Trump ass-kissers still haven't read the Mueller report

[RandomGuy]

Guessing that the board die-hards still haven't bothered reading it.

Took me a couple of weekends to go through it, but it was pretty damning.

[Spurtacular]

Did you read ACA?

[Pavlov]

*completely unrelated ding*

[Spurtacular]

*completely unrelated ding*

They're quite related in context of the point he is trying to make. But :lol at you trying to blow it off.

[Thanos]

Did you read ACA?
Did you?

[Spurtacular]

Did you?

Wasn't I supposed to find out what's in it when it was passed?

[Thanos]

Wasn't I supposed to find out what's in it when it was passed?
You’ve had literally years to find out now. Did you?

[Spurtacular]

You’ve had literally years to find out now. Did you?

:lol Slob doesn't know he's in checkmate.

[Thanos]

:lol Slob doesn't know he's in checkmate.
:lol Derp with the white flag

[Spurtacular]

:lol Derp with the white flag

Buzzwords won't get it done. You should know to spar with your fellow featherweights by now, tbh.

[Pavlov]

They're quite related in context of the point he is trying to make.In what way?

Explain without using the word regard.

[Pavlov]

Wasn't I supposed to find out what's in it when it was passed?Why haven't you?

[Thanos]

Buzzwords won't get it done. You should know to spar with your fellow featherweights by now, tbh.
-“Buzzwords won’t get it done”
-Proceeds to vomit out a slew of buzzwords
:lmao

[Spurtacular]

-“Buzzwords won’t get it done”
-Proceeds to vomit out a slew of buzzwords
:lmao

Nice try, featherweight.

[RandomGuy]

Did you read ACA?

Yes. At the time I was auditing HMOs, a couple of which were owned by hospital systems. Had a good hour long talk with both the HMO CEO and senior staff on it, as well as a separate conversation with the hospital system CEO.

Funny thing is that it really wasn't as large of a law as people think once it was condensed out of the format they normally put laws in. (double spaced, narrow columns).

Have you read the Mueller report, or are you just relying on the con man to tell you what's in it?

[Nbadan]

Forget Trumpsters....the real problem is that the general public hasn't bothered to read it. 5 provable, in court, cases of obstruction

[Spurtacular]

Have you read the Mueller report, or are you just relying on the con man to tell you what's in it?

Why are you asking me this? You made this cry thread based on this interaction with me already.

[Spurtacular]

Yes. At the time I was auditing HMOs, a couple of which were owned by hospital systems. Had a good hour long talk with both the HMO CEO and senior staff on it, as well as a separate conversation with the hospital system CEO.

Funny thing is that it really wasn't as large of a law as people think once it was condensed out of the format they normally put laws in. (double spaced, narrow columns).


And they apparently did not have a lot of good things to say about it or you'd be ejaculating all over the place.

[Pavlov]

Why are you asking me this? You made this cry thread based on this interaction with me already.Just say you haven't read it, derp.

Everyone knows you haven't read it.

Everyone knows you're derp and you are incapable of independent thought or initiative.

Just own it.

[UnWantedTheory]

Did you read ACA?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/

[Spurtacular]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/

:lmao Shut up.
:lmao "Fact checking" out of both sides of the ass.


What's True Nancy Pelosi did utter the words attributed to her about the passage of the Affordable Care Act.


What's False The infamous soundbite doesn't reflect the full context and meaning of her remarks.

[Pavlov]

derp didn't read the Snopes article either.

Have you ever read anything other than headlines or tweets?

[UnWantedTheory]

derp didn't read the Snopes article either.

Have you ever read anything other than headlines or tweets?
At this point I am not sure he can.

[UnWantedTheory]

"Most important, the contents of the Affordable Care Act had been publicly available (http://www.snopes.com/aca-versus-ahca/) and publicly debated for months when Pelosi made her remarks in March 2010. The bill (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/PLAW-111publ148/PLAW-111publ148/content-detail.html), in its original form, was passed by the House of Representatives in October 2009, and in the Senate that December. Although the bill was unusually long (the act runs to 906 pages (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf) in the legislative record, with many more pages of regulations) its contents had been subjected to intensive debate and scrutiny in both houses of Congress.
That process was fundamentally different to the secrecy surrounding the Republican-sponsored American Health Care Act, when Pelosi tweeted on 20 June 2017 that “Americans deserve to know what’s in the [Republican healthcare] bill.” At that time, the architects of the legislation had not published any of its contents. (A draft (https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SENATEHEALTHCARE.pdf) of the bill was published on 22 June 2017, two days after Pelosi’s tweet)."

[Thanos]

Nice try, featherweight.
More buzzwords :lmao

[Th'Pusher]

For those who don’t like or are unable to read, Sam Harris had a nice post-mortem with Benjamin Wittes on his podcast. Highly recommend

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/making-sense-with-sam-harris/id733163012?i=1000438890298

^ for this in the Apple ecosystem.

Fuck Android users.

[RandomGuy]

Why are you asking me this? You made this cry thread based on this interaction with me already.

Not a cry thread at all, liar.

It is merely a chance for any of you ass-kissers to finally claim to have actually read the report, rather than take the word of a con man for what it says.

Do you know how gullible you look?

[RandomGuy]

Yes. At the time I was auditing HMOs, a couple of which were owned by hospital systems. Had a good hour long talk with both the HMO CEO and senior staff on it, as well as a separate conversation with the hospital system CEO.

Funny thing is that it really wasn't as large of a law as people think once it was condensed out of the format they normally put laws in. (double spaced, narrow columns).



And they apparently did not have a lot of good things to say about it or you'd be ejaculating all over the place.

Both considered the ACA to be a good thing. I can see though, why you would want to change the subject from your gullibility.

[Spurtacular]

Not a cry thread at all, liar.

It is merely a chance for any of you ass-kissers to finally claim to have actually read the report, rather than take the word of a con man for what it says.

Do you know how gullible you look?

:cry It's not a cry thread :cry

:lmao

[Spurtacular]

Both considered the ACA to be a good thing.

As fellow snowflakes, maybe.

As competent admins, absolutely not.

[Pavlov]

As fellow snowflakes, maybe.

As competent admins, absolutely not.What is your specific problem with the ACA aside from the fact you were instructed not to like it.

[Spurtacular]

What is your specific problem with the ACA aside from the fact you were instructed not to like it.

Talking out of your ass again. I've said how it adversely affected me multiple times now.

Am I to take it from your tone that you're a proponent of the scam?

[Pavlov]

Talking out of your ass again. I've said how it adversely affected me multiple times now.But you never read it.


Am I to take it from your tone that you're a proponent of the scam?Nope. I'm for accelerating the inevitability of single payer.

What's your alternative?

Let's see it.

[RandomGuy]

:cry It's not a cry thread :cry

:lmao

Still haven't read the Mueller report. :lmao

[RandomGuy]

Talking out of your ass again. I've said how it adversely affected me multiple times now.

Am I to take it from your tone that you're a proponent of the scam?

I am a proponent of universal health insurance. Everybody pays a tax to their ability to pay, and everybody is covered to a reasonable minimum. This shit is not difficult.

The ACA was better than what came before it, because more people got coverage. Don't remember your foibles, but get a fucking helmet or, you know, make a cry thread about it. ;)

[RandomGuy]

Still waiting on TSA

Read it yet, smoochy?

[boutons_deux]

everybody is covered to a reasonable minimum.

WTF is "reasonable"? :lol and why "minimum".

what do you consider health care beyond "reasonable minimum", which I assume means the patient pays for the unreasonable health care, up to the maximum?

[Spurtacular]

Still haven't read the Mueller report. :lmao

Heard about it for two years nonstop and still have no desire to read it.

Biggest nothing burger of all-time. :lmao

[Spurtacular]

I am a proponent of universal health insurance. Everybody pays a tax to their ability to pay, and everybody is covered to a reasonable minimum. This shit is not difficult.

The ACA was better than what came before it, because more people got coverage. Don't remember your foibles, but get a fucking helmet or, you know, make a cry thread about it. ;)

And that's the lowering of standards. People don't even get reasonable minimums once you take the market out of it. You're a fucking shmuck.

[RandomGuy]

Heard about it for two years nonstop and still have no desire to read it.

Biggest nothing burger of all-time. :lmao

If you won't read it, how do you know it is a nothing burger?

[KenMcCoy]

Guessing that the board die-hards still haven't bothered reading it.

Took me a couple of weekends to go through it, but it was pretty damning.

What, in your opinion, are the most damning parts?

[spurraider21]

Wasn't I supposed to find out what's in it when it was passed?


:lol Slob doesn't know he's in checkmate.


Buzzwords won't get it done.
:lmao

[RandomGuy]

What, in your opinion, are the most damning parts?

Manafort data sharing with Kilimnik and the back and forth over wikileaks data for the collusion end.

There are four pretty solid instances of obstruction of justice, with arguably about 4 more that could be put forth out of the 12 odd that were considered.

[TSA]

Manafort data sharing with Kilimnik and the back and forth over wikileaks data for the collusion end.

There are four pretty solid instances of obstruction of justice, with arguably about 4 more that could be put forth out of the 12 odd that were considered.

Neither Manafort nor Kilimnik were charged for any data sharing. No one on the Trump campaign nor Wikileaks was charged for conspiring/coordinating/colluding with each other, it wasn't even hinted at in the Mueller report and Mueller flat out debunks it in the Corsi statement of the offense. There was no coordination with Wikileaks, stop peddling lies.

[RandomGuy]

Neither Manafort nor Kilimnik were charged for any data sharing. No one on the Trump campaign nor Wikileaks was charged for conspiring/coordinating/colluding with each other, it wasn't even hinted at in the Mueller report and Mueller flat out debunks it in the Corsi statement of the offense. There was no coordination with Wikileaks, stop peddling lies.

When I talk to delusional Christians they say the same kinds things about "what science says", while demonstrating a complete lack of understanding. The mental gymnastics required to retain delusional belief systems are amusing. You don't understand the context of what Mueller found because you haven't done the work.

I can't read the report for you. No point in saying much more than that.

[Spurtacular]

If you won't read it, how do you know it is a nothing burger?

You must've missed the part where I heard about this for two years.

Try following along, kidnapper.

[RandomGuy]

You must've missed the part where I heard about this for two years.

Try following along, kidnapper.

You "heard about it". :lmao

But you didn't read it.

You probably heard about that evilution too. :rollin

https://bigmemes.funnyjunk.com/pictures/Self_2d91b9_3035887.jpg

[Chucho]

You "heard about it". :lmao

But you didn't read it.

You probably heard about that evilution too. :rollin

https://bigmemes.funnyjunk.com/pictures/Self_2d91b9_3035887.jpg

:rollin


LOL, derp just logged in and already getting skull fucked. :lol

[Spurtacular]

You "heard about it". :lmao

But you didn't read it.

You probably heard about that evilution too. :rollin

https://bigmemes.funnyjunk.com/pictures/Self_2d91b9_3035887.jpg

You try so hard.

[RandomGuy]

You try so hard.

You fail so hard. :rollin

"heard about it". :rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

[RandomGuy]

:rollin


LOL, derp just logged in and already getting skull fucked. :lol

You're welcome. :lol

Welcome to spurtacular's mind. He "hears about things" then "knows".

https://uccexpress.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Twilight-Zone-opening-title-1024x506.jpg

[RandomGuy]

There are four pretty solid instances of obstruction of justice, with arguably about 4 more that could be put forth out of the 12 odd that were considered.



Neither Manafort nor Kilimnik were charged for any data sharing. No one on the Trump campaign nor Wikileaks was charged for conspiring/coordinating/colluding with each other, it wasn't even hinted at in the Mueller report and Mueller flat out debunks it in the Corsi statement of the offense. There was no coordination with Wikileaks, stop peddling lies.

Gee, no comment on the obstruction of justice. :lol

I'm shocked, shocked I say.

[Spurtacular]

You fail so hard. :rollin

"heard about it". :rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

Yup. Been hearing about it all the time. Just heard Mueller's press conference. He confirmed it was a nothing burger.

:lmao You're such a pube. :lmao

[Winehole23]

https://media1.giphy.com/media/l1J3wxSwYy5UPOS1a/source.gif

[Winehole23]

https://i.imgur.com/jY0wcYC.jpg

[Winehole23]

https://i.imgur.com/8CnRs9G.jpg

[Winehole23]

https://i.imgur.com/IH3evA2.jpg

[KenMcCoy]

Manafort data sharing with Kilimnik and the back and forth over wikileaks data for the collusion end.

There are four pretty solid instances of obstruction of justice, with arguably about 4 more that could be put forth out of the 12 odd that were considered.

What are those four pretty solid instances of obstruction in your opinion?

[Winehole23]

What are those four pretty solid instances of obstruction in your opinion?Jesus, go look something up.

RG must've posted that particular list a dozen times already.

[RandomGuy]

What are those four pretty solid instances of obstruction in your opinion?




FIRST FELONY
E. Efforts to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

THIRD FELONY
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY
J. Conduct toward... Manafort


Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.

[RandomGuy]

https://i.imgur.com/IH3evA2.jpg

?????

[RandomGuy]

Yup. Been hearing about it all the time. Just heard Mueller's press conference. He confirmed it was a nothing burger.

:lmao You're such a pube. :lmao

Still haven't read the report, but you "heard about it". :lol

[Winehole23]

?????Jodorowsky, THE HOLY MOUNTAIN.




(Conquest of the New World by Hernan Cortes, as performed by liveried frogs and lizards)

[Spurtacular]

Still haven't read the report, but you "heard about it". :lol
:lmao Mueller said no proof of collusion and no proof of obstruction.
:lmao Kidnapper swallowing hard dat nothing burger.

[RandomGuy]

Jodorowsky, THE HOLY MOUNTAIN.




(Conquest of the New World by Hernan Cortes, as performed by liveried frogs and lizards)

Um, okay.. that is what it was, but why?

(going for hte twilight zone bizarro theme?)

[RandomGuy]

:lmao Mueller said no proof of collusion and no proof of obstruction.
:lmao Kidnapper swallowing hard dat nothing burger.

Didn't read the report, but "heard about" what's in it. :lmao



FIRST FELONY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
E. Efforts to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”

SECOND FELONY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
F. Efforts to curtail Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

THIRD FELONY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller


Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

FOURTH FELONY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
J. Conduct toward... Manafort


Obstructive act (p. 131): “The President’s actions toward witnesses … would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.” ...Regarding Manafort, “there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential” to influence Manafort’s thinking on cooperation, and his public statements “had the potential to influence the trial jury.”

Nexus (p. 132): Trump’s actions toward [Manafort and others] “appear to have been connected to pending or anticipated official proceedings involving each individual.”

Intent (p. 132): “[e]vidence … indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort not to cooperate with the government,” though “there are alternative explanations” for Trump’s comments during the Manafort trial.


:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Neither Manafort nor Kilimnik were charged for any data sharing. No one on the Trump campaign nor Wikileaks was charged for conspiring/coordinating/colluding with each other, it wasn't even hinted at in the Mueller report and Mueller flat out debunks it in the Corsi statement of the offense. There was no coordination with Wikileaks, stop peddling lies.

Nuthing to say either about Trumps felonies detailed in the report. Chickenshit.

[Spurtacular]

Nuthing to say either about Trumps felonies detailed in the report. Chickenshit.

The ones based on ifs and even then spurious?

:lmao kidnapper

[RandomGuy]

The ones based on ifs and even then spurious?

:lmao kidnapper


“Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]

Find the "IF" in that statement. :rollin

[Pavlov]

Like derp could even read a sentence....

[RandomGuy]

Like derp could even read a sentence....

He does have a thesaurus though. :lol

He's very peristeronic.

[Nbadan]

for you conservatives

https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Report-Findings-Special-Investigation/dp/B07NMVF5SQ/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?keywords=free+mueller+report+audi ble&qid=1559172829&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmr0

[Winehole23]

for you conservatives

https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Report-Findings-Special-Investigation/dp/B07NMVF5SQ/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?keywords=free+mueller+report+audi ble&qid=1559172829&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmr0very odd to assume Mueller stans have read it either, present company naturally excepted.

[RandomGuy]

very odd to assume Mueller stans have read it either, present company naturally excepted.

This was some dry reading, I can see how many won't bother. I read dry, long, legalistic documents for a living, and I found it a slog. All the more impressive that Warren read it, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

The ones based on ifs and even then spurious?

:lmao kidnapper

Red it yet, smoochy?

[Spurs Homer]

very odd to assume Mueller stans have read it either, present company naturally excepted.

I'm on my THIRD reading of it.

Why has no one pointed out that the "taint" team kept substantial evidence AWAY FROM

Mueller -

based on "executive privilege"

and Rosenstein's memo's where he narrowed it down to

Papadopoulous, Manafort,Flynn, Cohen, Stone and REDACTED -

of the ONLY people that Mueller could legally pursue and/or file criminal charges on?

I have read and re-read and I have seen NO ONE calling this out???

Mueller not only was unable to pursue Trump and file charges - he was also unable to pursue ANYONE that was not on Rosenstein's memos.

Sure - he could refer any crimes that "arose" but - now he seems to be forced to reveal NOTHING.

This is going to get really nasty by the time we peel the layers and layers and layers of protection that these criminals received.

[RandomGuy]

Still waiting on TSA to actually read the report.