Mueller Report-Volume ll - Obstruction of justice.

Fuck you. I've been drinking my sorrows away with this pathetic Steelers defense. I don't mind the spell check since I've had my mind in both places.

Five fuckin' recovered turnovers and still lose?




















Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Was that supposed to hurt? Nice try at deflecting that you made a jackass out of yourself. A spelling Nazi who can’t spell!!!! You fucked yourself!

^^^ Now you're making sense! Rudolph is still maturing. Originally Posted by lustylad

He never makes sense. But the Steelers “braintrust” played way too conservative in the first half. The 9ers knew it. They opened it up in the second half and Rudolph showed he can handle it.

He never makes sense. But the Steelers “braintrust” played way tooconservative in the first half. The 9ers knew it. They opened it up in the second half and Rudolph showed he can handle it. Originally Posted by bambino

T double O!


Someone who claims the investigation team is full of Hillary-loving Democrats and still found "no collusion, no obstruction" doesn't make sense themselves. How is that possible? Are those "dim-tards" right when they "exonerated" the conman-in-cheif? How stupid can you both be?



The secondary is nonexistent. The line showed weakness toward the end. The backers need to get their timing right. The offense seems to be homogenizing nicely, but only half a team is only going to get you half a season of wins.

^^ SPELLING FLUNKY^^

Is toOconsevative one word? Or did you forget to put a space between the O and c?


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You should explain if you don't want to look stupid. You posted two identical "Articles of Impeachment" as if they were separate grounds to impeach - when in fact they appear to be the same.

I'm giving you a chance to redeem yourself instead of looking stupid. If you don't bother to read or understand what you post here before you post it, and can't explain it when you are called out to do so, then you look pretty stupid.

And we're not talking about Vol. II of the Mueller report. We're talking about the so-called Articles of Impeachment you threw up in your posts #85 and #88. Stop deflecting.

And tell us your source for those so-called Articles of Impeachment. We know you didn't write them all by yourself. Originally Posted by lustylad

Those articles were written by a group of the 1000 ex federal prosecutors who have stated the fat lying bastard would have been indicted had he not been sitting president. I doubt Hannity or the other Russian sympathizing carnival barkers let you know about it. I suppose you know more about the law than they do.
You’re the one looking stupid for just being you.

^^ SPELLING FLUNKY^^ Originally Posted by bambino

Shouldn’t you be off memorizing the new trump/ rudy deep state conspiracy instead of showing your dumbass off in my thread..

YES. I'm not surprised I'm losing you. Meuller is not a shor-term or small-time Washington insider.















It matters to me, and half the cointry, what he thinks is important. I take his answer at two-faced value. He could have easily argued his investigation was worthless. Due to the fact that there were so many obstructive obstacles.

His answers on the record are now considered partisan in favor of his political party. Point blank.



















Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Well it may matter to you but Mueller answered the question in such a manner that doesn't implicate Trump as interfering with the investigation, it is what it is.

You're full of shit if you think his staff was 100% opposing party... Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Ok, I looked it up. I was wrong about Mueller's staff being 100% dim-retards. It was "only" 77% dim-retards. 13 dims and 4 independents. No Republicans. Does that sound fair and balanced? Here you go:


1) Brian M. Richardson, a former Supreme Court clerk and clerk for a judge serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York City.

No donations.

Voter registration: No affiliation.

2) Ryan Dickey, a lawyer on detail from the Justice Department Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section.

No donations.

Voter registration: Democrat.

3) Kyle Freeny, a lawyer from the Justice Department Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section.

Freeny donated $250 to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, another $250 to Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012 and $250 to Clinton’s campaign in 2016.

Voter registration: Democrat.

4) Scott Meisler, an appellate lawyer from the Justice Department Criminal Division.

No donations.

Voter registration: No affiliation.

5) Zainab Ahmad, a lawyer from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York.

No donations.

Voter registration: No affiliation.

6) Greg Andres, a former partner at Davis Polk, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department Criminal Division and a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York

He donated $2,700 to the campaign of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) this year and $1,000 to the U.S. Senate campaign of David Hoffman (D) in 2009 when he ran unsuccessfully in Illinois.

Voter registration: Democrat.

7) Rush Atkinson, a lawyer from the Justice Department Criminal Division Fraud Section.

He donated $200 to Clinton’s campaign in 2016.

Voter registration: Democrat.

8) Michael Dreeben, an appellate lawyer from the Office of the Solicitor General.

No donations.

Voter registration: Democrat.

9) Andrew Goldstein, a lawyer from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.

Goldstein donated $3,300 to Obama's campaigns in 2008 and 2012.

Voter registration: Democrat.

10) Adam Jed, an appellate lawyer from the Civil Division.

No donations.

Voter registration: Democrat.

11) Elizabeth Prelogar, an appellate lawyer on detail from the Office of the Solicitor General.

She donated $250 each to Clinton’s campaign in 2016 and the Obama Victory Fund in 2012.

Voter registration: Democrat.

12) James Quarles, a former partner at WilmerHale and a former assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.

He donated more than $30,000 to various Democratic campaigns in 2016, including $2,700 to Clinton, although his giving spans two decades. Quarles also gave $2,500 in 2015 to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and $250 to Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) in 2005.

Voter registration: Democrat.

13) Jeannie Rhee, a former partner at WilmerHale who has served in the Office of Legal Counsel and as an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington.

Rhee donated a total of $5,400 to Clinton’s campaign in 2015 and 2016, and a total of $4,800 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008 and 2011. She also made smaller donations totaling $1,750 to the Democratic National Committee and to various Democrats running for Senate seats.

Voter registration: Democrat.

14) Brandon Van Grack, a lawyer on detail from the Justice Department's National Security Division.

He donated $286.77 to Obama’s campaign in 2008.

Voter registration: Democrat.

15) Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer who headed the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section. He has served as general counsel at the FBI and as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Weissmann donated $2,300 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008, $2,000 to the DNC in 2006 and $2,300 to the Clinton campaign in 2007.

Voter registration: Democrat.

16) Aaron Zebley, a former partner at WilmerHale who has previously served with Mueller at the FBI and as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.

No donations.

Voter registration: No affiliation.

17) Aaron Zelinsky, a lawyer on detail from the U.S. attorney's office in the District of Maryland.

No donations.

Voter registration: Democrat.

Who gives a shit about being PC?

You're full of shit if you think his staff was 100% opposing party to the subject of investigation. If that was the case, there would have been a definitive statement regarding violation of the constitution. That is just wishful thinking on your part.

You don't make any sense when you state his staff was full of Democrats and the results were as they are. That's just dumb.

As far as the Yves St. Laurent pic, my Lenny Bruce characterization has a cigarette between his digits also. It's a choice. Like owning a fire arm. As politically incorrect as it may seem, it's my choice.

















Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

That's interesting it seems the characters you post all seem to smoke even the Jack Nicholson character in "One flew Over The cuckoo's Nest" has a pack rolled up in his sleeve, any particular reason why?

You're full of shit if you think his staff was 100% opposing party to the subject of investigation. If that was the case, there would have been a definitive statement regarding violation of the constitution. That is just wishful thinking on your part.

You don't make any sense when you state his staff was full of Democrats and the results were as they are. That's just dumb. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

You still don't get it, do you? You're the one who isn't making any sense.

Packing your Special Counsel investigative staff with partisans of one party doesn't GUARANTEE a particular outcome, it just tilts the scales that way. These people are still lawyers who have to follow the rules of evidence and uncover sufficient facts to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Common sense tells us if you stack a team of prosecutors with rabidly anti-trump partisans and they STILL can't prove a case against him, it means there REALLY, REALLY isn't a case to be made!

As Peter Strzok put it in a text to his FBI lovebird Lisa Page - "there's no big there there."

Those articles were written by a group of the 1000 ex federal prosecutors who have stated the fat lying bastard would have been indicted had he not been sitting president. I doubt Hannity or the other Russian sympathizing carnival barkers let you know about it. I suppose you know more about the law than they do.
You’re the one looking stupid for just being you. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Gotta link for that, jaxboy? I just googled "former federal prosecutors articles of impeachment" and couldn't find the 3 Articles you posted here. If you're not being stupid and making all of this up, then give us a fucking link!

You're obviously not capable of reading or comprehending what you posted sufficiently to explain why your Article III is an exact duplicate of your Article I.

So just post the fucking link and I'll see if I can figure things out for you.

Those articles were written by a group of the 1000 ex federal prosecutors who have stated the fat lying bastard would have been indicted had he not been sitting president. I doubt Hannity or the other Russian sympathizing carnival barkers let you know about it. I suppose you know more about the law than they do.
You’re the one looking stupid for just being you. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

The vast majority of your so-called "ex-federal prosecutors" are dim-retards, and many of those have direct ties to hildebeest and Odumbo, and a few are on Soros' payroll. All you have is a tainted sack of shit: turds connected to hildebeest, Odumbo and Soros who have no independent thought and only foment discord and the dim party agenda.

Those articles were written by a group of the 1000 ex federal prosecutors who have stated the fat lying bastard would have been indicted had he not been sitting president. I doubt Hannity or the other Russian sympathizing carnival barkers let you know about it. I suppose you know more about the law than they do.
You’re the one looking stupid for just being you. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

No body ever said that if Trump wasn't a sitting president he would have been indicted. Because if Trump wasn't president he wouldn't have an opportunity to collude with Russia nor would anyone give a shit. If Trump has committed a crime then he should be indicted. If prosecutors won't indict him because of the office he holds then this whole fiasco of collusion and obstruction should be dropped.

No body ever said that if Trump wasn't a sitting president he would have been indicted. Because if Trump wasn't president he wouldn't have an opportunity to collude with Russia nor would anyone give a shit. If Trump has committed a crime then he should be indicted. If prosecutors won't indict him because of the office he holds then this whole fiasco of collusion and obstruction should be dropped. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Judge Napolitano: Robert Mueller ‘Would Have Indicted ...
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...ler-would-have...

In an interview with Stuart Varney, Napolitano reiterated his previously stated conclusion that Mueller believed President Donald Trump had committed a crime and only did not indict him because of procedural restraints against indicting a sitting president.

Shouldn’t you be off memorizing the new trump/ rudy deep state conspiracy instead of showing your dumbass off in my thread.. Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Are you still stuck in volume II of the Mueller report? Even he has moved on.