(03-26-2019 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 08:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just like how some on the right were overly eager/reliant on X, Y, or Z to take down Obama/Clinton, there were similarly some on the left that viewed Mueller as this weird savior-type figure that was going to take down Trump. There was a whole ecosystem that lived of it as a sort of anti-media to the Limbaugh - idiots like Louise Mensch who suggested that Banon was going to receive the death penalty.

Damn big segment. pretty loud too.

Did Schiff lie when he said the evidence was clear? Do you condone that style f character assassination?

Not sure which Clinton you mean. If you mean Bill, everybody knows he was guilty but saved by partisan votes in the Senate. If you mean Hillary, she was saved by preferential treatment in the investigation.

Trump was cleared by an independent investigation staffed mostly by Democrats.

I wasn't aware any charges had been brought on Obama, but the evidence is clear that he favored Russia more during his terms than Trump has during his half term.

Did Owl#s lie when he said the evidence was clear that Hillary committed a crime? If we go solely off of a summary of what Comey said, she was cleared of any criminal wrong doing.

And we are back to OJ.

An acquital does not mean innocent.

Owl@s has no incentive to lie.

Schiff does.

The incentive to lie doesn't matter. This is all about being consistent with how you judge people.

You're trying to use the fact Mueller did not find Trump and Co. guilty of collusion to say that Schiff must be lying when he said the evidence was clear. So by the exact same logic, if Clinton was not found guilty of mishandling classified information, then Owl#s must be lying when he says the evidence is clear that she mishandled classified information.

I see no reason why Schiff can't say the evidence is clear, yet Mueller can come to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to legally convict Trump and Co. of the crime, as this happens all of the time.

Like I said, Schiff has incentive to make a case against Trump, as he has established himself as a leader in the Get Trump wing of your party, and his future political career could rest on it. I have no doubt that President Schiff sounds good to him. If the evidence is clear, present it. That's what a prosecutor would do, and he sounds like a prosecutor, he acts lie prosecutor, he must be a duck.

BTW, Clinton was not found Not Guilty, as you say - there was no prosecution. Same exact case your team is trying to make regarding OOJ. If not prosecuting means not guilty , then we are done here. Of course, their viewpoint is largely, that if he was not exonerated by Mueller, then he must be guilty and Barr is just covering for him out of gratitude to Trump for his job. Funny how everybody Trump appoints to anything - SCOTUS, Cabinet, any job - is deemed to be willing to do anything for him, while the Obama appointees cannot be swayed from the path of righteousness by mere gratitude.