The Mueller Report Reviewed by Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: BlackJackal

You have to ask yourself, are you an American or are you Trump's dog?

I'm an American and we are doing better under Trump than the last asshat, tyvm.

Trump's dog as a slur is kinda funny, coming from someone named Jackal...

So to rephrase your last line, I'm an American and who's bitch are you?

woof woof. I expected you to be nothing more than a dog. Logic never touches your mind.

Of all the times you and I have had discussions you have proven to be nothing but an emotional creature controlled by your feelings rather than knowledge or facts.

Quoted for the God level of irony that your post invokes.

You've never posted an actual fact that I've ever seen.

CNN talking points, Voxx, Mother Jones.

There is nothing that you have ever posted politically that I've ever read that isn't fueled by TDS.

That you can't see that and don't understand that is why you are so amusing to me that I reply to you.

It isn't woof woof, sweety... it's just me kicking the puppy.

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal
This is a very quick video. However, it does a good job overviewing the findings of the Mueller Report. Not the lies that Bill Barr spread. Not Bill Barr's interpretation of the law. The actual report itself.

Link

You have to ask yourself, are you an American or are you Trump's dog?

When you can’t explain it yourself, look for someone who tells you what you want to hear and get in line behind them. Pure confirmation bias. You’ve found your alpha. What does that make you?

It makes him someone's bitch.

Just pointing it out for the record...

originally posted by: rickymouse
He was a Tv judge for some years, similar to Judge Judy. He was a real judge for a while, but he went back to being a lawyer and then an actor. He probably has sour grapes against Trump because he was told Trump would consider him for the Supreme court job but he didn't. Well, all the nerve of Trump, one actor not supporting another actor being put into a high position.

Maybe the Supreme court should review Mueller's report and give us a real determination of what it legally says. This guy in the video went around in circles and said little of nothing, typical lawyer tactics. He is smart enough not to say something outright, most people who work with law and politics know you skirt everything, not saying anything positively. Answering questions with questions. I think they teach that at predominant colleges.

Why don't you listen to what Mueller and over 20 other law professionals stated?

Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice , we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards , however , we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President ' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

If you read the report. Actually, take the time to read the report you will see that Mueller uses logic to disprove all the reasons why Trump should be exonerated for Obstruction. Basically, he lays out in detail all the ways and reasons why someone could take the actions Trump did and not be guilty of obstruction. In all of the cases, he details the evidence that shows Trump's actions do NOT fall into those categories. So, If you disprove all the ways in which someone cannot be guilty you are left with a guilty person.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: BlackJackal
This is a very quick video. However, it does a good job overviewing the findings of the Mueller Report. Not the lies that Bill Barr spread. Not Bill Barr's interpretation of the law. The actual report itself.

Link

You have to ask yourself, are you an American or are you Trump's dog?

Well if you voted Democrat in the last election, you didn't think smashing a cell phone to conceal evidence was obstruction enough to sway you so why do think that Trumps supposed obstruction that pales in comparison would sway his voters?

Trumps Dog? That's low and pathetic

It was government procedure to wipe and destroy cell 'phones and tablets that may have contained secret data and were no longer in use.

No 'phones, that existed after the time they were subpoena'd, were destroyed. All phones capable of being surrendered, were.

There was no deliberate attempt to hide data from the investigators (although data that had been requested was deleted by accident due to miscommunication and IT support incompetence).

She had 13 ph's that mysteriously disappeared when the FBI requested them. Do you really think that she had no idea she was going to be investigated long before the investigation started? Do you really believe the data erased was an accident? C'mon, this isn't brain surgery. If you believe the narrative they tried selling, then I have a fine bridge for sale if interested.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: BlackJackal

You have to ask yourself, are you an American or are you Trump's dog?

I'm an American and we are doing better under Trump than the last asshat, tyvm.

Trump's dog as a slur is kinda funny, coming from someone named Jackal...

So to rephrase your last line, I'm an American and who's bitch are you?

woof woof. I expected you to be nothing more than a dog. Logic never touches your mind.

Of all the times you and I have had discussions you have proven to be nothing but an emotional creature controlled by your feelings rather than knowledge or facts.

Quoted for the God level of irony that your post invokes.

You've never posted an actual fact that I've ever seen.

CNN talking points, Voxx, Mother Jones.

There is nothing that you have ever posted politically that I've ever read that isn't fueled by TDS.

That you can't see that and don't understand that is why you are so amusing to me that I reply to you.

It isn't woof woof, sweety... it's just me kicking the puppy.

You have not once thought for yourself. Not one damn time. You regurgitate what you hear on the radio or TV. You are riled up by conspiracy theories which have zero proof. You refuse to accept direct evidence as truth if it doesn't fit the narrative of your mind. You are easily led by your right-wing masters.

Until you can start thinking for yourself and stop being a mind slave, I have nothing else to say to you. It's like talking to a damn wall.

a reply to: BlackJackal


In this country nobody has to prove their innocence. Innocent until proven guilty. Seriously, what's so hard to understand about that?

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal
This is a very quick video. However, it does a good job overviewing the findings of the Mueller Report. Not the lies that Bill Barr spread. Not Bill Barr's interpretation of the law. The actual report itself.

Link

You have to ask yourself, are you an American or are you Trump's dog?

When you can’t explain it yourself, look for someone who tells you what you want to hear and get in line behind them. Pure confirmation bias. You’ve found your alpha. What does that make you?

Have you read the report or have you just listened to the news? You see I have read the report, three times so far. I provide the video because for some reason unless it comes from Fox News people on the right wing have this odd habit of screaming "Fake News" at the top of their lungs while sticking their heads in the dirt.

If you have read the report this should be super simple to answer. Who was the first member of the Trump campaign to learn that Russia had Clinton's emails and wanted to give them to the campaign?

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: BlackJackal


In this country nobody has to prove their innocence. Innocent until proven guilty. Seriously, what's so hard to understand about that?

True that. However, in the case of a president its a tad more complicated as I'm sure you know. This report lays out a case against Trump that has ample evidence to bring a case against him for obstruction of justice. However, since he is the president the DOJ has a policy which prevents the DOJ from indicting him.

However, Congress has no such policy. So it is up to them to bring impeachment hearings against him. The impeachment hearings will be the trial of the president.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal
This is a very quick video. However, it does a good job overviewing the findings of the Mueller Report. Not the lies that Bill Barr spread. Not Bill Barr's interpretation of the law. The actual report itself.

Link

You have to ask yourself, are you an American or are you Trump's dog?

When you can’t explain it yourself, look for someone who tells you what you want to hear and get in line behind them. Pure confirmation bias. You’ve found your alpha. What does that make you?

Have you read the report or have you just listened to the news? You see I have read the report, three times so far. I provide the video because for some reason unless it comes from Fox News people on the right wing have this odd habit of screaming "Fake News" at the top of their lungs while sticking their heads in the dirt.

If you have read the report this should be super simple to answer. Who was the first member of the Trump campaign to learn that Russia had Clinton's emails and wanted to give them to the campaign?

Then you know the conclusion of the investigation.

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal
This is a very quick video. However, it does a good job overviewing the findings of the Mueller Report. Not the lies that Bill Barr spread. Not Bill Barr's interpretation of the law. The actual report itself.

Link

You have to ask yourself, are you an American or are you Trump's dog?

When you can’t explain it yourself, look for someone who tells you what you want to hear and get in line behind them. Pure confirmation bias. You’ve found your alpha. What does that make you?

Have you read the report or have you just listened to the news? You see I have read the report, three times so far. I provide the video because for some reason unless it comes from Fox News people on the right wing have this odd habit of screaming "Fake News" at the top of their lungs while sticking their heads in the dirt.

If you have read the report this should be super simple to answer. Who was the first member of the Trump campaign to learn that Russia had Clinton's emails and wanted to give them to the campaign?

Then you know the conclusion of the investigation.

So you accuse me of not understanding the report when you yourself haven't read it? I will give you one more chance to think for yourself. What do you think the conclusion of the Mueller report was?

Does he give the actual conclusion or does he just regurgitate what the right-wing media is purporting to be the truth?

I'm pulling for you.

a reply to: BlackJackal

In May of 2017, Napolitano was intimidated/threatened/coerced by Intelligence Agency operatives, into his current (mostly) anti-Trump stance on most issues.

Thankfully President Trump isn't intimidated by them, and Thankfully President Trump is the one who holds the power and has the will to get the "deep state" crooks.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: BlackJackal

In May of 2017, Napolitano was intimidated/threatened/coerced by Intelligence Agency operatives, into his current (mostly) anti-Trump stance on most issues.

Thankfully President Trump isn't intimidated by them, and Thankfully President Trump is the one who holds the power and has the will to get the "deep state" crooks.

You have proof of that claim or is this just another of your conspiracy theories that someone on some board thought sounded good?

a reply to: BlackJackal

It's amazing that you can actually post this and think this is proof some criminal act occurred...

The evidence we 
obtained about the President ' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from 
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does 
not conclude that the President committed a crime, ...

I mean, hey, I'm sure a talking head on TV will tell you what you want to hear and what they "really" meant though...

a reply to: BlackJackal

FBI Investigators Recover Clinton Emails Thought To Have Been Lost (September 23, 2015)

😎adjustable metric crescent wrench😎

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: BlackJackal
This is a very quick video. However, it does a good job overviewing the findings of the Mueller Report. Not the lies that Bill Barr spread. Not Bill Barr's interpretation of the law. The actual report itself.

Link

You have to ask yourself, are you an American or are you Trump's dog?

When you can’t explain it yourself, look for someone who tells you what you want to hear and get in line behind them. Pure confirmation bias. You’ve found your alpha. What does that make you?

Have you read the report or have you just listened to the news? You see I have read the report, three times so far. I provide the video because for some reason unless it comes from Fox News people on the right wing have this odd habit of screaming "Fake News" at the top of their lungs while sticking their heads in the dirt.

If you have read the report this should be super simple to answer. Who was the first member of the Trump campaign to learn that Russia had Clinton's emails and wanted to give them to the campaign?

Then you know the conclusion of the investigation.

So you accuse me of not understanding the report when you yourself haven't read it? I will give you one more chance to think for yourself. What do you think the conclusion of the Mueller report was?

Does he give the actual conclusion or does he just regurgitate what the right-wing media is purporting to be the truth?

I'm pulling for you.

We’ve read the same report. We both know the conclusion. And we both know you guys have been peddling conspiracy theory for years.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: BlackJackal

In May of 2017, Napolitano was intimidated/threatened/coerced by Intelligence Agency operatives, into his current (mostly) anti-Trump stance on most issues.

Thankfully President Trump isn't intimidated by them, and Thankfully President Trump is the one who holds the power and has the will to get the "deep state" crooks.

I find it hilarious that you are so disconnected from reality that you are more likely to believe a conspiracy theory about Napolitano being intimidated/threatened/coerced by Intelligence Agency operatives instead of the well-detailed conclusions of a bi-partisanly respected prosecutor.

On one hand, you have an almost 500-page well-detailed report and on the other, you have a conspiracy theory. And you choose the conspiracy theory.

Can't you see that you are doing mental backflips just to keep your world view intact? Are you that afraid to confront the fact that you made a mistake by going all in on Trump? I would pity you but honestly after all the time and proof you have been provided there is literally no hope for you. You are doomed to be a puppet.

a reply to: BlackJackal


It's really not more complicated though. Nobody has to prove their innocence. Not Trump, Hillary, me, you, or the other 300+ million Americans.

Let the Senate initiate impeachment. I hope they do. It isn't going to do anything though.Wiki

The impeached official remains in office until a trial is held. That trial, and their removal from office if convicted, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.

They still have to prove in a court of law that laws were broken. Trump doesn't have to prove he didn't break any laws.

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: BlackJackal

In May of 2017, Napolitano was intimidated/threatened/coerced by Intelligence Agency operatives, into his current (mostly) anti-Trump stance on most issues.

Thankfully President Trump isn't intimidated by them, and Thankfully President Trump is the one who holds the power and has the will to get the "deep state" crooks.

You have proof of that claim or is this just another of your conspiracy theories that someone on some board thought sounded good?

The Nap outed the involvement of GCHQ spying (at the time a wild conspiracy).

He was then blackmailed 😎

a reply to: BlackJackal

 This report lays out a case against Trump that has ample evidence to bring a case against him for obstruction of justice. However, since he is the president the DOJ has a policy which prevents the DOJ from indicting him. 

It doesn't say that. Nowhere does it say, "we conclude the President clearly committed a crime, but we are unable to indict because of the OLC's policy on presidential indictments"

In fact it goes as far to say, "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime".


You're being led by the nose. The same people publicly screaming for impeachment are now having private meanings trying to reign in the public impeachment talk. At the same time they get in front of cameras telling you he's clearly guilty and the report "really" says so, they are not following up on impeachment. That make any sense to you? If after two years of "Mueller is closing in. Putin puppet!" the report says, "we cannot conclude the President committed a crime", and they are still telling you what to believe. And aren't actually moving to impeach.

Trump's superpower really is making people stupid.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: BlackJackal

It's amazing that you can actually post this and think this is proof some criminal act occurred...

The evidence we 
obtained about the President ' s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from 
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does 
not conclude that the President committed a crime, ...

I mean, hey, I'm sure a talking head on TV will tell you what you want to hear and what they "really" meant though...

I find it telling that you left out half of that sentence.

Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him

Members of the Mueller team have told reporters that the reason why they left it that way even while they laid out overwhelming evidence of a crime is that they did not have the power to indict the president. They laid out the charges and left a roadmap for Congress to follow.

Also, Mueller made it clear that if he could have exonerated Trump on obstruction he would have done that. But guess what? He didn't.