*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[TheSpoonald]

I want Poop, MMM, and Oskar to just spell it out in plain english. Please just give straight answers to the following questions

1) Of the 10 possible instances of obstruction cited in the MR, which do you think presents the strongest case for criminal activity?

2) What evidence of the act do you find compelling?

3) What evidence of intent do you find compelling?

4) In the instance you chose, how does Trump's behavior differ from the behavior that you would reasonably expect from someone who is frustrated at being framed for treason by partisan operatives within his own executive branch

[Poopadoop]

I want Poop, MMM, and Oskar to just spell it out in plain english. Please just give straight answers to the following questions

1) Of the 10 possible instances of obstruction cited in the MR, which do you think is the strongest?

2) What evidence of the act do you find compelling?

3) What evidence of intent do you find compelling?

4) In the instance you chose, how does Trump's behavior differ from the behavior that you would reasonable expect from someone who is frustrated at being framed for treason by partisan operatives within his own executive branch

1. Trying to fire Mueller.
2. Ordering McGahn to fire Mueller.
3. He tried to fire Mueller to stop the investigation or at least change it's direction.
4. I'd reasonably expect a frustrated grown up to suck it up and let things play out if he were innocent.

[TheSpoonald]

1. Trying to fire Mueller.

For the jillionth time...he didn't try to fire Mueller. If he actually tried, then Mueller would be fired. He thought about it, he might have even initiated the process. But it never went any further. Nothing actually happened. Thus....no crime. Oh and by the way...if Trump HAD fired Mueller, it's still not obstruction because the POTUS can fire the special counsel. That's in the rules. Following the rules can't ever possibly be a crime.

If that's really your best case for obstruction...you must be consuming some horribly biased news.

[Poopadoop]

For the jillionth time...he didn't try to fire Mueller. If he actually tried, then Mueller would be fired.

.. and attempted murder is ok if you miss your target, because if you'd REALLY intended to kill them, they'd be dead.

Next.

[TheSpoonald]

2. Ordering McGahn to fire Mueller.

and then subsequently ordering McGahn not to. You're clearly admitting that nothing actually happened. So I'm wondering how you can see a crime?

[Poopadoop]

and then subsequently ordering McGahn not to.

Only when McGahn threatened to resign.

Next.

[TheSpoonald]

3. He tried to fire Mueller to stop the investigation or at least change it's direction.

No, that's you inferring intent. I asked you for evidence

[Poopadoop]

No, that's you inferring intent. I asked you for evidence

All of his statements saying 'arrrrghh witch hunt' etc. show he didn't want to be investigated, and so tried to interfere. Trying to fire Mueller is another piece of that evidence.

Next.

[TheSpoonald]

4. I'd reasonably expect a frustrated grown up to suck it up and let things play out if he were innocent.

Are you fucking high?

[TheSpoonald]

Poop, I'm not going to be cruel and let you do this all day. Do yourself a favor, and find chapter and verse in the MR where it says that Trump ordering McGahn to fire Mueller is a potential act of obstruction.

I want you to find that passage. I want you to prove to me that is what the MR report says.

Hint: it doesn't say that.

Mueller is FINE with Trump ordering McGahn to fire him. Mueller knows the rules, and he knows that's totally allowed. Nothing actually happened. So no crime. If something did happen, it's still not a crime because of the aforementioned rules.

Now....what Mueller actually said is that the potential obstruction lies in Trump's later attempts to prevent the public from knowing that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller. See the subtle difference?

I'll go over it again for you now......slowly.

Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller. McGahn said no. Trump said "yeah, ok, maybe you're right, don't fire him". None of that is in dispute. And none of that is illegal. None of that is improper. None of that is against the rules. No one, and I mean no one except YOU thinks that act represents anything close to Obstruction of Justice. Do you get that now? Please tell me you get that?

What Mueller claims might be obstruction-y is Trump's attempt to mislead the public about that story. Got that? Nothing about the actual story is bad. Nothing. It's the subsequent cover up that Mueller cites as a potential problem.

Mueller also complains about Trump's attempts to mislead the public about the Trump tower meeting. Still following me bud? Mueller found that absolutely nothing bad happened during the Trump Tower meeting. But Mueller says it was the subsequent cover up that was obstruction-y.

and while we're at it, let's talk about the accusation that Trump ordered Lewandowski to order Sessions to make a statement about how unfair the special counsel investigation is.

Those three incidents....3 of the 10 Mueller cited....all have the same answer.

IT'S NOT A CRIME TO LIE TO THE PRESS

Honestly now man, you can't be this stubborn. You have to admit now, that if Trump is actually guilty of obstruction on any of those 3 things that I just went over, then we need to build a barb wire fence around the entire District of Columbia and throw away the key.

[Poopadoop]

banana.jpg

Omg you are so fucking boring. Please just stop repeating the same things over and over again as if quantity of words somehow equals quality of thought. You're the living proof that it doesn't.

[TheSpoonald]

Omg you are so fucking boring. Please just stop repeating the same things over and over again as if quantity of words somehow equals quality of thought. You're the living proof that it doesn't.

"Shut up" he explained

ok bud, here's a more digestable tidbit.

Explain to me how lying to the press = obstructing justice

[TheSpoonald]

Trump ordering McGahn to fire Mueller is not a crime. It's not even close to a crime. And it's certainly not obstruction of justice.

I agree with that
Trump agrees with that
Mueller himself agrees with that

Why don't you Poop?

[Poopadoop]

Are you fucking high?

No.

Next.

[TheSpoonald]

Hey Oskar....

1) Of the 10 possible instances of obstruction cited in the MR, which do you think presents the strongest case for criminal activity?

2) What evidence of the act do you find compelling?

3) What evidence of intent do you find compelling?

4) In the instance you chose, how does Trump's behavior differ from the behavior that you would reasonably expect from someone who is frustrated at being framed for treason by partisan operatives within his own executive branch

I asked Poop earlier, and in case you missed it, he made up an 11th choice that Mueller didn't even mention and cited that as the strongest case for criminal activity.

I'm wondering if you and your 113 IQ can be just a bit smarter