Great point, Mueller's report shows the dossier was a complete work of fiction
Comments
-
That's not what I said at all Kunt. I cited the amount of money spent on Welfare before Clinton "gutted" it and then I cited the money spent on Welfare after he had "gutted" it. Welfare spending increased by hundreds of millions of dollars after you claimed he had "gutted" it. I never said anything about Medicare and Medicaid and not being fucking moron I would never call Medicare a welfare program.HardlyClothed said:
The welfare thing is a perfect example of your bad faith.SFGbob said:It's pointless arguing with most all liberals. Correct. The best you can hope for is to shame and embarrass people who are mostly incapable of either.
Take you for example, you didn't really care when I caught you talking out your ass. Your claim that Clinton "gutted" welfare was total bullshit. You knew you didn't want to retract your statement and you knew you couldn't defend it so you ran away. Now do I think for a second that you were embarrassed when you put your head up your ass? Fuck no. You're a liberal and most liberals aren't capable of shame.
I said Clinton teamed up with the Republicans to gut welfare, which he did with PRWORA in ‘96, replacing AFDC with TANF, reducing the number of direct welfare recipients by half.
You say he didn’t gut welfare because he expanded medicare and medicaid, which are health care programs, and not what I was originally talking about (I was talking about direct welfare and not health care), which you obviously ignored.
Wow what a surprise nobody wants to try to honestly engage with someone who doesn’t operate on the level! Moron.
Time for you to run and hide again Kunt. -
You never answer questions bob. Ever. Now go run and hide you pussy.SFGbob said:
That's not what I said at all Kunt. I cited the amount of money spent on Welfare before Clinton "gutted" it and then I cited the money spent on Welfare after he had "gutted" it. Welfare spending increased by hundreds of millions of dollars after you claimed he had "gutted" it. I never said anything about Medicare and Medicaid and not being fucking moron I would never call Medicare a welfare program.HardlyClothed said:
The welfare thing is a perfect example of your bad faith.SFGbob said:It's pointless arguing with most all liberals. Correct. The best you can hope for is to shame and embarrass people who are mostly incapable of either.
Take you for example, you didn't really care when I caught you talking out your ass. Your claim that Clinton "gutted" welfare was total bullshit. You knew you didn't want to retract your statement and you knew you couldn't defend it so you ran away. Now do I think for a second that you were embarrassed when you put your head up your ass? Fuck no. You're a liberal and most liberals aren't capable of shame.
I said Clinton teamed up with the Republicans to gut welfare, which he did with PRWORA in ‘96, replacing AFDC with TANF, reducing the number of direct welfare recipients by half.
You say he didn’t gut welfare because he expanded medicare and medicaid, which are health care programs, and not what I was originally talking about (I was talking about direct welfare and not health care), which you obviously ignored.
Wow what a surprise nobody wants to try to honestly engage with someone who doesn’t operate on the level! Moron.
Time for you to run and hide again Kunt. -
Why do you love sucking cock? I've been asking you that question for days now. Answer the question!!!!!CirrhosisDawg said:
You never answer questions bob. Ever. Now go run and hide you pussy.SFGbob said:
That's not what I said at all Kunt. I cited the amount of money spent on Welfare before Clinton "gutted" it and then I cited the money spent on Welfare after he had "gutted" it. Welfare spending increased by hundreds of millions of dollars after you claimed he had "gutted" it. I never said anything about Medicare and Medicaid and not being fucking moron I would never call Medicare a welfare program.HardlyClothed said:
The welfare thing is a perfect example of your bad faith.SFGbob said:It's pointless arguing with most all liberals. Correct. The best you can hope for is to shame and embarrass people who are mostly incapable of either.
Take you for example, you didn't really care when I caught you talking out your ass. Your claim that Clinton "gutted" welfare was total bullshit. You knew you didn't want to retract your statement and you knew you couldn't defend it so you ran away. Now do I think for a second that you were embarrassed when you put your head up your ass? Fuck no. You're a liberal and most liberals aren't capable of shame.
I said Clinton teamed up with the Republicans to gut welfare, which he did with PRWORA in ‘96, replacing AFDC with TANF, reducing the number of direct welfare recipients by half.
You say he didn’t gut welfare because he expanded medicare and medicaid, which are health care programs, and not what I was originally talking about (I was talking about direct welfare and not health care), which you obviously ignored.
Wow what a surprise nobody wants to try to honestly engage with someone who doesn’t operate on the level! Moron.
Time for you to run and hide again Kunt. -
You included the increased spending in medicare and medicaid as part of general welfare spending to claim it went up. Which in the aggregate it did go up! But direct welfare spending, which I was talking about, was cut drastically.SFGbob said:
That's not what I said at all Kunt. I cited the amount of money spent on Welfare before Clinton "gutted" it and then I cited the money spent on Welfare after he had "gutted" it. Welfare spending increased by hundreds of millions of dollars after you claimed he had "gutted" it. I never said anything about Medicare and Medicaid and not being fucking moron I would never call Medicare a welfare program.HardlyClothed said:
The welfare thing is a perfect example of your bad faith.SFGbob said:It's pointless arguing with most all liberals. Correct. The best you can hope for is to shame and embarrass people who are mostly incapable of either.
Take you for example, you didn't really care when I caught you talking out your ass. Your claim that Clinton "gutted" welfare was total bullshit. You knew you didn't want to retract your statement and you knew you couldn't defend it so you ran away. Now do I think for a second that you were embarrassed when you put your head up your ass? Fuck no. You're a liberal and most liberals aren't capable of shame.
I said Clinton teamed up with the Republicans to gut welfare, which he did with PRWORA in ‘96, replacing AFDC with TANF, reducing the number of direct welfare recipients by half.
You say he didn’t gut welfare because he expanded medicare and medicaid, which are health care programs, and not what I was originally talking about (I was talking about direct welfare and not health care), which you obviously ignored.
Wow what a surprise nobody wants to try to honestly engage with someone who doesn’t operate on the level! Moron.
Time for you to run and hide again Kunt.
Then you use the aggregate to obfuscate what I was referring to, direct welfare spending, and then claim I’m a lying “Kunt” for saying Clinton gutted welfare, which he did. You can stop lying about your previous posts, it doesn’t make you look any better. -
Complete fucking lie.HardlyClothed said:
You included the increased spending in medicare and medicaid as part of general welfare spending to claim it went up. Which in the aggregate it did go up! But direct welfare spending, which I was talking about, was cut drastically.SFGbob said:
That's not what I said at all Kunt. I cited the amount of money spent on Welfare before Clinton "gutted" it and then I cited the money spent on Welfare after he had "gutted" it. Welfare spending increased by hundreds of millions of dollars after you claimed he had "gutted" it. I never said anything about Medicare and Medicaid and not being fucking moron I would never call Medicare a welfare program.HardlyClothed said:
The welfare thing is a perfect example of your bad faith.SFGbob said:It's pointless arguing with most all liberals. Correct. The best you can hope for is to shame and embarrass people who are mostly incapable of either.
Take you for example, you didn't really care when I caught you talking out your ass. Your claim that Clinton "gutted" welfare was total bullshit. You knew you didn't want to retract your statement and you knew you couldn't defend it so you ran away. Now do I think for a second that you were embarrassed when you put your head up your ass? Fuck no. You're a liberal and most liberals aren't capable of shame.
I said Clinton teamed up with the Republicans to gut welfare, which he did with PRWORA in ‘96, replacing AFDC with TANF, reducing the number of direct welfare recipients by half.
You say he didn’t gut welfare because he expanded medicare and medicaid, which are health care programs, and not what I was originally talking about (I was talking about direct welfare and not health care), which you obviously ignored.
Wow what a surprise nobody wants to try to honestly engage with someone who doesn’t operate on the level! Moron.
Time for you to run and hide again Kunt.
Then you use the aggregate to obfuscate what I was referring to, direct welfare spending, and then claim I’m a lying “Kunt” for saying Clinton gutted welfare, which he did. You can stop lying about your previous posts, it doesn’t make you look any better.
Pulling claims straight out of your ass. Medicare spending isn't part of Welfare spending and I would never claim that it was. I'm going to find the post. You're fucking lying. -
Good luck sifting through all your lunacy to find it only to be disappointed that I was was right.SFGbob said:
Complete fucking lie.HardlyClothed said:
You included the increased spending in medicare and medicaid as part of general welfare spending to claim it went up. Which in the aggregate it did go up! But direct welfare spending, which I was talking about, was cut drastically.SFGbob said:
That's not what I said at all Kunt. I cited the amount of money spent on Welfare before Clinton "gutted" it and then I cited the money spent on Welfare after he had "gutted" it. Welfare spending increased by hundreds of millions of dollars after you claimed he had "gutted" it. I never said anything about Medicare and Medicaid and not being fucking moron I would never call Medicare a welfare program.HardlyClothed said:
The welfare thing is a perfect example of your bad faith.SFGbob said:It's pointless arguing with most all liberals. Correct. The best you can hope for is to shame and embarrass people who are mostly incapable of either.
Take you for example, you didn't really care when I caught you talking out your ass. Your claim that Clinton "gutted" welfare was total bullshit. You knew you didn't want to retract your statement and you knew you couldn't defend it so you ran away. Now do I think for a second that you were embarrassed when you put your head up your ass? Fuck no. You're a liberal and most liberals aren't capable of shame.
I said Clinton teamed up with the Republicans to gut welfare, which he did with PRWORA in ‘96, replacing AFDC with TANF, reducing the number of direct welfare recipients by half.
You say he didn’t gut welfare because he expanded medicare and medicaid, which are health care programs, and not what I was originally talking about (I was talking about direct welfare and not health care), which you obviously ignored.
Wow what a surprise nobody wants to try to honestly engage with someone who doesn’t operate on the level! Moron.
Time for you to run and hide again Kunt.
Then you use the aggregate to obfuscate what I was referring to, direct welfare spending, and then claim I’m a lying “Kunt” for saying Clinton gutted welfare, which he did. You can stop lying about your previous posts, it doesn’t make you look any better.
Pulling claims straight out of your ass. Medicare spending isn't part of Welfare spending and I would never claim that it was. I'm going to find the post. You're fucking lying. -
I found it. Direct quote from Bob saying medicaid is another form of welfare:
Ahhh yes, they "gutted" Welfare just like Obama's "austerity" where he ran a $700 Billion deficit.
This is just welfare expenses, it doesn't include Medicaid which is another form of Welfare.
1993 Clinton's first year in office Welfare expenditures were were a little under $146B. In 2000, Clinton's last year in office Welfare spent $171B. They gutted it!!!!!
Link to thread:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/comment/988910#Comment_988910 -
I don’t.SFGbob said:
Why do you love sucking cock? I've been asking you that question for days now. Answer the question!!!!!CirrhosisDawg said:
You never answer questions bob. Ever. Now go run and hide you pussy.SFGbob said:
That's not what I said at all Kunt. I cited the amount of money spent on Welfare before Clinton "gutted" it and then I cited the money spent on Welfare after he had "gutted" it. Welfare spending increased by hundreds of millions of dollars after you claimed he had "gutted" it. I never said anything about Medicare and Medicaid and not being fucking moron I would never call Medicare a welfare program.HardlyClothed said:
The welfare thing is a perfect example of your bad faith.SFGbob said:It's pointless arguing with most all liberals. Correct. The best you can hope for is to shame and embarrass people who are mostly incapable of either.
Take you for example, you didn't really care when I caught you talking out your ass. Your claim that Clinton "gutted" welfare was total bullshit. You knew you didn't want to retract your statement and you knew you couldn't defend it so you ran away. Now do I think for a second that you were embarrassed when you put your head up your ass? Fuck no. You're a liberal and most liberals aren't capable of shame.
I said Clinton teamed up with the Republicans to gut welfare, which he did with PRWORA in ‘96, replacing AFDC with TANF, reducing the number of direct welfare recipients by half.
You say he didn’t gut welfare because he expanded medicare and medicaid, which are health care programs, and not what I was originally talking about (I was talking about direct welfare and not health care), which you obviously ignored.
Wow what a surprise nobody wants to try to honestly engage with someone who doesn’t operate on the level! Moron.
Time for you to run and hide again Kunt.
Your turn pussy. What apology is owed? A “man of integrity” would answer the question. -
It also says he didn't include it which was your accusationHardlyClothed said:I found it. Direct quote from Bob saying medicaid is another form of welfare:
Ahhh yes, they "gutted" Welfare just like Obama's "austerity" where he ran a $700 Billion deficit.
This is just welfare expenses, it doesn't include Medicaid which is another form of Welfare.
1993 Clinton's first year in office Welfare expenditures were were a little under $146B. In 2000, Clinton's last year in office Welfare spent $171B. They gutted it!!!!!
Link to thread:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/comment/988910#Comment_988910 -
Wow, you're either a liar or a moron. Medicare and Medicaid are not the same thing. You claimed that I included the increase in Medicare spending to refute your lie about Clinton "gutting" welfare spending. Not only did I not include Medicare spending, I also didn't include Medicaid spending which really is Welfare.
Even excluding Medicaid spending, Welfare spending increased by $25 Billion dollars during Clinton's 8 years.
A $25 Billion increase in welfare spending = "gutting" welfare to you.
-
This is more dishonesty (lying) from Bob. Welfare reform was in like 1997/1998. Why are you using the start number from Clinton? And you also don't factor in inflation. Lol lyin Bob.SFGbob said:Wow, you're either a liar or a moron. Medicare and Medicaid are not the same thing. You claimed that I included the increase in Medicare spending to refute your lie about Clinton "gutting" welfare spending. Not only did I not include Medicare spending, I also didn't include Medicaid spending which really is Welfare.
Even excluding Medicaid spending, Welfare spending increased by $25 Billion dollars during Clinton's 8 years.
A $25 Billion increase in welfare spending = "gutting" welfare to you. -
And I love that O'Keefed is tonguing your ass on this. Getting on in here O'Keefed and hop on board this dipshit train. Tell me more about how a $25 Billion dollar increase in welfare spending = "gutting" welfare.HardlyClothed said:I found it. Direct quote from Bob saying medicaid is another form of welfare:
Ahhh yes, they "gutted" Welfare just like Obama's "austerity" where he ran a $700 Billion deficit.
This is just welfare expenses, it doesn't include Medicaid which is another form of Welfare.
1993 Clinton's first year in office Welfare expenditures were were a little under $146B. In 2000, Clinton's last year in office Welfare spent $171B. They gutted it!!!!!
Link to thread:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/comment/988910#Comment_988910
You say he didn’t gut welfare because he expanded medicare and medicaid, which are health care programs, and not what I was originally talking about (I was talking about direct welfare and not health care), which you obviously ignored.
And as I said, this claim is a flat-out fucking lie. Not only didn't I include Medicare spending, I didn't even include Medicaid spending in the numbers I provided.
Liar or fucking moron HC?
-
Why are you still lying Bob?SFGbob said:
And I love that O'Keefed is tonguing your ass on this. Getting on in here O'Keefed and hop on board this dipshit train. Tell me more about how a $25 Billion dollar increase in welfare spending = "gutting" welfare.HardlyClothed said:I found it. Direct quote from Bob saying medicaid is another form of welfare:
Ahhh yes, they "gutted" Welfare just like Obama's "austerity" where he ran a $700 Billion deficit.
This is just welfare expenses, it doesn't include Medicaid which is another form of Welfare.
1993 Clinton's first year in office Welfare expenditures were were a little under $146B. In 2000, Clinton's last year in office Welfare spent $171B. They gutted it!!!!!
Link to thread:
https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/comment/988910#Comment_988910
You say he didn’t gut welfare because he expanded medicare and medicaid, which are health care programs, and not what I was originally talking about (I was talking about direct welfare and not health care), which you obviously ignored.
And as I said, this claim is a flat-out fucking lie. Not only didn't I include Medicare spending, I didn't even include Medicaid spending in the numbers I provided.
Liar or fucking moron HC? -
I only remembered the one vast health care program that you claimed was welfare in a thread from two months ago!!!
“I never said anything about medicare and medicaid”. Yes you did and you were wrong then and wrong now.
Your $25 billion increase in welfare spending is bullshit. Recipients of direct welfare were cut in half from AFDC to TANF. You’d think you would learn to stop digging yourself into deeper and deeper holes. Then again, you’re an idiot. -
Because if you "gut" Welfare then you actually spend less on welfare than what you were spending on Welfare. And Welfare reform was actually in 1996, which using your standard makes you a liar Hondo.2001400ex said:
This is more dishonesty (lying) from Bob. Welfare reform was in like 1997/1998. Why are you using the start number from Clinton? And you also don't factor in inflation. Lol lyin Bob.SFGbob said:Wow, you're either a liar or a moron. Medicare and Medicaid are not the same thing. You claimed that I included the increase in Medicare spending to refute your lie about Clinton "gutting" welfare spending. Not only did I not include Medicare spending, I also didn't include Medicaid spending which really is Welfare.
Even excluding Medicaid spending, Welfare spending increased by $25 Billion dollars during Clinton's 8 years.
A $25 Billion increase in welfare spending = "gutting" welfare to you. -
HardlyClothed said:
I only remembered the one vast health care program that you claimed was welfare in a thread from two months ago!!!
“I never said anything about medicare and medicaid”. Yes you did and you were wrong then and wrong now.
Your $25 billion increase in welfare spending is bullshit. Recipients of direct welfare were cut in half from AFDC to TANF. You’d think you would learn to stop digging yourself into deeper and deeper holes. Then again, you’re an idiot.
You say he didn’t gut welfare because he expanded medicare and medicaid, which are health care programs, and not what I was originally talking about (I was talking about direct welfare and not health care), which you obviously ignored.
Remember when I was talking earlier about liberals with no integrity? That statement by you is a flat out lie. And numbers I cited to refute your claim about welfare being gutted didn't include a dollar spent on Medicare or Medicaid.
Direct benefits were cut and childcare was increased. Far from being "gutted" Welfare spending increased. You lied Kunt. -
You say he didn’t gut welfare because he expanded medicare and medicaid, which are health care programs, and not what I was originally talking about (I was talking about direct welfare and not health care), which you obviously ignored.
Pathological liar, or low integrity piece of shit. We're going to find out. -
But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
-
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
-
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
-
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
-
You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
-
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
-
Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
-
Westfield Malls Law School isn't taking our best a brightest.Sledog said:
Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
-
I’m sure you can post the vindicating passage then. Unless you’re a “man of integrity” like bob.Sledog said:
Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
-
CirrhosisDawg said:
I’m sure you can post the vindicating passage then. Unless you’re a “man of integrity” like bob.Sledog said:
Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
"In cataloging the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice."HHusky said:
Westfield Malls Law School isn't taking our best a brightest.Sledog said:
Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
-
But but but H has a line in thereSledog said:CirrhosisDawg said:
I’m sure you can post the vindicating passage then. Unless you’re a “man of integrity” like bob.Sledog said:
Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
"In cataloging the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice."HHusky said:
Westfield Malls Law School isn't taking our best a brightest.Sledog said:
Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
-
Great job bobsled. So now you agree the plain text says he was not exonerated. Both explicitly, and in doj’s decision not to proescute.Sledog said:CirrhosisDawg said:
I’m sure you can post the vindicating passage then. Unless you’re a “man of integrity” like bob.Sledog said:
Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
"In cataloging the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice."HHusky said:
Westfield Malls Law School isn't taking our best a brightest.Sledog said:
Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
-
It says he didn't commit obstruction but I guess being a liberal you need it spelled out in those exact words and then maybe a romper room style explanation. Fuck off.CirrhosisDawg said:
Great job bobsled. So now you agree the plain text says he was not exonerated. Both explicitly, and in doj’s decision not to proescute.Sledog said:CirrhosisDawg said:
I’m sure you can post the vindicating passage then. Unless you’re a “man of integrity” like bob.Sledog said:
Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
"In cataloging the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice."HHusky said:
Westfield Malls Law School isn't taking our best a brightest.Sledog said:
Read it. Cleared of obstruction. You should try reading it.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
You're full of shit. Certainly no surprise there! Back up your mouth with the info you claim is correct. Man up sissy boy!CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:
Please point out the crime of obstruction that you say exists. Post relevant facts and articles. I'll wait here.CirrhosisDawg said:
You didn’t read the Barr summary. Not surprised.Sledog said:But some can't understand why you can not obstruct a work of fiction.
What dose 'No actions that that constitute obstructive conduct" mean to you?
