Discussion in 'United States' started by US Conservative, Apr 15, 2019.
C'mon man! You completely made that up.
Ummm, read the report. IT VERY clearly says that. No interpretation needed. It says EXACTLY that
Mueller described 10 instances that might qualify as obstruction, but was not conferrable enough with the evidence to make that determination.
One of those instances was a tweet. Still waiting for someone to explain how a tweet qualifies as obstruction.
Mueller's report does not say: "Barr also said that the report totally exonerates Trump...".
Barr never said that, anywhere.
Nor does it say that: "Barr has lied from the beginning..."
He hasn't lied from the beginning.
TOIG, c'mon man. He says it in the report that eh could not indict him. Then he goes on to say that when he is out of office he no longer has that protection. All of this AFTER he notes 10 instances that qualify as obstruction.
And an order can come from any medium. Twitter was the medium used to convey the order. So if I tell someone to murder someone else via twitter, I am protected ?
Barr said that the report found no collusion or obstruction
The report defines 10 instances of just that.
Except Barr didn't say: "that the report found no collusion or obstruction."
Why are you making stuff up?
He did to. Your being Obtuse.
You're spouting Fake News. Find an honest source.
FFS, my “source” is the freaking report
The report does not say that: Barr said that the report found no collusion or obstruction.
Barr did not say that the report said that Barr said that the report found no collusion or obstruction.
Barr did not say that the report found no collusion or obstruction, either.
What Barr did say, is that: the report said that they couldn't prove collusion and that obstruction is a matter of opinion.
Separate names with a comma.