re: Dems claim President Trump did commit obstruction

quote:

---

Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency, It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me."

You were saying? 

Oh, and it’s not me saying this came after your incomplete context post...it’s Mueller. 

---

You are such an ignorant a-hole that you get so caught up in what you stupidly think is a gotcha that you don't even realize you just further proved my point.

Here is the post I was responding to and my original response:

quote:

---

He obstructed an investigation into a crime he didn’t commit.

---

quote:

---

That is not the question. Was Trump's intent to obstruct an investigation which he thought was a treat to him

---

.
So your post further demonstrated what I had said --that Trump considered the investigation to be a threat to him.

Thanks for the help, dumbass.

quote:

---

So your post further demonstrated what I had said --that Trump considered the investigation to be a threat to him. Thanks for the help, dumbass.

---

Again. You fail to understand a simple point. You posted trump said “I’m fricked”. Which is true. You insinuate that was an admission of guilt. What I posted is the very next thing he said (you were ignorant to its existence). It negates any implication of guilt. I know you won’t follow. You can’t even comprehend “innocent until proven guilty”. But alas, I sill try with you.

Oh and...you are misinterpreting the elements of obstruction. What trump said in no way indicates he intended to impede the investigation. It certainly doesn’t establish corrupt intent, which is what the code requires. It is amazing one person can be so completely ignorant of so many things. Yet you prove it can be done.

Yall should find it very interesting that the neither of the the words exonerate or innocent are mentioned in any Louisiana criminal statute, Im sure same is the case in all other states' criminal statutes, nor are they referenced even once in federal criminal regulations.

The ONLY time those terms are used officially in connection with a criminal court proceeding is in the case of a conviction being overturned based on new evidence that leaves no doubt as to wrongful conviction, i.e. mostly DNA.

This is quite intentional, in spite of seemingly obvious relevance of both terms in the area of criminal law and investigation. It's just the way it is for lack of a better explanation. It's ALL about GUILTY or NOT GUILTY. And no, "not guilty" is in no way a synonym of "innocent" or "exonerated". It only means "government's burden of proof was not satisfied".

Bottom line is both men are in error in involving the term exonerate, BUT I fault Mueller much more than Trump here because he surely knows of the repugnance of employing that word in this matter. Think of it...not one time mentioned in all of criminal law throughout the entire country.

ETA Trump cannot and will not be "exonerated" at any point (unfortunately) NOR can Mueller take any action to "exonerate" anyone because it's not an available official conclusion. He wrongfully amd gratuitously introduced it just to make the point that it didnt happen. Of course it didnt happen...Mueller is fully aware he cant ever change the status to "is now exonerated". That was quite sneaky to slip that into the lexicon.

quote:

---

Being stupid while certainly not a great thing is much better than being low character

---

I honestly think it’s both. BamaAtl is dishonest, but rarely makes the simplistic logic errors Tex consistently displays. His dishonesty is proven. I have caught him flat out lying several times. I think he is also extraordinarily ignorant and incapable of grasping simple concepts.

quote:

---

You're so fuking stupid. The term being discussed is exonerated.

---

Ok. So you don’t want to discuss the term “innocent?” Color me shocked. I am glad you are finally admitting to his innocence, though. Makes discussion of his exoneration unnecessary. Thanks for proving a very salient point, for once.

quote:

---

Ok. So you don’t want to discuss the term “innocent?” Color me shocked. Tell me. Is him being innocent not an exoneration? Explain

---

See? This is an example. He knows exactly the deal here but admitting that he knows it requires giving up the lie that he wants to run with in this thread

So that's not stupidity. It's just being a dishonest piece of shite. Just come to terms with the fact that you're dealing with a horrible human being here who's not going to stop being a horrible human being the no matter how often you post to him

quote:

---

So your post further demonstrated what I had said --that Trump considered the investigation to be a threat to him. Thanks for the help, dumbass.



Again. You fail to understand a simple point. You posted trump said “I’m fricked”. Which is true. You insinuate that was an admission of guilt. What I posted is the very next thing he said (you were ignorant to its existence). It negates any implication of guilt. I know you won’t follow. You can’t even comprehend “innocent until proven guilty”. But alas, I sill try with you. 

---

You are just a stupid disengengenuous a-hole who will say anything and mis-describe posts -- anything to keep you from looking like the dumbass you are.

I didn't insinuate that Trump saying I'm fricked was an admission of guilt.

I said it demonstrated that Trump thought an investigation would be a threat to him.

And you know that. But that never stops you from posting complete bullshite.

Go away. I'm done with you.

quote:

---

You're so fuking stupid. The term being discussed is exonerated.



Ok. So you don’t want to discuss the term “innocent?” Color me shocked. I am glad you are finally admitting to his innocence, though. Makes discussion of his exoneration unnecessary. Thanks for proving a very salient point, for once

---

Fuk you dumbass. The term being discussed is exonerated.

Go try your worthless bullshite on someone else.

quote:

---

I said it demonstrated that Trump thought an investigation would be a threat to him.

---

Ok. That is not evidence of anything. Why would you post something so meaningless, unless you were trying to draw some other conclusion? I guess I gave you too much credit. What is your point in saying trump thought it was a threat?

quote:

---

Fuk you dumbass. The term being discussed is exonerated.

Go try your worthless bullshite on someone else.

---

Eat shite you worthless mother fricker.