilty? Other than the obvious public evidence for obstruction?

Nah Barr accurately portrayed Muellers conclusion that there was not enough evidence to suggest conspiracy (collusion for the left wingers), or obstruction. Funny thing is, as the story unfolds, the "collusion" you're so obsessed with, appears to be entrapment ordered by Obama....can't indict a sitting president, but maybe we can incarcerate a real traitor to the American people.

Clear evidence of obstruction was found. Mueller referred the matter to Congress to pursue probably because you can't charge a sitting president with obstruction.

Hundreds of ex-prosecutors claim Trump would have been indicted if not president

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hey you are the one who didn't know Obama was the President during the time when the alleged "collusion" took place. Dont't blame me for your ignorance.

Exactly what I expected. I never made any claims about when Obama was president, so my knowledge of the duration of his presidency remains unknown to you, but you felt compelled to go there instead of directly to the question I asked. That says a lot about you and the nature of the basis of your claims and arrogant attitude.

I ask again, not expecting a legitimate answer, how did Obama accomplish this or it is just a conspiracy theory from a true believer and has no substance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Any examples where either of these news outlets stated Trump was guilty? Other than the obvious public evidence for obstruction?



Clear evidence of obstruction was found. Mueller referred the matter to Congress to pursue probably because you can't charge a sitting president with obstruction.

Hundreds of ex-prosecutors claim Trump would have been indicted if not president

He must have missed that during his many reading of the report.

 

[Enoch07]

Clear evidence of obstruction was found.

Then list it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then list it.

He tried to limit the special council, tried to have him fired and tampered with witnesses, but you know from your many readings of the report.

 

[Enoch07]

I ask again, not expecting a legitimate answer, how did Obama accomplish this or it is just a conspiracy theory from a true believer and has no substance.

As I said it's in the Mueller report so, dunno why you acting like it don't exist, for everyone to see.

F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016

FBI Used False Premise to Open Trump-Russia Investigation | National Review

 

[Enoch07]

He tried to limit the special council, tried to have him fired and tampered with witnesses, but you know from your many readings of the report.

Barr explained why these don't fall under obstruction during his testimony. I would think the Attorney General of the U.S. understands the law better than anyone else. Soz time to accept defeat.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As I said it's in the Mueller report so, dunno why you acting like it don't exist, for everyone to see.

F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016

FBI Used False Premise to Open Trump-Russia Investigation | National Review

If you have read he report and know the answer, why do you continue to evade responding. If you think I have not read it, then by all means give the answer or were you just making all that talk up.

It is a simple question and you claim to have the simple answers. Why try to play it off on me by making a straw man about my knowledge of when Obama held office. Pitiful.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Barr explained why these don't fall under obstruction during his testimony. I would think the Attorney General of the U.S. understands the law better than anyone else. Soz time to accept defeat.

You asked for a list and got it. Everything else is you just repeating the opinion of Barr and that opinion is challenged and not set in stone. The opinion of a group of ex-prosecutors indicates that they consider Trump's actions to warrant charges and that he only escapes by being a seated president. Do you think that a group of attorneys might know the law too?

 

[Enoch07]

If you have read he report and know the answer, why do you continue to evade responding. If you think I have not read it, then by all means give the answer or were you just making all that talk up.

It is a simple question and you claim to have the simple answers. Why try to play it off on me by making a straw man about my knowledge of when Obama held office. Pitiful.

I answered already in post # 74. If you wish to willfully ignore it that's on you.

 

[Enoch07]

Do you think that a group of attorneys might know the law too?

I think a group of lawyers will say anything you want them to say if you pay them enough.

Barr has the last say on obstruction and conspiracy charges. That say is based on Muellers findings and evidence.

The evidence was not strong enough to support charges.

End of story.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Barr explained why these don't fall under obstruction during his testimony. I would think the Attorney General of the U.S. understands the law better than anyone else. Soz time to accept defeat.

I

I answered already in post # 74. If you wish to willfully ignore it that's on you.

So nothing then but ad hominem responses. At least you are consistent. It has been educational.