The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Trump claims that he's rich....and he will not make his tax returns public.

Trump claims that he's smart...and he will not release his grades.

Trump's claims that he has been "exonerate"....and he will not release the report.

:lol:

OH but wait Johnnie...

The Hillary emails and Obama's transcripts and standardized test scores!!!

:lol:

elklindo69 wrote:Trump claims that he's rich....and he will not make his tax returns public.

Trump claims that he's smart...and he will not release his grades.

Trump's claims that he has been "exonerate"....and he will not release the report.

:lol:

OH but wait Johnnie...

The Hillary emails and Obama's transcripts and standardized test scores!!!

:lol:

Looks like Elk was sniffing glue last night

And you were sniffing assholes, apparently, because you couldn't refute a thing he said, could you, dumbfuck? :lol: :lol:

It is true that prosecutors do not "exonerate" people.

It is also true that corrupt top officials knew Hillary violated 18 USC 793; there was fresh email evidence just a few days ago, with 5 more top secret messages on her server.

Hillary was protected with a fake investigation, and then these corrupt people used a fake dossier to abuse FISA and wiretap Trump.

All along, the Mueller probe was to distract from this corruption.

johnforbes wrote:Elkin, you give new and fresh meaning to "slow on the uptake."

Prosecutors do not "exonerate" people.

Sure, politicians seek to spin things, but the facts remain.

Now, for no fee, you have had your concepts clarified.

Go forth into the fray with enhanced understanding.

So now you are telling everybody that Mueller was wrong in stating that wrong in using the verbiage "exonerated" in his report?

:lol:

Elkin, Elkin, Elkin, don't you know anything about Washington?

Because "exonerate" part was absurd -- prosecutors don't declare people innocent -- surely that was appended by some spindoctor.

Welcome to a tiny bit of info on "How Things Work" in Powertown.

Trump obstructed justice (again) when he installed an attorney general who was hired to obstruct justice for an investigation into obstructing justice.

And Johnnie is more concerned about the verbiage?

Go figure.....

So elk actually believes....
if the AG doesn't do as the Demos demand, that's obstruction of "justice".. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So the House voted 420-0 to release the full Mueller report to the public.

The vast majority of the public says the FULL UNREDACTED REPORT should be released to the public.

From what I remember...the full Starr report was released to the public.

So what's Trump afraid of?

Elkin, we are all worried about your mental health.

You win some in politics, and you lose some.

You depended on Mueller and his staff of partisan Democrats, and they wasted two years and found nothing.

In essence, the entire Mueller probe was an attempt to distract from the corruption of the fake dossier and the abuse of FISA.

But it is over, and young zealots like Elkin have to move on or enter lunatic asylums.

You know Johnnie....it's all fun and games until the House Judiciary Committee votes to subpoena the full Mueller report. And that report in no fucking way exonerates Trump and as a matter of fact, it will show that not only Trump is a criminal, but some idiotic inept two-bit penny-ante criminal...

From what I remember...the full Starr report was released to the public.

The laws have changed since the Starr report was made public...
The AG has more power and authority over special counsel reports..

The Demos and the public may be shit out of luck..Barr is going to follow the law. :o

Elkin, please read this.

You don't grasp how the system even works.

No report from a special counsel will "exonerate" anybody.

A prosecutor either charges or not.

The prosecutor does NOT have some stamp of innocence to hand out.

As johnoforbes so eloquently pointed out, the fact that no charges are being filed against Trump does not mean he is cleared of any wrongdoing as Trump has been claiming.

It is not some "stamp of innocence". It just means no charges are being filed.

I'm really surprised johnforbes would come out so adamantly disputing Trump's claims in this matter. Kudos, johnny.

For any politician, no charges = good thing.

But it means what it means, although nobody should be surprised if politicians try to spin it to mean something else.

To be correct, Ken Starr and Mueller should NOT have filed reports at all.

The role of a prosecutor is to file charges or shut up.

In the case of the Mueller probe, it is beginning to look like top intel officials like C and B orchestrated the entire thing and didn't they almost have to know the dossier was fake and paid for by Hillary?

So Johnnie... you're going to go out and tell everybody that that the president who fired his FBI director and then went on live television to explain that he did so in order to quash an investigation in his own ties with Russia might have obstructed justice after all?

Where the fuck do you people come up with this crazy shit???

No, any president has a perfect right to fire his FBI director.

Comey should have been fired earlier, but Trump was correct in firing him, and the Rosenstein memo explained why Comey took over the role of DoJ.

Now the fix was in for Hillary there too, but Comey should at least have pretended he understood the FBI was a different agency with a distinct role.

JFK, the liberal deity, hired his own brother RFK as Attorney General, so every president is entitled to his own people.

Barry hired crooked Holder and race-baiting Lynch.

Just look at the list of crooks Trump exposed, from Ohr to Strzok to Page to McCabe, and really Clapper and Brennan exposed their own partisan bias themselves on TV.

Scenario....

A sitting president can't be indicted, only impeached and.......

the current sitting president's AG won't release information to Congress necessary for impeachment...

So now tell us again how "no one is above the law."

:roll:

Okay, I'll tell you that the present AG must obey the law in terms of privacy.

Personally, I'd like to see the entire unredacted report, but Barr has to obey the law.

Too bad Holder and Lynch didn't care about that.

Nor did Ken Starr. You may want to ask Monica Lewinsky.

Don't let your hypocrisy get in your way...

I've said any number of times that it was too far from a land deal in Arkansas to DNA on a blue dress.

Ken Starr's journey was too far, and it really was just aimed at BIll Clinton.

No, I wasn't a fan of Bill Clinton, but these special counsels drifting around endlessly are a problem, and that problem was readily apparent with Starr.

Same problem, reverse the partisan bias, and you have Mueller's biased probe.

So Barr sends an unsolicited memo to Congress claiming that a president can’t be indicted.

Now gee whiz....whaddaya know....Barr becomes the AG.

Then Barr decides in less than two days the 2 year Mueller Report exonerates Trump.

Now get this, Barr won’t release it.

And the kicker......Mueller’s team says Barr’s 4 page report is not accurate?

Holder and Lynch were completely biased in favor of the Left, and yet they were Attns General.

Also, these special counsels are mostly enmeshed in politics.

Starr was prejudiced, and so was Mueller and his entire staff.

A better approach would be to have NEUTRAL and FAIR and OBJECTIVE and NON-PARTISAN people among the many thousands of DoJ employees.

In a FAIR and NEUTRAL and NON-PARTISAN way, they could easily investigate and charge people WITHOUT these crazy special counsels.

This has to be the first time in the history of the nation where the house had to issue a subpoena in order to compel someone to release a report which fully exonerates them?

What does Trump have to hide?

As explained numerous times supra, no prosecutor issues an "exoneration."

elklindo69 wrote:This has to be the first time in the history of the nation where the house had to issue a subpoena in order to compel someone to release a report which fully exonerates them?

What does Trump have to hide?

Thanks for admitting your dumber then a box of rocks. Thanks for admitting you dont listen you dont comprehend and thanks for admitting your just ignorant.

Its been on the news why you cant put out the full report. Its called protecting witness, its called national security.
If you were a witness would you want your name and address on every TV station in the country going world wide!
Do you want the way they collect information and who collected it going on national TV. Do you want them to give up top secret information the public isnt suppose to know???

Its been explained why it was put out the way it was. For once in your life try (I know that impossibl0e for someone as stupid as you to learn) to comprehend try to listen to something other then MSNBC... Or CNN....

^^^^^^ johnny, come on! You really need to reevaluate your silly position on who's the dumbest person on the internet.

Does a post come any more ignorant and gullible than that one by dumbfuck?

I mean, even if you ignore the junior high illiteracy of it?

Elkin, it isn't up to me.

Hundreds of millions of Netizens voted and you earned the honor "Dumbest Person on the Interwebs."

Just put the plaque on your office wall and enjoy the honor.

Does a post come any more ignorant and gullible than that one by dumbfuck?

I mean, even if you ignore the junior high illiteracy of it?

Clownkicker

Ya see Elk, Even "Clown" agrees with us that you are the dumbest person on the board.

^^^^^^^^ And the undisputed winner IS-------- namandgulfdumbfuck!

Clownkicker wrote:^^^^^^^^ And the undisputed winner IS-------- namandgulfdumbfuck!

And the undisputed winner is ............."Clowndumbfuck"

I was thinking that Barr and Mueller should testify at the same time, side-by-side at the same table, so Mueller can be asked about each of Barr’s lies in real time.

And Johnnie will pound the table claiming that only a jury can exonerate Trump!

But wait Johnnie....you forgot Hillary's emails!

:lol: :lol: :lol: