*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

Slow down there chuckles. Are you telling me that Mueller's scope was limited only to illegal activity? Is that what you believe?

He's "allowed" to investigate what his professional judgement leads him to believe is relevant to uncovering the allegations he's investigating.
His "job" is not to investigate people accused of doing legal things.

I don't see where I've suggested you have partisan interests. I see your skepticism of Trump's victory on this to be folly. You don't have to like the guy to say that this report comes miles short of what Trump's opposition had hoped for.

You've repeatedly said I have some expectation about what the MR should have said, or that it wasn't what I wanted it to be, or other assumptions based around me having a partisan interest in the public shaming of my president.
Who cares? If the opposition you refer to is, in fact, merely the subset which includes only the idiots of his opposition, then why do you even care? If you do care, do you actually think just berating them will change their minds?

Nah, it's a level. You're just bad at reading how good I am at reading you.

Google "Adam Schiff". If you're argument is that collusion was a diversion, it wasn't. I really don't know where you're getting that from.

Politician says hollow things to get attention.
Oh wow... I am so surprised.

You and I both know that collusion is not a crime. Anyone - ANYONE - who is puffing it up to be more than nothing, and who clearly knows better, is a charlatan playing off of people's emotional response to a buzz word. They cannot be talking about real legal issues with real legal consequences and talking about collusion at the same time. Those are different things.

Does it or does it not say "We didn't even come close to satisfying the left's appetite for scandal"

It says that. Fucking read it.

It does not. Except on the (is it 2?) allegations where it does, metaphorically speaking, say something that you probably mean with that ridiculous use of quotes.

I don't have the time or interest to read a 400 page legal document. Still, I'm pretty confident that what you put in quotes isn't in it.

You say "ratings whore" alot

I'm bitter about the lack of an unbiased American news outlet and the lack of fact-checking and journalistic integrity that is indicative thereof.
The fact that you're not is actually hard for me to take seriously, but there it is... over and over again.