The Barr Report

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:47 pm

So...

This report then, has it lived up to your hopes and dreams IT?

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 6:00 pm

Not going well again is it lads?

: IMG_20190418_175849.jpg (77.38 KiB) Viewed 1440 times

Elbarad · Post by **Elbarad** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 6:56 pm

Now those of us in the US can look forward to an unending stream of House committee investigations since Mueller didn't find proof of a Trump conspiracy with Russia that they were hoping for. Also we get to look forward to Senate investigations on if Obama and his appointees broke any laws setting up surveillance on an opposition party's campaign based on the dossier paid for by the DNC. FUN FUN. Two or 6 more years of nothing being done for the country. Also, hopefully Adam Schiff will present his evidence of Russian collusion that he said he had for two years. It seems Mueller and 45+ other investigators couldn't find it in two years of looking, but somehow Schiff did. I look forward to hearing him testify about it under oath.

BurnleyFC · Post by **BurnleyFC** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:00 pm

Elbarad wrote:Now those of us in the US can look forward to an unending stream of House committee investigations since Mueller didn't find proof of a Trump conspiracy with Russia that they were hoping for. Also we get to look forward to Senate investigations on if Obama and his appointees broke any laws setting up surveillance on an opposition party's campaign based on the dossier paid for by the DNC. FUN FUN. Two or 6 more years of nothing being done for the country. Also, hopefully Adam Schiff will present his evidence of Russian collusion that he said he had for two years. It seems Mueller and 45+ other investigators couldn't find it in two years of looking, but somehow Schiff did. I look forward to hearing him testify about it under oath.

Happen they’ll call upon Imploding Turtle as an independent expert?

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:12 pm

if any of you think the report in it's current state prove Trump was guilty or not then you are in for a shock. There are holes all the way through it and if Congress subpoena Mueller to testify then it will be very interesting. I couldn't care less as hopefully he'll lose in 2020 anyway

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:28 pm

The fact that he could run for a second term is amusing, considering that some people have the belief that he'd fail to finish a full term.
It would be even more amusing if he actually won a second term.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:42 pm

Even tea party Republicans are calling Barr out for what he is and has done.

BurnleyFC · Post by **BurnleyFC** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:13 pm

Because it doesn’t say what they wanted it to say?

Socrates · Post by **Socrates** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:05 pm

Damo wrote:Not going well again is it lads?
IMG_20190418_175849.jpg

Because Trump posted a crap gif or meme or whatever?

Have you read any aspect of the report?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:06 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:The fact that he could run for a second term is amusing, considering that some people have the belief that he'd fail to finish a full term.
It would be even more amusing if he actually won a second term.

would be absolutely hilarious

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:10 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:would be absolutely hilarious

Not as hilarious as if we actually became a Muslim caliphate though.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:13 pm

Socrates wrote:Because Trump posted a crap gif or meme or whatever?

Have you read any aspect of the report?

Of course he hasn't. It's about 400 pages. I'm not even halfway though it. But I'm pretty sure Damo hasn't read a single page.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:15 pm

I'm just reading the washington Post clips.

They are certainly picking out the bits that suggest that Barr is a Trump shrill, rather than an actual attorney general of an independent judiciary.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:19 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm just reading the washington Post clips.

They are certainly picking out the bits that suggest that Barr is a Trump shrill, rather than an actual attorney general of an independent judiciary.

There's so much in the report. And the report proved that Barr's 4-page "summary of principle conclusions" is a complete and utter lie.

I've got a searchable version of the report so i'm uploading it to google drive and will link it here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bPWra7 ... sp=sharing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:20 pm

Socrates wrote:Because Trump posted a crap gif or meme or whatever?

Have you read any aspect of the report?

Not a single word.
I'm guessing you have, given you're in depth analysis on what trump did wrong?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:20 pm

Its going to be yet another one of those things in which certain posters on here ignore the evidence of their own eyes and just go on about a **** load of whataboutery.

Uwe Noble · Post by **Uwe Noble** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:25 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its going to be yet another one of those things in which certain posters on here ignore the evidence of their own eyes and just go on about a **** load of whataboutery.

Backing down now? Quite right. Your BS theory was complete bunkum. You need to apologise. Loser!

Uwe Noble · Post by **Uwe Noble** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:30 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:There's so much in the report. And the report proved that Barr's 4-page "summary of principle conclusions" is a complete and utter lie.

I've got a searchable version of the report so i'm uploading it to google drive and will link it here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bPWra7 ... sp=sharing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suppose you're going to accuse Barr of collusion (with Trump) now? Keep moving those goal posts.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:42 pm

Uwe Noble wrote:Backing down now? Quite right. Your BS theory was complete bunkum. You need to apologise. Loser!

About what?

I'm not the one who thinks Trump isn't a ******* dangerous idiot.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:45 pm

Uwe Noble wrote:I suppose you're going to accuse Barr of collusion (with Trump) now? Keep moving those goal posts.

Only a fool would suggest that Barr has actually done his job impartiality, there are so many holes in the report that pretty much every news network is laughing at it

Elbarad · Post by **Elbarad** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:07 pm

If there are holes in the report I'd suggest that's the fault of Mueller instead of Barr considering Mueller and his team wrote the report and Barr only marked out the bits he's required to by matter of law or policy of the Judiciary. The conclusions or decisions to not make any conclusions in the report are Mueller's alone.

I'd agree I don't think his press conference this morning did Barr any favors. Was kind of a pointless attempt to spin it in favor of his boss, when he was going to release the thing an hour or two later. Just set himself up for abuse in my opinion.

Of course the part that's missed by many networks is that he's not required by law to release ANY of the report. It's a confidential report after all. So I say it's a point in his favor that's he's done so without a lawsuit being filed.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:19 pm

Elbarad wrote:If there are holes in the report I'd suggest that's the fault of Mueller instead of Barr considering Mueller and his team wrote the report and Barr only marked out the bits he's required to by matter of law or policy of the Judiciary. The conclusions or decisions to not make any conclusions in the report are Mueller's alone.

I'd agree I don't think his press conference this morning did Barr any favors. Was kind of a pointless attempt to spin it in favor of his boss, when he was going to release the thing an hour or two later. Just set himself up for abuse in my opinion.

Of course the part that's missed by many networks is that he's not required by law to release ANY of the report. It's a confidential report after all. So I say it's a point in his favor that's he's done so without a lawsuit being filed.

1. You are taking Barr's word that he only redacted what he had to, and not what he wanted to. What has Barr done to deserve your trust, especially since what he didn't redact already shows that his word is worthless.

2. Mueller didn't really choose to not make any conclusions. He was aware of the DOJ policy of a sitting president not being indicted and choose that the only conclusions he would draw would be if he could exonerate Trump. The report says on three separate occasions that it does not exonerate him.

Mueller makes the point early in the report that he will not be concluding that the president committed a crime since without the means to defend himself in a trial it wouldn't be fair for a prosecutor to conclude criminality without the accused having the ability to clear their name at a trial. However Mueller does state that if he could exonerate Trump then the report would do so. It doesn't.

I don't like that he followed DOJ policy, because i think the policy stinks, but having made that decision to follow it the decision to not draw a conclusion that Trump committed crimes, even if those crimes are evident in the report, makes perfect sense.

Elbarad · Post by **Elbarad** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:29 pm

Sorry, can't figure out how to make that nice indent thingy. Guessing it's my browser. So...

1. You are taking Barr's word that he only redacted what he had to, and not what he wanted to. What has Barr done to deserve your trust, especially since what he didn't redact already shows that his word is worthless.

I'm not taking only his word. I'm taking the word of him, Rod Rosenstein and the members of the Mueller team who helped do the redactions. They've leaked enough thru the process, if they felt the redactions were wrongly applied, they'd have whispered it to the NY Times by now.

2. Mueller didn't really choose to not make any conclusions. He was aware of the DOJ policy of a sitting president not being indicted and choose that the only conclusions he would draw would be if he could exonerate Trump. The report says on three separate occasions that it does not exonerate him.

I'm sure you'll correct me if I"m wrong, but wasn't this question asked of Barr by the reporters at the press conference today? Again, you can claim that he's lying when he says Bob Mueller did not rely on the policy of not indicting sitting presidents, but again, if Mueller's team doesn't like that answer, it'll all come out when he's asked to testify before congress.

Mueller clearly does NOT exonerate Trump on the obstruction question, though it seems to me he does on the conspiracy question. THat's what leads him to ponder if there's no original crime, it's hard to prove there's obstruction.

If you were pro Trump you'd be very glad his handlers pretty much refused to obey orders that they thought could have been illegal.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:42 pm

Elbarad wrote:
If you were pro Trump you'd be very glad his handlers pretty much refused to obey orders that they thought could have been illegal.

I'm very happy about that, but Trump has sacked them all since and replaced them with people like Barr.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:50 pm

Elbarad wrote: I'm sure you'll correct me if I"m wrong, but wasn't this question asked of Barr by the reporters at the press conference today? Again, you can claim that he's lying when he says Bob Mueller did not rely on the policy of not indicting sitting presidents, but again, if Mueller's team doesn't like that answer, it'll all come out when he's asked to testify before congress.

It's literally in the report. I haven't seen Barr's spin conference so i don't know what he said, but it's literally in the report that Mueller made no attempt to draw a conclusion regarding Trump's guilt because without indicting him it wouldn't be fair.

Mueller clearly does NOT exonerate Trump on the obstruction question, though it seems to me he does on the conspiracy question. THat's what leads him to ponder if there's no original crime, it's hard to prove there's obstruction.

If you were pro Trump you'd be very glad his handlers pretty much refused to obey orders that they thought could have been illegal.

Nothing in the report, as far as I've read so far, exonerates Trump or his campaign. And when Barr or Trump, or anyone, claims that it does then they're either lying or ignorant as to the contents of the report.

The report states that it "did not establish" that members of the Trump campaign conspired or colluded with Russia. The report also is careful to state that just because the investigation did not establish a fact that it does not mean there was no evidence of the fact. Shown below.

This is from page 2 of the report, section titles "Introduction to Volumn I"

And this is from page 5

Elbarad · Post by **Elbarad** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:05 am

Taking your two highlighted sections, I'd say that's what an investigator was for. There was enough evidence to make it worthwhile having an investigation, but after the investigation they were unable to establish that a crime had been committed by Trump or any of his associates. Isn't that the point of a criminal investigation? You see something that's concerning and you investigate. If the facts turn out to not support your initial question, you don't prosecute. That doesn't turn the people you're looking at into angels. But it pretty much is the definition of exonerate.

ex·on·er·ate
/iɡˈzänəˌrāt/
verb
1.
(especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.
"they should exonerate these men from this crime"
synonyms: absolve, clear, acquit, declare innocent, find innocent, pronounce not guilty, discharge; More
2.
release someone from (a duty or obligation).

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:11 am

Elbarad wrote:If there are holes in the report I'd suggest that's the fault of Mueller instead of Barr considering Mueller and his team wrote the report and Barr only marked out the bits he's required to by matter of law or policy of the Judiciary. The conclusions or decisions to not make any conclusions in the report are Mueller's alone.

I'd agree I don't think his press conference this morning did Barr any favors. Was kind of a pointless attempt to spin it in favor of his boss, when he was going to release the thing an hour or two later. Just set himself up for abuse in my opinion.

Of course the part that's missed by many networks is that he's not required by law to release ANY of the report. It's a confidential report after all. So I say it's a point in his favor that's he's done so without a lawsuit being filed.

not really, if you had read the report or even followed the news there are numerous occasions in the report where Mueller states he was asking for information and he wasn't given it by Trump and his cronies.

Elbarad · Post by **Elbarad** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:15 am

None of which were Barr who has only been the AG a few months. Nice of you to make assumptions about me though.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:16 am

Elbarad wrote:Taking your two highlighted sections, I'd say that's what an investigator was for. There was enough evidence to make it worthwhile having an investigation, but after the investigation they were unable to establish that a crime had been committed by Trump or any of his associates. Isn't that the point of a criminal investigation? You see something that's concerning and you investigate. If the facts turn out to not support your initial question, you don't prosecute. That doesn't turn the people you're looking at into angels. But it pretty much is the definition of exonerate.

ex·on·er·ate
/iɡˈzänəˌrāt/
verb
1.
(especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.
"they should exonerate these men from this crime"
synonyms: absolve, clear, acquit, declare innocent, find innocent, pronounce not guilty, discharge; More
2.
release someone from (a duty or obligation).

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word "exonerate" means, which is weird since you provided the disctionary definition of it right after misinterpreting it.

I've literally provided you Mueller's own words that state that just because he did not establish something that doesn't mean there is no evidence of it.
"Exonerate" would mean to show that something is not a fact. Not that there is not enough evidence of a fact to establish it.

I honestly don't know how you can't see that "exonerate" and "did not establish" have two very different meanings. Even if you can't see that, another way you know they are different is that Mueller uses them both at separate points in his report. If he states at one point in his report that he cannot exonerate the President then why not just say "this exonerates the President" if that is what he meant?

It's frankly ridiculous to claim that "does not establish" is the same as "exonerates". One means "not proven to be guilty" and the other means "proven to be not guilty". They are very different.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:31 am

Here are the areas that show that Mueller accepted the OLC conclusion that a sitting president cannot be indicted, and that his office chose not approach the investigation in a way that could conclude that Trump committed crimes.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:36 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I honestly don't know how you can't see that "exonerate" and "did not establish" have two very different meanings.

Some people get words confused, it's as simple as that. Some people, for example, get "principle" and "principal" confused, even though they mean entirely different things. It's not worth making a big issue of.

Elbarad · Post by **Elbarad** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:36 am

OK IT. I'm done. On last bit and I'm turning off the PC.

You're now asking Mueller to prove a negative, which was not his job. His job was to see if there was a crime committed. He said there was not, that's about as close to exonerating as you can get. In fact it's closer then being proven not guilty at trial, because there isn't even enough evidence to bring it to trial. Is there zero evidence? No, there is not. That's why they investigated, but when they looked at the evidence, they did not find criminal acts.

Again, only on the conspiracy with Russia part. As for obstruction, I can easily see why he wasn't exonerated. He actually tried to obstruct the investigation but luckily had smart employees. There's a reasonable question if it met the legal standard, but yes, I'd agree to a laymen it certainly can look like it.

I'm not saying he's a good man, he's not. I'm just saying that the crimes Democrats hung their hats on for two years turned out to be not crimes and it would be nice if sometime they'd get onto the actual running of the country instead of 4 years of digging for dirt. They had their investigation, got their man to run it, he wasn't fired, he decided there wasn't an original crime. End of story, or at least it should be.

While the investigation was going on Trump might have committed a different crime, but that doesn't mean he committed the first one.

All in all I'm quite happy that the president of the USA did not conspire with Russia, and I'm happy that his legal team and other associates would not obstruct the investigation for him.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:43 am

Elbarad wrote:OK IT. I'm done. On last bit and I'm turning off the PC.

You're now asking Mueller to prove a negative, which was not his job. His job was to see if there was a crime committed. He said there was not, that's about as close to exonerating as you can get. ...

I nearly stopped reading at "prove a negative" because i wasn't' asking that at all. But i just gave up after this howler.

Mueller absolutely did not say that no crime was committed. One more time, being unable to establish something as true is not the same as establishing that it is false. If you cannot grasp that simple concept then this discussion is beyond you.
And by the way, if he had established that no crime was committed then that would be "proving a negative", which you seem to think was unreasonable of me to ask, even though i didn't ask.

You've ran rings around yourself.

Edit: Against my better judgement i read the rest of you post and it doesn't get much better. The report COULD NOT result in a trial. No matter how strong the evidence. Why? Because the report COULD NEVER reach a conclusion that Trump committed crimes, because Mueller had already decided not to reach that conclusion, no matter how strong the evidence. I pointed this out already, and i shows you where Mueller explains his reasoning behind this. So when you say that because the investigation does not establish that he committed crimes, and because there isn't going to be a trial as a result of the evidence that it in effect exonerates him, you are seriously ******* up the logic behind your own thinking.

The report was never going to lead to a trial, no matter what the report found. That was pre-determined.
The report was never going to conclude that Trump committed crimes, no matter what the evidence said. That was pre-determined.
So to determine that because the report isn't leading to a trial, and that because the report doesn't conclude that he committed crimes, it exonerates him is the dumbest possible interpretation of what the Report says.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:46 am

Remember when Nigel Farage showed up at the Equadorian embassy, and then when he left and journalists hanging around outside what his visit was about and he said he didn't remember?
I remember.

I wonder why Jerome Corsi would think that people in Farage's circle would be able to contact Assange.

Elbarad · Post by **Elbarad** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:41 am

So, assuming I agree with your statements that there would never be an indictment or trial for Trump based on this investigation even if the charge he was letting slip past was say Treason for example. And by the way, if he had conspired with the Russians as was alleged I would think it was Treason and would have supported any punishment allowed by law. But anyway, let's pretend I do concede your point.

Then where are the indictments for any of Trumps associates for conspiracy with the Russians? There are indictments for other crimes for his associates, such as lying to the FBI and bank/tax fraud from before the election even started, but nothing for conspiracy with the Russians.

Do you believe Trump himself, by himself committed the conspiracy with the Russians? Or maybe you believe that Mueller found a conspiracy, but because he felt he couldn't indict a sitting president he also then felt he couldn't indict other citizens because it wasn't fair to indict one person but not the other for the same crime?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:56 am

Elbarad wrote:So, assuming I agree with your statements that there would never be an indictment or trial for Trump based on this investigation...

They're not my statements. They're the statements of the Office of the Special Counsel. I've provided you his words in screenshots of the report. I've highlighted the specific sentences within the paragraphs where he explicitly states, clear as day,

Here it is again

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:44 am

Just hurry up and get to the part where it says he colluded with putin

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:56 am

Damo wrote:Just hurry up and get to the part where it says he colluded with putin

While Mueller doesn't reach a conclusion on Trump's criminality, i find it kinda weird that not much is being made of Trump repeatedly asking his staff to acquire Clinton's private emails, which would have to be acquired illegally (unless Clinton would just hand them over to Trump, which I doubt).

He claimed that when he was asking Russia to hack Clinton's emails that he was just joking, but in private he repeatedly asked his staff to get them, and his National Security Adviser actually took steps to get them.

Even if that's somehow not criminal it's clearly cause for impeachment hearings. Even without everything else about Russia helping him or whether he conspired with them, he was a candidate for president repeatedly asking his campaign staff to acquire stolen (or yet to be stolen) private communications. And Michael Flynn followed through with it to some extent in his contact with Peter Smith and KLS Research.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:11 am

NO COLLUSION !

yes, but, no but, something, something Trump.

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:13 am

Don't you just love it when, even when faced with evidence of wrong doing, because there's no direct proof of guilt, people overlook everything else and stamp around like morons.

I'd love to be that ignorant.

Uwe Noble · Post by **Uwe Noble** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:36 am

Elbarad wrote:OK IT. I'm done. On last bit and I'm turning off the PC.

You're now asking Mueller to prove a negative, which was not his job. His job was to see if there was a crime committed. He said there was not, that's about as close to exonerating as you can get. In fact it's closer then being proven not guilty at trial, because there isn't even enough evidence to bring it to trial. Is there zero evidence? No, there is not. That's why they investigated, but when they looked at the evidence, they did not find criminal acts.

Again, only on the conspiracy with Russia part. As for obstruction, I can easily see why he wasn't exonerated. He actually tried to obstruct the investigation but luckily had smart employees. There's a reasonable question if it met the legal standard, but yes, I'd agree to a laymen it certainly can look like it.

I'm not saying he's a good man, he's not. I'm just saying that the crimes Democrats hung their hats on for two years turned out to be not crimes and it would be nice if sometime they'd get onto the actual running of the country instead of 4 years of digging for dirt. They had their investigation, got their man to run it, he wasn't fired, he decided there wasn't an original crime. End of story, or at least it should be.

While the investigation was going on Trump might have committed a different crime, but that doesn't mean he committed the first one.

All in all I'm quite happy that the president of the USA did not conspire with Russia, and I'm happy that his legal team and other associates would not obstruct the investigation for him.

Great post mate. If Mueller had sufficient evidence on obstruction then he would have charged Trump. Simples. He did not. Innocent until proven guilty. Notice no apologies from the numpties on this board who have been running around shouting "Russia, Russia, Russia!". Now the tables are about to be turned!

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:39 am

Uwe Noble wrote:Great post mate. If Mueller had sufficient evidence on obstruction then he would have charged Trump. Simples. He did not. Innocent until proven guilty. Notice no apologies from the numptie on this board who have been running around shouting "Russia, Russia, Russia!". Now the tables are about to be turned!

In what way are the tables turned?

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:40 am

The leftists now just need to accept this....its verging on insanity

Uwe Noble · Post by **Uwe Noble** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:52 am

ClaretAndJew wrote:In what way are the tables turned?

We are about to find out the corrupt basis on which this investigation began.

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:55 am

Uwe Noble wrote:We are about to find out the corrupt basis on which this investigation began.

That's not really the tables turning is it.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:39 am

Uwe Noble wrote:We are about to find out the corrupt basis on which this investigation began.

That's an impressive way to say "But her e-mails....."

Course, not a complete shock to see that it's 100% certain that Russia conspired to try to interfere with the US election and that they wanted Trump to win.

Now why are you lot so keen to ignore that?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:39 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Not as hilarious as if we actually became a Muslim caliphate though.

To be honest I'd love that, all the soyboys and leftists would get the shock of their lives.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:52 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:To be honest I'd love that, all the soyboys and leftists would get the shock of their lives.

Oh; I'm sure we'd both be first against the wall.

Uwe Noble · Post by **Uwe Noble** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:08 am

Still waiting for that to apology, boys. You insisted that Trump was effectively a Russian agent. A modicum of humility might be in order on your part instead of trying to move the goal posts and pretend that you never said it. Your credibility is shot.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:10 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Oh; I'm sure we'd both be first against the wall.

Nah first against the wall would be as follows;

- Jews
- Transgender people
- Gay People
- People who refuse to bend the knee and take the Salat or pay the Jizyah

We'd come somewhere after that when they realise we are only playing their little game to stay alive long enough to see it fall.