*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

Wow you're really talking yourself in circles here.

First, you ackowledge that Mueller can't indict Trump but somehow that becomes: the fact that he didn't indict him means Trump wins.

Second, since Mueller provided all kinds of information on OOJ and not on treason, the information he gave on OOJ is meaningless somehow.

Then, collusion isn't a crime, so you question why didn't Mueller talk about a non-crime in his criminal investigation. Makes no sense at all.

It's almost like listening to Guiliani.

[TheSpoonald]

Wow you're really talking yourself in circles here.

Your inability to grasp straight-line logic doesn't mean it's circular.

First, you ackowledge that Mueller can't indict Trump

For the record, I acknowledged this way before it was cool.

but somehow that becomes: the fact that he didn't indict him means Trump wins.

Just because Mueller couldn't indict doesn't mean he couldn't disclose improper activity. Trump wins because Mueller found no evidence to corroborate any allegation of treasonous or collusive activity. No indictment just seems like a neato bonus.

Second, since Mueller provided all kinds of information on OOJ and not on treason, the information he gave on OOJ is meaningless somehow.

How are you drawing that conclusion from what I said? The information on OOJ is meaningless because it's not convincing enough to compel any meaningful action in response.

Then, collusion isn't a crime, so you question why didn't Mueller talk about a non-crime in his criminal investigation. Makes no sense at all.

Then entire report is about non-crime. You CNN'd yourself.

[Poopadoop]

I'm afraid you don't actually understand anything about what the Mueller Investigation's purpose was. It wasn't to try to frame Trump for treason, despite what Tucker Carlson might want you to think. It was to investigate Russian interference.

So...not finding evidence the POTUS was a traitor is not a win for POTUS, except inasmuch as he won't have to face a firing squad anytime soon. Reporting hundreds of pages of evidence of OOJ by POTUS is a loss for POTUS, inasmuch as he could potentially be impeached and/or be tried for OOJ once he's no longer POTUS.

[TheSpoonald]

I'm afraid you don't actually understand anything about what the Mueller Investigation's purpose was. It wasn't to try to frame Trump for treason, despite what Tucker Carlson might want you to think. It was to investigate Russian interference..

Wrong.

According to its authorizing document, which was signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017, the investigation's scope included allegations that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government

So...not finding evidence the POTUS was a traitor is not a win for POTUS,

Huh? It's not only a win for POTUS, it's a win for America.

he could potentially be impeached and/or be tried for OOJ once he's no longer POTUS

A) He won't be. And B) he probably won't live that long.

[Poopadoop]

.

The key word in your little quote there is 'included allegations that there were links...'. That's a big difference from 'a witch hunt' or 'frame job' or whatever.

[Poopadoop]

The information on OOJ is meaningless because it's not convincing enough to compel any meaningful action in response.

He tried to fire Mueller.

You Fox'd yourself.

[Poopadoop]

Don't forget that Trump tried to obstruct an investigation that was going to clear him of treason. You can draw two possible conclusions from this:

1.He was guilty and was afraid of what Mueller might find out about his dealings with Putin.

2.He really is innocent of treason/collusion/whatever with Putin but was so dumb that he broke the law to try to end the bad press he was getting over it.

So take your pick: Is Trump either 1) a criminal; or 2) a criminal retard?

[TheSpoonald]

He tried to fire Mueller.

100% false.

if he "Tried", then why didn't he succeed?

[Poopadoop]

100% false.

if he "Tried", then why didn't he succeed?

We've been through this; go back and read it again if you like.

Did he also 'try' to order McGahn to lie about 'trying' to fire Mueller?

And, because McGahn wouldn't lie, do you believe that makes Trump innocent of ordering him to lie?

[TheSpoonald]

We've been through this; go back and read it again if you like.

Did he also 'try' to order McGahn to lie about 'trying' to fire Mueller?

And, because McGahn wouldn't lie, do you believe that makes Trump innocent of ordering him to lie?

Lie to who?

[Poopadoop]

Lie to who?

Well, if i understand it correctly, Trump ordered McGahn to release a statement claiming Trump never told him to fire Mueller.

But according to you, this isn't a problem because McGahn didn't obey him.

[oskar]

Banana, I'd still love for you to tell me in your own words what you think the Mueller investigation investigated.

[TheSpoonald]

Banana, I'd still love for you to tell me in your own words what you think the Mueller investigation investigated.

The authorizing document for the special counsel investigation lists three purposes of the investigation.

1) Links between Trump and Russia
2) Whatever else the find while investigating links between Trump and Russia
3) Whatever other shit they can think of later.


Notice it doesn't say "prosecute". It doesn't say "indict". It doesn't even say "identify a crime" or anything like that. It just says "tell us what happened please"