The key is to opt out and post one of his many high level pastas while ridiculing/complimenting him. He's an lolcow/pasta free writer, and a very effective community tool in that he's essentially a flycatcher for retards and lolcows.
This whole thing started because I asked if he was on the spectrum. I wasn't even making fun, I was genuinely curious, but he immediately launched into some tirade about my inferior intellect. Now I'm content not knowing, this is way funnier.
Firing the FBI director, his general attacks and attempts to make the DOJ shut down the investigation, etc etc. Mueller found evidence for obstruction of justice but left it up to the DOJ.
I wouldn't know, I haven't laid eyes on the report and I haven't seen Trump hasn't been brought up on any such charges yet. Is it possible that he did? Maybe, but if he did then why isn't anything being done about it if he did.
Him being fired doesn't necessarily mean that he did either. Trump is a reactionary narcissist who'd fire anyone who could/would dare say anything negative about him at all.
With that said, we do know that his son was consorting with the Kremlin and that his circle of fellow mongs lied about his relationship/dealings with the ruskies.
Personally, I think he did but I can't rule out the possibility that he didn't and that this is just another stupid shitfest between parties. I find it hard to upvote you at times because sometimes your seriousposting is cringey in that you get way to fired up. At the same time though I find your seriousposting amusing and, dare I say it, insightful as in these sort of scenarios one must hear multiple sides of a debate/argument.
So, did he? Hell, I'd like to think so. But do we know for sure, in black and white, on a publicly disclosed unredacted/uncensored report? Fuck me, man, I sure as shit haven't seen it yet
That's a hot take. He exercised the power of his office and fired a guy. Firing that guy wouldn't have any impact on any ongoing investigations, because the FBI director doesn't personally lead investigations. Even if wanted to argue that firing the FBI director would impact an investigation, Comey himself has admitted that he told Trump on three different occasions that he wasn't under investigation. So how does firing a guy who isn't heading up an investigation into your behavior -- because he's already told you such an investigation doesn't exist at least three times -- amount to "obstruction?"
Fam, we both know that report is going to obtain evidence of obstruction of justice. He fired an FBI director and literally said he did so because he was being investigated.
there isn't any real way to spin out of this. That's just what is public.
Fam, we both know that report is going to obtain evidence of obstruction of justice.
If that's the case, then my question should be easy to answer, so answer it:
How does firing a guy who isn't heading up an investigation into your behavior -- because he's already told you such an investigation doesn't exist at least three times -- amount to "obstruction?"
"He said he did it because of the investigation" isn't an answer because there wasn't an investigation and he knew there wasn't an investigation.
That's not "I fired him because I was being investigated" no matter how you want to twist it. On top of that, after two years we find out Trump was right: It is a made up story so that Democrats have an excuse for having lost an election that they should’ve won. So, again, the question remains:
How does firing a guy who isn't heading up an investigation into your behavior -- because he's already told you such an investigation doesn't exist at least three times -- amount to "obstruction?"
That's not "I fired him because I was being investigated
He fucking fired him after he refused to cut Flynn a break. Are you trolling?
after two years we find out Trump was right:
No we fucking didn't. He hired a cover-up artist involved in 3 previous cover-ups and lied no less than 25 times about Russia. He lied about his business dealings in Russia, his son met with a Russian asset in search of dirt on Clinton, many people around him lied about contacts with Russia and business dealings with Russia.
The man is a corrupt piece of shit and pathological liar.
How does firing a guy who isn't heading up an investigation into your behavior -- because he's already told you such an investigation doesn't exist at least three times -- amount to "obstruction?"
It doesn't matter if the underlying claim is true or not, obstruction is still obstruction. Criminal behavior does not need to have happened for someone to be charged with obstruction of justice. I'm baffled here, you seem to have not even a basic comprehension of what obstruction of justice means.
Why do you thing Barr said the report did not clear him of obstruction and evidence existed of obstruction?
Furthermore, people on the Mueller team are saying the evidence of obstruction was substantial:
Some members of special counsel Robert Mueller's team have reportedly complained that the evidence they uncovered of obstruction of justice during their investigation was stronger than what Attorney General William Barr suggested.
According to the Post, the team members said that they gathered "alarming and significant" evidence when investigating whether President Trump committed obstruction of justice.
So you can keep denying what happened here, but the truth WILL come out.
He fucking fired him after he refused to cut Flynn a break.
No, but you must be, unless you can come up with a quote where Trump directly says "I fired him because of investigations," which you can't, because he never said it. Your moronic parsing of the moronic shit he did say doesn't count as "evidence" of anything.
He hired a cover-up artist involved in 3 previous cover-ups
Trump didn't hire shit. Rosenstein did, and Trump's criticized Mueller, the choice of Mueller as special counsel, and the entire investigation ever since it started, and rightfully so. "He's a secret Trump puppet" already sounds retarded coming from the /r/politics crowd after two years of bullshit about how great Robert Mueller and how he's going to bring Trump down. That you would surpass their idiocy by suggesting that a guy who is James Comey's closest butt-buddy and a certified anti-Trumper is a secret stooge of the White House should make you feel embarrassed. You've out-crazied /r/politics with that one.
It doesn't matter if the underlying claim is true or not
It matters a great deal. No court is going to treat the allegation that someone is "obstructing justice" seriously when one of the facts of the case is that the person in question wasn't under investigation for anything and knew that was the case.
Why do you think Barr said the report did not clear him of obstruction and evidence existed of obstruction?
This is a prime example of why your hot takes on this issue are so far off base. The summary, including direct quotes from Mueller's report, says that Mueller has listed evidence and testimony in support of both sides of the issue but Mueller didn't make a determination on whether or not obstruction occurred. You say "evidence existed of obstruction," which is true insofar as Mueller presents evidence and testimony to support that assertion, but you fail to mention that he also presents evidence and testimony that supports the opposing conclusion, and also
I'm sure you're one of the rocket surgeons who have latched onto the "does not exonerate him" part as if it means something. The quote demonstrates Mueller's petulance and lack of professionalism, because as a lifelong prosecutor and law enforcement official he knows that exoneration is exceedingly rare. It generally only happens in our legal system when there is enough evidence to overturn an prior conviction, and is as close to saying someone is "innocent" as our system of "guilty" or "not guilty" gets. It's a purposeful misuse of a term of art.
Furthermore, people on the Mueller team are saying the evidence of obstruction was substantial:
Oh, good, more "anonymous sources" who are "familiar with the thinking" of people who refuse to go on record or provide any reason of substance why Barr's summary shouldn't be believed. Those have all turned out to be 100% accurate and believable the last two years, how could this be wrong? /s
So you can keep denying what happened here, but the truth WILL come out.
Everything I've said reflects what's in the public record. I'm not the one speculating that what's in reports we haven't seen yet proves things that the official summary of the report indicates weren't proven, or suggesting that good friend of James Comey and anti-Trump republican Robert Mueller is a secret agent of Trump, or that reports based on anonymous sources are worthy of any credit. The truth is going to come out, and it's not going to be what you think it is, and when it happens you'll do exactly what the idiots in /r/politics are doing. You'll bury your head, say the evidence doesn't count, accuse everyone of being part of some kind of conspiracy, and suggest that 50 years from now when the grand jury information is finally made public that you'll be proven right.
No, but you must be, unless you can come up with a quote where Trump directly says "I fired him because of investigations," which you can't, because he never said it. Your moronic parsing of the moronic shit he did say doesn't count as "evidence" of anything.
Look, I stopped reading here. I'm not going to play this game here where a learning disabled rightoid thinks you have to have a direct quote saying "I fired because of the investigation."
"I fired over the Russia stuff" is more than adequate.
If you can prove you have even a tiny bit of intellectual honesty, i'll read the rest of your comment. Until then, until you manage to snap out of your very clear mental illness I am not reading your wall of text, which is very likely riddled with more bad faith arguments and delusional drivel.
He's falling for pizza's serious posts and writing paragraphs about shit that none of us have any affect on and I want to bait him into doing it more so I can make fun of him.
He's falling for pizza's serious posts and writing paragraphs about shit that none of us have any affect on and I want to bait him into doing it more so I can make fun of him
Their C O P E is on standby. They decided the day the summary released that it didn't count until they could see the report. When they see the report and it doesn't give them what they want they're going to insist the redacted parts of the report will prove them right.
Resistcels and the DDF should unironically both want to see the unredacted report. Daddy will only be found guilty/exonerated by the full thing. Anything short of that leaves too much room for COPE.
Anything short of that leaves too much room for COPE.
That's the plan. Trump will eventually suggest they release the whole thing, at which point every democrat in congress who is screaming about redactions will an about face and criticize him for wanting to make grand jury and national security information public.
It would be funny if they release it, the left complains about some redactions, and then they release it again with less redactions that show only bad things about people on the left.
72 comments
1 BussyShillBot 2019-04-15
I may be a 🎅 white 🏳nationalist 👏 but If 😏 I see 😘 a fine 👯 asian 🍜 ass 👌 my bloodline 💦💦 bout to 💆become 🍘 a 🍙 riceline 🍱
Outlines:
I am a bot for posting Outline.com links. github / Contact for info or issues
1 SnapshillBot 2019-04-15
Promoting anarchofascism for 9 years and counting.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 prince_of_prussia1 2019-04-15
I cant wait to see pizzashills dissertation about orange man colluded
1 nio151 2019-04-15
We both know it will never end
1 dragon_dildo_fan 2019-04-15
Be careful, it’s physically impossible for him to lose a debate
1 WeWuzKANG5 2019-04-15
The key is to opt out and post one of his many high level pastas while ridiculing/complimenting him. He's an lolcow/pasta free writer, and a very effective community tool in that he's essentially a flycatcher for retards and lolcows.
1 SpiceAndEvNice 2019-04-15
He has only lost 3 internet discussions, according to him.
2 TrailerParkBride 2019-04-15
He told me that he only lost one. He also said that he's measured my intellect to be insufficient for holding a conversation with him. 🙍
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-15
Nothing personal, I've just noticed a lot of traits in you I'd consider evidence of cognitive issues so I feel bad when I argue with you.
1 dragon_dildo_fan 2019-04-15
yet another debate won 😎
1 Doctor-Pavel 2019-04-15
while you spent years learning the blade, pizzashill mastered the internet debate
Nothing personal, f-slur
1 TrailerParkBride 2019-04-15
Argument with TrailerParkBride
Status: pwned epic style 😎
1 retarded4bustin 2019-04-15
Reminder that he counts every reply of yours that he doesn't respond to as another victory.
Get owned by PizzaShillGate bitch.
1 TrailerParkBride 2019-04-15
This whole thing started because I asked if he was on the spectrum. I wasn't even making fun, I was genuinely curious, but he immediately launched into some tirade about my inferior intellect. Now I'm content not knowing, this is way funnier.
1 retarded4bustin 2019-04-15
Him and PoJoM have always come across as unbalanced as fuck, even when they're talking about normal things.
Soul mates tbh.
1 jubbergun 2019-04-15
"Physically impossible" seems like a phrase that would describe P-Shilly.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-15
Never said there would be evidence he himself colluded. But obstruction of justice? Yes.
1 cheers_grills 2019-04-15
Being impeached for obstructing the investigation into a crime you're innocent of would be peak Daddy.
1 prince_of_prussia1 2019-04-15
When did he obstruct justice my lord and masterbater pizza?
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-15
Firing the FBI director, his general attacks and attempts to make the DOJ shut down the investigation, etc etc. Mueller found evidence for obstruction of justice but left it up to the DOJ.
1 Anus_of_Aeneas 2019-04-15
Firing Comey was a long time coming. Comey went full retard leading up to the election.
1 KittehDragoon 2019-04-15
Kushner thought it was a great idea - the greatest folks, because all his ideas are great.
Bannon thought it was the most retarded idea of our lifetimes, but of course he'd say that, it came from one of (((them))). Guess he was just jealous.
1 preserved_fish 2019-04-15
Isn't Bannon Irish?
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-15
I don't think he went full retard. He thought Clinton would win and assumed Republicans in congress had some kind of intellectual honesty.
They leaked that letter. All Comey was doing was trying to give them 1 less thing to fabricate conspiracies about after the election.
1 FrostBittenSalsa 2019-04-15
Sometimes you make it hard for me to upvote you despite your being the greatest lolcjw to ever grace the sub aside from PK
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-15
Did Mueller find evidence of obstruction of justice? Yes or no.
1 FrostBittenSalsa 2019-04-15
I wouldn't know, I haven't laid eyes on the report and I haven't seen Trump hasn't been brought up on any such charges yet. Is it possible that he did? Maybe, but if he did then why isn't anything being done about it if he did.
Him being fired doesn't necessarily mean that he did either. Trump is a reactionary narcissist who'd fire anyone who could/would dare say anything negative about him at all. With that said, we do know that his son was consorting with the Kremlin and that his circle of fellow mongs lied about his relationship/dealings with the ruskies.
Personally, I think he did but I can't rule out the possibility that he didn't and that this is just another stupid shitfest between parties. I find it hard to upvote you at times because sometimes your seriousposting is cringey in that you get way to fired up. At the same time though I find your seriousposting amusing and, dare I say it, insightful as in these sort of scenarios one must hear multiple sides of a debate/argument.
So, did he? Hell, I'd like to think so. But do we know for sure, in black and white, on a publicly disclosed unredacted/uncensored report? Fuck me, man, I sure as shit haven't seen it yet
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-15
Alright alright good answer.
1 FrostBittenSalsa 2019-04-15
👉😎👉
1 jubbergun 2019-04-15
That's a hot take. He exercised the power of his office and fired a guy. Firing that guy wouldn't have any impact on any ongoing investigations, because the FBI director doesn't personally lead investigations. Even if wanted to argue that firing the FBI director would impact an investigation, Comey himself has admitted that he told Trump on three different occasions that he wasn't under investigation. So how does firing a guy who isn't heading up an investigation into your behavior -- because he's already told you such an investigation doesn't exist at least three times -- amount to "obstruction?"
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-15
Fam, we both know that report is going to obtain evidence of obstruction of justice. He fired an FBI director and literally said he did so because he was being investigated.
there isn't any real way to spin out of this. That's just what is public.
1 jubbergun 2019-04-15
If that's the case, then my question should be easy to answer, so answer it:
How does firing a guy who isn't heading up an investigation into your behavior -- because he's already told you such an investigation doesn't exist at least three times -- amount to "obstruction?"
"He said he did it because of the investigation" isn't an answer because there wasn't an investigation and he knew there wasn't an investigation.
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-15
Firing a guy and literally declaring on national TV you fired him over the investigation is blatant obstruction.
There's likely more evidence that isn't public as well. Which is in the Mueller report, which Barr admitted to.
1 jubbergun 2019-04-15
You mean this statement?
That's not "I fired him because I was being investigated" no matter how you want to twist it. On top of that, after two years we find out Trump was right: It is a made up story so that Democrats have an excuse for having lost an election that they should’ve won. So, again, the question remains:
How does firing a guy who isn't heading up an investigation into your behavior -- because he's already told you such an investigation doesn't exist at least three times -- amount to "obstruction?"
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-15
He fucking fired him after he refused to cut Flynn a break. Are you trolling?
No we fucking didn't. He hired a cover-up artist involved in 3 previous cover-ups and lied no less than 25 times about Russia. He lied about his business dealings in Russia, his son met with a Russian asset in search of dirt on Clinton, many people around him lied about contacts with Russia and business dealings with Russia.
The man is a corrupt piece of shit and pathological liar.
It doesn't matter if the underlying claim is true or not, obstruction is still obstruction. Criminal behavior does not need to have happened for someone to be charged with obstruction of justice. I'm baffled here, you seem to have not even a basic comprehension of what obstruction of justice means.
Why do you thing Barr said the report did not clear him of obstruction and evidence existed of obstruction?
Furthermore, people on the Mueller team are saying the evidence of obstruction was substantial:
So you can keep denying what happened here, but the truth WILL come out.
1 LongPostBot 2019-04-15
I've known more coherent downies.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Data_Destroyer 2019-04-15
Good bot
1 Ted_UtteredBoast 2019-04-15
good bot
1 jubbergun 2019-04-15
No, but you must be, unless you can come up with a quote where Trump directly says "I fired him because of investigations," which you can't, because he never said it. Your moronic parsing of the moronic shit he did say doesn't count as "evidence" of anything.
Trump didn't hire shit. Rosenstein did, and Trump's criticized Mueller, the choice of Mueller as special counsel, and the entire investigation ever since it started, and rightfully so. "He's a secret Trump puppet" already sounds retarded coming from the /r/politics crowd after two years of bullshit about how great Robert Mueller and how he's going to bring Trump down. That you would surpass their idiocy by suggesting that a guy who is James Comey's closest butt-buddy and a certified anti-Trumper is a secret stooge of the White House should make you feel embarrassed. You've out-crazied /r/politics with that one.
It matters a great deal. No court is going to treat the allegation that someone is "obstructing justice" seriously when one of the facts of the case is that the person in question wasn't under investigation for anything and knew that was the case.
That's not what Barr's summary said. It said:
This is a prime example of why your hot takes on this issue are so far off base. The summary, including direct quotes from Mueller's report, says that Mueller has listed evidence and testimony in support of both sides of the issue but Mueller didn't make a determination on whether or not obstruction occurred. You say "evidence existed of obstruction," which is true insofar as Mueller presents evidence and testimony to support that assertion, but you fail to mention that he also presents evidence and testimony that supports the opposing conclusion, and also
I'm sure you're one of the rocket surgeons who have latched onto the "does not exonerate him" part as if it means something. The quote demonstrates Mueller's petulance and lack of professionalism, because as a lifelong prosecutor and law enforcement official he knows that exoneration is exceedingly rare. It generally only happens in our legal system when there is enough evidence to overturn an prior conviction, and is as close to saying someone is "innocent" as our system of "guilty" or "not guilty" gets. It's a purposeful misuse of a term of art.
Oh, good, more "anonymous sources" who are "familiar with the thinking" of people who refuse to go on record or provide any reason of substance why Barr's summary shouldn't be believed. Those have all turned out to be 100% accurate and believable the last two years, how could this be wrong? /s
Everything I've said reflects what's in the public record. I'm not the one speculating that what's in reports we haven't seen yet proves things that the official summary of the report indicates weren't proven, or suggesting that good friend of James Comey and anti-Trump republican Robert Mueller is a secret agent of Trump, or that reports based on anonymous sources are worthy of any credit. The truth is going to come out, and it's not going to be what you think it is, and when it happens you'll do exactly what the idiots in /r/politics are doing. You'll bury your head, say the evidence doesn't count, accuse everyone of being part of some kind of conspiracy, and suggest that 50 years from now when the grand jury information is finally made public that you'll be proven right.
In other words, you'll C O P E.
1 LongPostBot 2019-04-15
That's great and all, but I asked for my burger without cheese.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 FrostBittenSalsa 2019-04-15
u/IDFShill btfo'd by FACTS and LOGIC
1 IDFSHILL 2019-04-15
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/11/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-russia-investigation
Look, I stopped reading here. I'm not going to play this game here where a learning disabled rightoid thinks you have to have a direct quote saying "I fired because of the investigation."
"I fired over the Russia stuff" is more than adequate.
If you can prove you have even a tiny bit of intellectual honesty, i'll read the rest of your comment. Until then, until you manage to snap out of your very clear mental illness I am not reading your wall of text, which is very likely riddled with more bad faith arguments and delusional drivel.
1 Quietus42 2019-04-15
Never change DDF.
1 Ted_UtteredBoast 2019-04-15
fucking lol
the amount of times anyone names the "DDF" after muh russia died is inversely proportional to dick size
1 Quietus42 2019-04-15
But also
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
1 Ted_UtteredBoast 2019-04-15
nah fam, no mystery why you do it
it's because you have nothing else lol
especially not dick girth hahaha
1 Quietus42 2019-04-15
Okay, we should be far enough down that jubbergun won't see this.
Quit fucking with my bait Ted.
1 Ted_UtteredBoast 2019-04-15
is jubbergun pizza?
is it fucking with your bait if I'm baited?
1 Quietus42 2019-04-15
He's falling for pizza's serious posts and writing paragraphs about shit that none of us have any affect on and I want to bait him into doing it more so I can make fun of him.
Kinda lol. You're cool though.
1 Ted_UtteredBoast 2019-04-15
oh right, the other guy
psssh am not
1 teamsprocket 2019-04-15
I hope this one is spicy one way or the other, the cope from collusiontards wasn't the magnitude I'd hoped for.
1 automated_russian 2019-04-15
New cope method: forget and ignore
1 timbowen 2019-04-15
That’s always been the primary coping mechanism when it comes to alleged wrongdoing of opponents.
1 Sub_to_pdp 2019-04-15
Most likely both sides will claim to be vindicated and nothing will actually change.
Some boomerposting from daddy and comments filled with cope, as per usual
1 bG9sIG5pY2UgdHJ5Cg 2019-04-15
Also the constant background radiation of IMPEACH-rays will continue
1 Data_Destroyer 2019-04-15
The Atlantic's magazine cover recently just had IMPEACH on the front.
My tanks were running low on smug so I didn't look into all their brilliant reasoning.
1 jubbergun 2019-04-15
Their C O P E is on standby. They decided the day the summary released that it didn't count until they could see the report. When they see the report and it doesn't give them what they want they're going to insist the redacted parts of the report will prove them right.
1 AlveolarPressure 2019-04-15
Resistcels and the DDF should unironically both want to see the unredacted report. Daddy will only be found guilty/exonerated by the full thing. Anything short of that leaves too much room for COPE.
1 jubbergun 2019-04-15
That's the plan. Trump will eventually suggest they release the whole thing, at which point every democrat in congress who is screaming about redactions will an about face and criticize him for wanting to make grand jury and national security information public.
1 preserved_fish 2019-04-15
36 DD chest
1 The_Pandemonium 2019-04-15
The reddit lawyers haven't gotten their hands on it yet. The day of the copening is upon us.
1 Kilo_G_looked_up 2019-04-15
This is the perfect kind of drama, because at least somebody is going to get assblasted.
1 le_epic_xd_part_2 2019-04-15
Copening part n+1
1 chrissssssssssssssss 2019-04-15
It would be funny if they release it, the left complains about some redactions, and then they release it again with less redactions that show only bad things about people on the left.
1 jubbergun 2019-04-15
That would be fun, but I don't think Mueller investigated many people on the left.
Then again, President Obama's White House Counsel was just indicted on charges of failing to register as a foreign agent (like Manafort), and his case is part of a foreign lobbying investigation spun off from special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.
Bet Rachel Maddow didn't talk about that very much while she was crying about Mueller not finding evidence of collusion.
1 WTMAWLR 2019-04-15
Mueller more like Ferris Bueller haha
1 automatic_cluck 2019-04-15
Furry UwU
1 Pepperglue 2019-04-15
The ride never ends.
1 bG9sIG5pY2UgdHJ5Cg 2019-04-15
Mueller is C A N C E L L E D
1 softhack 2019-04-15
What took so long?
1 automatic_cluck 2019-04-15
😴😴😴
1 RunescapeFootModel 2019-04-15
Can't wait for people who bitched about a summary to take someone else's summary at face value