Circling The Arguments (SCO thread v. 32)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SBJJ said:
When a defendant is not found guilty. When the evidence is not strong enough. That defendant is essentially cleared
Click to expand...
The report says he was not indicted because he was the president. What you said applies to normal citizens, and what Mueller laid out shows Trump clearly obstructed justice in many obvious ways.

The fact people are defending this means they just don't care if the president is a criminal, or a repeated liar, and all the other negative things.

It's on congress now, defending the actual facts of this as "He's not a convicted criminal so he's good with me" is utterly ridiculous.
 
andnowweknow said:
The report says he was not indicted because he was the president. What you said applies to normal citizens, and what Mueller laid out shows Trump clearly obstructed justice in many obvious ways.

The fact people are defending this means they just don't care if the president is a criminal, or a repeated liar, and all the other negative things.

It's on congress now, defending the actual facts of this as "He's not a convicted criminal so he's good with me" is utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
So then your beloved Dems will impeach, right? Right?
 
waiguoren said:
Mueller report, page 5:

The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected that it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Link to the full Mueller report: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/18/us/politics/mueller-report-document.html

@kpt018
Click to expand...
"I'm not sure why they would interfere with the election" - Trump

you're a joke for defending this stuff.
 
waiguoren said:
hi IGIT,

Prosecutors never exonerate.

- waiguoren
Click to expand...
right but the context of Mueller's comment is still extraordinarily meaningful.

"If the special counsel's office had been certain that Trump did not commit crimes, Mueller said, it would have said so in the report."

the attempts to strip that context and reduce this to contextless phrase are deliberate and obvious.
 
SBJJ said:
The report does NOT conclude guilt.

It gives both sides
Click to expand...
If you are really going to be that dense about what Mueller wrote, ok. He says he can't indict a sitting president REPEATEDLY and refers to this as "not a traditional" investigation. The evidence for obstruction is overwhelming, not "both sides"...the entire reason they didn't pursue an interview with the president fully is that you can't indict a sitting president, so they figured that applied to forcing an interview.

Barr has basically lied through omission. The fact people are defending this behavior is an utter joke.
 
method115 said:
I wonder if they will actually try and impeach him. Nancy Pelosi didn't seem to want to do it before the report even came out. You'd think she'd wait for that at the very least.

I assume the redactions are just fine since I don't see anyone complaining about that part.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. I’d say figure out an angle and just beat it to death during the election. Dems will need a great candidate as well to accomplish this
 
SBJJ said:
Some evidence does not equal guilt. Plenty of innocent people have been convicted on evidence to later be exonerated with DNA.

The fact Mueller saw some evidence means Jack shit. He did not conclude guilt.

You are essentially cherry picking the report but NOT accepting the bottom line
Click to expand...
And what’s the bottom line? I’m not arguing he should go to jail (although it looks like there’s a great case against him when he’s done as president) but there’s more than enough to show he shouldn’t be president.
 
zebby23 said:
It’s trump we’re talking about and that says something. The guy knew he was dealing with dirty people and he knew he himself was dirty.

And if I was innocent I would say, “I’m fucked” I’d say bring the investigation on.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't say "bring on the investigation" if you believed the investigation was going to f*** you, no matter what. Your reluctance to concede this notion is more telling than anything else.

I bet there are more than a few innocent men and women charged of crimes they didn't commit who have uttered "I'm fu****" because they believed the judiciary system was stacked against them from the start. I bet no innocent black person has ever thought "I'm fu****" because they believed their skin color would be all the judicial system would need to convict.

Your argument doesn't hold water. Sorry.
 
andnowweknow said:
The report says he was not indicted because he was the president. What you said applies to normal citizens, and what Mueller laid out shows Trump clearly obstructed justice in many obvious ways.

The fact people are defending this means they just don't care if the president is a criminal, or a repeated liar, and all the other negative things.

It's on congress now, defending the actual facts of this as "He's not a convicted criminal so he's good with me" is utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I gotta admit. I'm not surprised u are still calling him a criminal

I mean, did anyone think you would stop your nonsense
 
SBJJ said:
When a defendant is not found guilty. When the evidence is not strong enough. That defendant is essentially cleared
Click to expand...
lol. that is so wrong and dumb.

First off he was not found 'not guilty' as that means there was a trial.

Second if your statement is true that means anyone that cannot be charged at the time of investigation is never found guilty later. it is fact that charges not being brought now does not establish the person is cleared or innocent based on some people being charged and found guilty subsequently.
 
DrDune said:
You wouldn't say "bring on the investigation" if you believed the investigation was going to f*** you, no matter what. Your reluctance to concede this notion is more telling than anything else.

I bet there are more than a few innocent men and women charged of crimes they didn't commit who have uttered "I'm fu****" because they believed the judiciary system was stacked against them from the start. I bet no innocent black person has ever thought "I'm fu****" because they believed their skin color would be all the judicial system would need to convict.

Your argument doesn't hold water. Sorry.
Click to expand...

You are comparing Trump to a black person? Interesting

I see your point and what I’m saying is Trump does not get the benefit of the doubt.
 
Think about the new narrative

Trump must prove his innocence. How does one do that.
 
Strychnine said:
Sooooo Presidential...

th
Click to expand...

Mind if I keep this gif?

I want to use it every time you leftists say something STUPID-AS-FUCK.

Thanks.
 
zebby23 said:
I doubt it. I’d say figure out an angle and just beat it to death during the election. Dems will need a great candidate as well to accomplish this
Click to expand...


They don't have any. Creepy joe was their best bet and he's been eliminated already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,710
Messages
58,312,960
Members
175,997
Latest member
Fitboy485

Share this page

Back
Top