Welcome Guest
Sign In | Register

To me, he is simply defining what obstruction is

Posted on: April 26, 2019 at 10:38:54 CT
Sal CMSU
Posts:
229171
Member For:
21.98 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
but in order for one to break that law, they have to have the intent to do what Nap defined. I do not believe he addressed that issue in regards to Trump. The Mueller report addressed the lack of evidence to support that, where Nap seems to believe it flat out stated Trump broke the law.
Report Message

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

Handle:
Password:
Subject:

MESSAGE THREAD

This just in: Jolly Judge Nap is a never trump buffoon. He - hokie VT - 4/26 10:06:27
     RE: This just in: Jolly Judge Nap is a never trump buffoon. He - JayHoaxH8r MU - 4/26 10:10:50
     you'd learn a lot from him, if you actually listened to him - pickle MU - 4/26 10:10:03
          He neglects to explain how obstruction is an intent - Sal KC - 4/26 10:18:06
               "for a corrupt or self-serving purpose" - gmmm98 MU - 4/26 10:47:28
                    There is no evidence Trump fired Comey to - Sal KC - 4/26 10:55:42
                         you're better at moving goalposts than reading comprehension - gmmm98 MU - 4/26 10:59:56
                         He's quoted saying as much - MrBlueSky MU - 4/26 10:56:34
                              you don't have a good track record here (nm) - pickle MU - 4/26 10:58:19
                              lol no he's not - Sal KC - 4/26 10:57:03
                                   He said, on a national TV interview - MrBlueSky MU - 4/26 11:00:11
                                        No he did not (nm) - Sal KC - 4/26 11:01:07
                                             He sure did. I know you live to explain things away - MrBlueSky MU - 4/26 11:01:33
                                                  He said there was no good time to fire Comey - Sal KC - 4/26 11:06:16
                                                       I knew I was going to fire Comey, I was thinking about the - MrBlueSky MU - 4/26 11:09:18
                                                            Correct, you just confirmed you can't read well - Sal KC - 4/26 11:12:48
                                                                 Hopeless Hack, you are - MrBlueSky MU - 4/26 11:22:05
                                                                      All you keep doing is posting evidence - Sal KC - 4/26 11:30:10
                                                  again, you don't have a good track record here (nm) - pickle MU - 4/26 11:05:44
                    None of this matters to Sal (nm) - MrBlueSky MU - 4/26 10:50:13
               How can the idiot suggest that anyone would learn a lot by - hokie VT - 4/26 10:24:29
               it's right there in the piece - pickle MU - 4/26 10:21:11
                    lol no(nm) - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 4/26 10:22:58
                    That isn't addressing it at all (nm) - Sal KC - 4/26 10:22:48
                         how is that not addressing it? - pickle MU - 4/26 10:34:47
                              To me, he is simply defining what obstruction is - Sal KC - 4/26 10:38:54
     His analysis of the entire Mueller thing was strange - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 4/26 10:09:08
          Logic(nm) - Toger STL - 4/26 10:10:07
               Well apparently not dip$hit - Ragnar Danneskjold MU - 4/26 10:21:40
     Mueller specifically addressed the lack of evidence - Sal KC - 4/26 10:08:12
          But as with kavanaugh, the fact that there was no evidence - hokie VT - 4/26 10:11:07




©2025 Fanboards L.L.C. — Our Privacy Policy   About Tigerboard