Was Mueller incompetent?

[atlkvb]

If you're on the Left and remain convinced Trump "colluded" with Russians or "obstructed" Mueller's investigation, how do you not conclude he was?

Think about what you're overlooking.

• 35 million dollar budget
• over two year investigation
• 15 attorneys...plus support staff
• Access to thousands of hours of recorded FISA surveillance
• 500 witnesses interviewed
• unfettered access into Trump empire
• millions of pages of documents requested and examined
• the "fake" Steele dossier
• full support of "fake news" media's daily reporting
• unlimited scope of investigation, no specific crime named
• entire corrupt DOJ administration working on his behalf
• special intel implanted directly within the Trump campaign
• a hostile D.C. swamp anxious to "get" something on Trump...anything...anywhere
• the entire Democrat party establishment
• part of the Republican party establishment
• the Hillary campaign
• the Obama administration
• no executive privilege claimed from Trump
• Russian attempted "meddling" in our '16 election
• Trump's "tweets"

All of this...and he STILL was unable to peg any "collusion" or any "obstruction" onto Trump. You can't logically reach any other conclusion if you still believe Trump is guilty of either than Mueller was 100% incompetent for not being able to nail anything onto "Orange man bad".

How is Mueller anything other than incompetent to you folks on the Left if you think Democrats in Congress are now going to find out something about Trump Mueller either missed or couldn't find after all of the assets described above were lined up specifically for him to do exactly that?

He HAS to be an incompetent boob if he couldn't find whatever Congressional Democrats are now convinced they can. [eyeroll]

 

[Airport]

If you're on the Left and remain convinced Trump "colluded" with Russians or "obstructed" Mueller's investigation, how do you not conclude he was?

Think about what you're overlooking.

• 35 million dollar budget
• over two year investigation
• 15 attorneys...plus support staff
• Access to thousands of hours of recorded FISA surveillance
• 500 witnesses interviewed
• unfettered access into Trump empire
• millions of pages of documents requested and examined
• full support of "fake news" media's daily reporting
• unlimited scope of investigation, no specific crime named
• entire corrupt DOJ administration working on his behalf
• special intel implanted directly within the Trump campaign
• a hostile D.C. swamp anxious to "get" something on Trump...anything...anywhere
• the entire Democrat party establishment
• part of the Republican party establishment
• the Hillary campaign
• the Obama administration
• no executive privilege claimed from Trump
• Russian attempted "meddling" in our '16 election
• Trump's "tweets"

All of this...and he STILL was unable to peg any "collusion" or any "obstruction" onto Trump. You can't logically reach any other conclusion if you still believe Trump is guilty of either than Mueller was 100% incompetent for not being able to nail anything onto "Orange man bad".

How is Mueller anything other than incompetent to you folks on the Left if you think Democrats in Congress are now going to find out something about Trump Mueller either missed or couldn't find after all of the assets described above were lined up specifically for him to do exactly that?

He HAS to be an incompetent boob if he couldn't find whatever Congressional Democrats are now convinced they can. [eyeroll]

I'm glad nobody was accused of sending out Anthrax. He would have gone after the wrong person and cost the govt 6 million in wrongful prosecution.

 

[atlkvb]

I'm glad nobody was accused of sending out Anthrax. He would have gone after the wrong person and cost the govt 6 million in wrongful prosecution.

Hilarious![laughing]

 

[mule_eer]

If you're on the Left and remain convinced Trump "colluded" with Russians or "obstructed" Mueller's investigation, how do you not conclude he was?

Think about what you're overlooking.

• 35 million dollar budget
• over two year investigation
• 15 attorneys...plus support staff
• Access to thousands of hours of recorded FISA surveillance
• 500 witnesses interviewed
• unfettered access into Trump empire
• millions of pages of documents requested and examined
• the "fake" Steele dossier
• full support of "fake news" media's daily reporting
• unlimited scope of investigation, no specific crime named
• entire corrupt DOJ administration working on his behalf
• special intel implanted directly within the Trump campaign
• a hostile D.C. swamp anxious to "get" something on Trump...anything...anywhere
• the entire Democrat party establishment
• part of the Republican party establishment
• the Hillary campaign
• the Obama administration
• no executive privilege claimed from Trump
• Russian attempted "meddling" in our '16 election
• Trump's "tweets"

All of this...and he STILL was unable to peg any "collusion" or any "obstruction" onto Trump. You can't logically reach any other conclusion if you still believe Trump is guilty of either than Mueller was 100% incompetent for not being able to nail anything onto "Orange man bad".

How is Mueller anything other than incompetent to you folks on the Left if you think Democrats in Congress are now going to find out something about Trump Mueller either missed or couldn't find after all of the assets described above were lined up specifically for him to do exactly that?

He HAS to be an incompetent boob if he couldn't find whatever Congressional Democrats are now convinced they can. [eyeroll]

The thing you are missing is that Mueller cited the DOJ guideline about not being able to indict a sitting president. He did not give a conclusion about the obstruction issues specifically because he felt that went counter to that guideline. Those questions have to be answered by Congress, if they are to be answered.

With respect to the Congressional investigation into those matters, the President's attorney's filed suit citing an 1880 SCOTUS decision that Congress could not investigate anyway unless there was related pending legislation. The 1880 SCOTUS decision was overturned by a 1927 SCOTUS decision, so they are going against existing legal precedence in their filing. Any federal court short of the Supreme Court should follow the existing precedent, so this is ultimately a question of whether or not this SC will overturn the 1927 decision.

Ultimately, this is a big constitutional issue. If the DOJ by internal mandate (not saying this is necessarily wrong) cannot indict a sitting president, the Judicial branch doesn't get a shot to check the power of the Executive in a criminal matter. If Congress is not allowed to investigate concerns about the Executive, then they do not have a true check on the power of the Executive. That's not the intent of the 3 branches. They all exist to check the powers of each other.

 

[Airport]

The thing you are missing is that Mueller cited the DOJ guideline about not being able to indict a sitting president. He did not give a conclusion about the obstruction issues specifically because he felt that went counter to that guideline. Those questions have to be answered by Congress, if they are to be answered.

With respect to the Congressional investigation into those matters, the President's attorney's filed suit citing an 1880 SCOTUS decision that Congress could not investigate anyway unless there was related pending legislation. The 1880 SCOTUS decision was overturned by a 1927 SCOTUS decision, so they are going against existing legal precedence in their filing. Any federal court short of the Supreme Court should follow the existing precedent, so this is ultimately a question of whether or not this SC will overturn the 1927 decision.

Ultimately, this is a big constitutional issue. If the DOJ by internal mandate (not saying this is necessarily wrong) cannot indict a sitting president, the Judicial branch doesn't get a shot to check the power of the Executive in a criminal matter. If Congress is not allowed to investigate concerns about the Executive, then they do not have a true check on the power of the Executive. That's not the intent of the 3 branches. They all exist to check the powers of each other.

Mueller knew there was no collusion a year ago. The only obstruction would be from the people he investigated for crimes not committed by people inside the campaign. As far as I know, tax evasion is a new one for a campaign. Another BS move by a Washington insider. I have no respect for Mueller, Comey, Lynch, Powers or any of the other crooked dwarfs.

 

[atlkvb]

The thing you are missing is that Mueller cited the DOJ guideline about not being able to indict a sitting president. He did not give a conclusion about the obstruction issues specifically because he felt that went counter to that guideline. Those questions have to be answered by Congress, if they are to be answered.

With respect to the Congressional investigation into those matters, the President's attorney's filed suit citing an 1880 SCOTUS decision that Congress could not investigate anyway unless there was related pending legislation. The 1880 SCOTUS decision was overturned by a 1927 SCOTUS decision, so they are going against existing legal precedence in their filing. Any federal court short of the Supreme Court should follow the existing precedent, so this is ultimately a question of whether or not this SC will overturn the 1927 decision.

Ultimately, this is a big constitutional issue. If the DOJ by internal mandate (not saying this is necessarily wrong) cannot indict a sitting president, the Judicial branch doesn't get a shot to check the power of the Executive in a criminal matter. If Congress is not allowed to investigate concerns about the Executive, then they do not have a true check on the power of the Executive. That's not the intent of the 3 branches. They all exist to check the powers of each other.

Well either Mueller is a coward or doesn't know the Law or is incompetent or maybe Trump's smarter than the Left thinks?

Mueller is a special prosecutor....there is nothing in the Law governing his jurisdiction that says he can't prosecute criminal behavior if he found it. He did not.

Kenn Starr did, and he turned his evidence over to Congress which impeached Clinton. Mueller has not specified what part of his investigation was "obstructed" and unless he tells Congress how does he expect them to charge Trump with that? He's leaving it up to Congress to determine if his investigation was "obstructed"? Give me a break!

The bottom line is he was/is incompetent if Trump colluded. Or Trump is more clever than Leftists give him credit for hiding it all from Mueller.

 

[atlkvb]

. If the DOJ by internal mandate (not saying this is necessarily wrong) cannot indict a sitting president, the Judicial branch doesn't get a shot to check the power of the Executive in a criminal matter.

So I ask again, what is the "criminal" matter Mueller couldn't find because he was obstructed and now cannot refer for indictment (impeachment) of Trump by Congress? What did he spend the past two and half years and 35 million dollars looking for that Trump "obstructed" from him finding which Congress is now itching to discover?

Orange man not "bad". Orange man "good"...really, really good to throw Mueller off like he apparently has![eyeroll]

 

[79eer]

The thing you are missing is that Mueller cited the DOJ guideline about not being able to indict a sitting president. He did not give a conclusion about the obstruction issues specifically because he felt that went counter to that guideline. Those questions have to be answered by Congress, if they are to be answered.

With respect to the Congressional investigation into those matters, the President's attorney's filed suit citing an 1880 SCOTUS decision that Congress could not investigate anyway unless there was related pending legislation. The 1880 SCOTUS decision was overturned by a 1927 SCOTUS decision, so they are going against existing legal precedence in their filing. Any federal court short of the Supreme Court should follow the existing precedent, so this is ultimately a question of whether or not this SC will overturn the 1927 decision.

Ultimately, this is a big constitutional issue. If the DOJ by internal mandate (not saying this is necessarily wrong) cannot indict a sitting president, the Judicial branch doesn't get a shot to check the power of the Executive in a criminal matter. If Congress is not allowed to investigate concerns about the Executive, then they do not have a true check on the power of the Executive. That's not the intent of the 3 branches. They all exist to check the powers of each other.

You will get over it eventually, relax everything is going to be fine. Ps you’re a Windbag.

 

[atlkvb]

You will get over it eventually, relax everything is going to be fine. Ps you’re a Windbag.

I laughed at that...but in all honesty Mule is one of the few Leftists on here that at least can reasonably argue his points without resorting to childish name calling or getting "outraged" placing himself above dispute.

He's on the Left no doubt, but I often find his arguments plausible if not reasonable and at times 100% spot on. But I primarily enjoy discussion of issues with him because it usually stays on point, never gets personal, and he clearly states his positions backing them up with his understanding of the facts.

But your post was still funny.[laughing]

 

[lenny4wvu]

I laughed at that...but in all honesty Mule is one of the few Leftists on here that at least can reasonably argue his points without resorting to childish name calling or getting "outraged" placing himself above dispute.

He's on the Left no doubt, but I often find his arguments plausible if not reasonable and at times 100% spot on. But I primarily enjoy discussion of issues with him because it usually stays on point, never gets personal, and he clearly states his positions backing them up with his understanding of the facts.

But your post was still funny.[laughing]

Mueller was /is the "appetizer",the "entree" will be Horowitz,and oh,the "dessert" will be the Honorable John Huber.. 18 months till the Trump pulls into the depot !! In the meantime,Americans get the absurd pleasure of watching the party of hypocrisy shoot eachother in a circular firing squad When the FISA is released 3/4's of the dims,will be disqualified.. IMMEDIATELY

 

[atlkvb]

Mueller was /is the "appetizer",the "entree" will be Horowitz,and oh,the "dessert" will be the Honorable John Huber.. 18 months till the Trump pulls into the depot !! In the meantime,Americans get the absurd pleasure of watching the party of hypocrisy shoot eachother in a circular firing squad When the FISA is released 3/4's of the dims,will be disqualified.. IMMEDIATELY

You know Lenny...Mueller wasn't the only one to conclude "no collusion" "no obstruction?" There were 4 investigations looking into this! 40 FBI agents, Senate Intelligence committee, House Intelligence committee, and Mueller's group. No one had any information "restricted", no one in Trump's administration invoked any "executive privilege" ...1.5 million documents turned over. Plus all the media reporting telling us night after night that "Trump colluded!" There's no "there" "there" Lenny! Zippo, Zero, Zilch, Nada, Nyet, Nothing!

But our friends on the Left just can't let it go! They will go to their graves believing Trump "colluded" and Mueller was "obstructed" from finding it.

Orange man slick!

(But Hilllary still won the popular vote, he couldn't stop that...just ask @Keyser76 ) [winking]

 

[atlkvb]

the other crooked dwarfs.

You crack me up Man! [laughing]

 

[mule_eer]

Well either Mueller is a coward or doesn't know the Law or is incompetent or maybe Trump's smarter than the Left thinks?

Mueller is a special prosecutor....there is nothing in the Law governing his jurisdiction that says he can't prosecute criminal behavior if he found it. He did not.

Kenn Starr did, and he turned his evidence over to Congress which impeached Clinton. Mueller has not specified what part of his investigation was "obstructed" and unless he tells Congress how does he expect them to charge Trump with that? He's leaving it up to Congress to determine if his investigation was "obstructed"? Give me a break!

The bottom line is he was/is incompetent if Trump colluded. Or Trump is more clever than Leftists give him credit for hiding it all from Mueller.

There are a ton of rules regarding the Special Counsel, and those rules are entirely different than they were under the Independent Counsel (rules governing Ken Starr and his findings). The new rules, agreed to by both parties, gave the DOJ much more oversight of the process. It made the report reportable only the the AG, not the public or Congress. We've only had one investigation under the new rules, under Clinton after the Whitewater stuff, and Janet Reno told the SC to go ahead and turn everything over to Congress. I'm not saying that should have happened immediately under Mueller, but that's the only precedent set until Mueller's report.

Read what you wrote. Ken Starr turned evidence over to Congress so that they could decide whether or not to go through with impeachment proceedings. Ken Starr didn't have the power under the Independent Counsel rules to prosecute a sitting president. Robert Mueller didn't have those powers under the Special Counsel rules which are more strict than the ones Starr operated under. This is a matter or Congress. And Mueller laid out 10 potential counts of obstruction that Congress can look into in his report.

I'll add that I'm not saying Barr is a bad AG in all of this. I think he sat down with Mueller, decided what legally needed to be redacted, and gave the remainder to Congress. Figuring all of that out about a 400 page report isn't something that can be done in minutes. He got beat up by many on the left for the delay, but I think that's an unfair complaint.

 

[mule_eer]

You will get over it eventually, relax everything is going to be fine. Ps you’re a Windbag.

How do you figure that I'm upset? I'm not worried about it. I just like facts. Next time I'll keep to 140 characters, maybe add some emojis. Well, except I won't. :wink:

 

[atlkvb]

There are a ton of rules regarding the Special Counsel, and those rules are entirely different than they were under the Independent Counsel (rules governing Ken Starr and his findings). The new rules, agreed to by both parties, gave the DOJ much more oversight of the process. It made the report reportable only the the AG, not the public or Congress. We've only had one investigation under the new rules, under Clinton after the Whitewater stuff, and Janet Reno told the SC to go ahead and turn everything over to Congress. I'm not saying that should have happened immediately under Mueller, but that's the only precedent set until Mueller's report.

Read what you wrote. Ken Starr turned evidence over to Congress so that they could decide whether or not to go through with impeachment proceedings. Ken Starr didn't have the power under the Independent Counsel rules to prosecute a sitting president. Robert Mueller didn't have those powers under the Special Counsel rules which are more strict than the ones Starr operated under. This is a matter or Congress. And Mueller laid out 10 potential counts of obstruction that Congress can look into in his report.

I'll add that I'm not saying Barr is a bad AG in all of this. I think he sat down with Mueller, decided what legally needed to be redacted, and gave the remainder to Congress. Figuring all of that out about a 400 page report isn't something that can be done in minutes. He got beat up by many on the left for the delay, but I think that's an unfair complaint.

Again Mule a lot of what you posted here about the Special Counsel is correct however YOU left out one thing my friend. Mueller DID NOT refer any criminal activity to Congress! His report says it found "no collusion"!

As to the "obstruction" part he's leaving up to Congress, that's a cop out! How does he expect Congress to determine if his own investigation was impeded from getting to any possible criminal behavior which he didn't find?
Besides, I'm of the opinion that the whole investigation was a sham! There never was any "collusion" and the evidence being uncovered strongly indicates Mueller knew that going in! That dossier was "fake", and so was the FISA warrant issued because of it! C'mon Mule, you're certainly not immune to those facts now irrefutably established!

I respect what you're saying about following the Law, but at what point during this entire sordid affair has that been important or even obeyed?

 

[mule_eer]

Again Mule a lot of what you posted here about the Special Counsel is correct however YOU left out one thing my friend. Mueller DID NOT refer any criminal activity to Congress! His report says it found "no collusion"!

As to the "obstruction" part he's leaving up to Congress, that's a cop out! How does he expect Congress to determine if his own investigation was impeded from getting to any possible criminal behavior which he didn't find?
Besides, I'm of the opinion that the whole investigation was a sham! There never was any "collusion" and the evidence being uncovered strongly indicates Mueller knew that going in! That dossier was "fake", and so was the FISA warrant issued because of it! C'mon Mule, you're certainly not immune to those facts now irrefutably established!

I respect what you're saying about following the Law, but at what point during this entire sordid affair has that been important or even obeyed?

He doesn't have the power to refer any criminal activity to Congress. He reports to the AG, and it is the AG's responsibility to decide whether or not to turn it over to Congress. Even then, it's not a referral of charges, it's giving them the report.

 

[atlkvb]

He doesn't have the power to refer any criminal activity to Congress. He reports to the AG, and it is the AG's responsibility to decide whether or not to turn it over to Congress. Even then, it's not a referral of charges, it's giving them the report.

Mule my Man...stop "parsing!" A special Prosecutor "usually" is charged to investigate evidence of a crime that's been suspected! Ironically Mueller had no such direction. He was a Prosecutor in search of a crime Bro! He found nothing. (re: collusion) If he has no power to refer criminal activity to the AG or Congress, or recommend prosecution, or even prosecute...then why is Manafort sitting in Jail? Why was Flynn's name dragged through the mud after a 30 year military career? Why did Mueller even refuse to prosecute a case he brought against some alleged Russian "bot farms"? Mule....you're a good guy and you know your sh*t...stop embarrassing yourself my Man!

 

[atlkvb]

How do you figure that I'm upset? I'm not worried about it. I just like facts. Next time I'll keep to 140 characters, maybe add some emojis. Well, except I won't. :wink:

Don't sweat it Mule...you good Bro! Stay on course my Man....

 

[mule_eer]

Mule my Man...stop "parsing!" A special Prosecutor "usually" is charged to investigate evidence of a crime that's been suspected! Ironically Mueller had no such direction. He was a Prosecutor in search of a crime Bro! He found nothing. If he has no power to refer criminal activity to the AG or Congress, or recommend prosecution, or even prosecute...then why is Manafort sitting in Jail? Why was Flynn's name dragged through the mud after a 30 year military career? Why did Mueller even refuse to prosecute a case he brought against some alleged Russian "bot farms"? Mule....you're a good guy and you know your sh*t...stop embarrassing yourself my Man!

I should have been more specific. With respect to a sitting president, the special counsel has no power to indict. Mueller took the DOJ directive to say that where there was possible evidence of a crime, he could not weigh in on whether or not the sitting president committed a crime. With respect to all others, he has the power to prosecute, and he obviously did. As for what he was charged to investigate, it was whether or not the Trump campaign or members of it worked with the Russians to influence the election as well as any matters that might arise in the investigation of that matter.

 

[atlkvb]

He doesn't have the power to refer any criminal activity to Congress. He reports to the AG, and it is the AG's responsibility to decide whether or not to turn it over to Congress. Even then, it's not a referral of charges, it's giving them the report.

Yes you're once again correct Mule. So who prosecuted Manafort? Flynn? The Russians? Many on your side a few weeks back were arguing Mueller in fact could indict Trump (before they knew his report found "no collusion") now all of a sudden these same folks want the Law followed?

Mueller works for the AG...the AG read his report. The AG determined the report concludes there was "no collusion" and "no obstruction". Congress isn't going to read anything more than Barr has read, and so I think this whole thing is designed just to keep this phony story alive to smear Trump up until the 2020 elections.

It won't work.

 

[atlkvb]

Mueller took the DOJ directive to say that where there was possible evidence of a crime, he could not weigh in on whether or not the sitting president committed a crime

Again, with all due respect Mule Man, there is nothing in the special counsel statutes that restrict Mueller from naming specific crimes, or even recommending prosecution of them! Even for a sitting President. I'll say again, he didn't find Trump committed any crime! You're correct in that HE cannot prosecute a sitting President, but he sure as sh*t can recommend it if evidence is found! What was the evidence he found Trump committed a crime? What was it? Obstruction? Of what? His conclusion of "no collusion"? How did he find that out if he was "obstructed" from it?

Cite for me the part of the special counsel legislation that restricts him from naming specific crimes committed or evidence found for such even for the President?

I'll hang up and wait.

 

[atlkvb]

As for what he was charged to investigate, it was whether or not the Trump campaign or members of it worked with the Russians to influence the election as well as any matters that might arise in the investigation of that matter.

Correct again mule! (Damn you're good) So what did he report on that?

(what you posted here)

Show the board your ''All Big 12" posting skills. Nail this one too my friend! [winking]

 

[atlkvb]

How do you figure that I'm upset? I'm not worried about it. I just like facts. Next time I'll keep to 140 characters, maybe add some emojis. Well, except I won't. :wink:

Hey Mule I have a poll posted over on BL asking if Sags is coming back or will get drafted? Go vote, lay your thoughts on the board about that. I'm curious what you think?

 

[dave]

The thing you are missing is that Mueller cited the DOJ guideline about not being able to indict a sitting president. He did not give a conclusion about the obstruction issues specifically because he felt that went counter to that guideline. Those questions have to be answered by Congress, if they are to be answered.

With respect to the Congressional investigation into those matters, the President's attorney's filed suit citing an 1880 SCOTUS decision that Congress could not investigate anyway unless there was related pending legislation. The 1880 SCOTUS decision was overturned by a 1927 SCOTUS decision, so they are going against existing legal precedence in their filing. Any federal court short of the Supreme Court should follow the existing precedent, so this is ultimately a question of whether or not this SC will overturn the 1927 decision.

Ultimately, this is a big constitutional issue. If the DOJ by internal mandate (not saying this is necessarily wrong) cannot indict a sitting president, the Judicial branch doesn't get a shot to check the power of the Executive in a criminal matter. If Congress is not allowed to investigate concerns about the Executive, then they do not have a true check on the power of the Executive. That's not the intent of the 3 branches. They all exist to check the powers of each other.

This is another false narrative being spread by the left.

 

[atlkvb]

This is another false narrative being spread by the left.

They're arguing Trump "obstructed" investigation into a crime that never existed! Just the mere fact he didn't help Mueller easily disprove an alleged crime is "obstruction". Who in their right mind would help a detective pin a crime on them they didn't commit?

Sophistry.

 

[dave]

They're arguing Trump "obstructed" investigation into a crime that never existed! Just the mere fact he didn't help Mueller easily disprove an alleged crime is "obstruction". Who in their right mind would help a detective pin a crime on them they didn't commit?

Sophistry.

They also did not listen to Barr. He said the decision not to charge Trump was made without regard to the DOJ rule in indicting a President. The left is buying more snake oil.

 

[atlkvb]

They also did not listen to Barr. He said the decision not to charge Trump was made without regard to the DOJ rule in indicting a President. The left is buying more snake oil.

Exactly! An article I posted from a Leftist Rolling Stone author also dismantles other specious arguments Leftists have been making in attempts to confuse and blur the lines clearly drawn by this simple conclusion from Mueller's report:

 

[JWG66]

I laughed at that...but in all honesty Mule is one of the few Leftists on here that at least can reasonably argue his points without resorting to childish name calling or getting "outraged" placing himself above dispute.

He's on the Left no doubt, but I often find his arguments plausible if not reasonable and at times 100% spot on. But I primarily enjoy discussion of issues with him because it usually stays on point, never gets personal, and he clearly states his positions backing them up with his understanding of the facts.

But your post was still funny.[laughing]

I agree, appreciate his views and he does a good job of keeping things civil.

 

[Boomboom521]

This is another false narrative being spread by the left.

No, it’s really not

 

[Keyser76]

Lol, he has a resume that destroys yer boy.

 

[mule_eer]

This is another false narrative being spread by the left.

What about it is false?

 

[atlkvb]

Lol, he has a resume that destroys yer boy.

Hey Keyser, was Biden pissed Hillary won the popular vote but still lost to Trump? Could he do the same thing? (Win the popular vote, and still loose to Trump?)

or

Will he do even better? (lose the popular vote AND still lose to Trump?)

 

[dave]

What about it is false?

What about my reply was difficult to understand?

 

[Boomboom521]

What about my reply was difficult to understand?

The reply

 

[dave]

The reply

If that was diffucult to understand I see why you are struggling.

 

[Boomboom521]

If that was diffucult to understand I see why you are struggling.

Trips and skips can start a flip, and a blip can or can’t be a ship - take a hip or a whip, taking a sip or a nip of your funky Bullsh1t dick

 

[JWG66]

Trips and skips can start a flip, and a blip can or can’t be a ship - take a hip or a whip, taking a sip or a nip of your funky Bullsh1t dick

Try this one....

I am a sheet slitter. I slit sheets. I am the best sheet slitter in the whole sheet slittin world.

 

[atlkvb]

Trips and skips can start a flip, and a blip can or can’t be a ship - take a hip or a whip, taking a sip or a nip of your funky Bullsh1t dick

You're a trip who thinks he's "hip" but on a scale of 1-to-10... you show up as nothing more than a blip! [winking]

 

[WVU82_rivals]

 

[atlkvb]

So Leftists inadvertently are suggesting Mueller had to be incompetent to miss all of Trump's "colluding" but his real incompetence is not recognizing it in all of the Obama administration's "colluding!" In fact he's so incompetent he didn't even bother to look over there, while he was being so "obstructed" looking for Trump's alleged "collusion". [eyeroll]