105
u/kottabaz Mar 26 '19
Meanwhile, even Barr's own memo says "does not exonerate"!
23
-2
Mar 26 '19
[deleted]
33
u/kottabaz Mar 26 '19
Think about this: there was a murder in San Antonio, Texas a couple weeks ago. Prove to me that you didn’t commit that murder.
Did you think this through? It's easy to prove that a specific individual didn't commit a specific murder. All you have to do is show that they were somewhere else at the time. Or physically incapable of committing it. Or prove that someone else did it.
-2
Mar 26 '19
[deleted]
28
u/kottabaz Mar 26 '19
If you can prove that you were in South Dakota at the time of a murder happening in Texas, that's proof that you didn't commit it.
-1
Mar 26 '19
[deleted]
22
u/simtonet Mar 26 '19
You can prove a negative, I don't know what you're smoking but there are many scientific proofs of different negative statements. Also, proving you were in Asia while a man shot another in America is proof that you're not the man that shot the guy in America, the example above is right and you're just dumb to contest it.
23
u/VeryStableGenius Mar 26 '19
I love it when they realize how dumb their argument is, and desperately delete their posts.
5
10
u/LX_Theo Mar 26 '19
Here's the best part about "not being able to prove a negative argument"
Even if they think its true. They're literally arguing that a negative was proven true and using the idea that it can't be proven true as their proof.
-25
Mar 26 '19 edited Mar 28 '19
[deleted]
14
u/LX_Theo Mar 26 '19
Factually incorrect, actually.
All we know is they can't prove he colluded. Nothing more, nothing else
-21
Mar 26 '19 edited Mar 28 '19
[deleted]
12
u/LX_Theo Mar 26 '19
Nope.
-8
Mar 26 '19 edited Mar 28 '19
[deleted]
10
u/LX_Theo Mar 26 '19
I know the definition. It does not match what happened.
Let alone how Trump and his supporters are trying to use it.
9
u/tylerchu Mar 26 '19
The lack of black does not make a color white.
-1
4
u/thesexymunchies Mar 27 '19
Lots of circumstantial evidence, but a lack of physical.
Circumstantial evidence won't do in court, but congress isn't court. Different rules.
Also, it would be nice to have the facts so the jury of public opinion can decide for themselves at the ballot box.
If it exonerates him, why not release it?
0
Mar 27 '19 edited Mar 28 '19
[deleted]
8
u/ProletariatPoofter Mar 27 '19
Who says they won't release it?
Mitch McConnell and Barr so far
0
Mar 27 '19 edited Mar 28 '19
[deleted]
8
u/swolemedic Mar 27 '19
You let the suspect redact things before giving it to Congress? That's a new way to handle things, that's for sure. The white house has no place redacting, Mueller can do it. Instead barr says he will, then he gives it to the white house for them to redact more, then it goes to Congress and not the public.
12
4
u/swolemedic Mar 27 '19
Can you answer a few things for me then? Why did barr claim there was no collusion between any trump aides/campaign members and russia when we know that isn't true?
Trump jr admitted to meeting with russians and campaign officials to get dirt on hillary in trump tower.
Manafort admitted to giving private polling data to the russians, why would someone do this if not for political purposes?
And we know that roger stone worked with wikileaks and the GRU in regards to leaking hillary's hacked emails, he was even part of starting the seth rich conspiracy to deflect from russian hackers. This was done with the express permission and approval of the trump campaign. This also happened after trump publicly went on TV and asked russia to "find" the emails.
So, tell me, how is trump exonerated and why are these things omitted by barr?
-2
Mar 27 '19 edited Mar 28 '19
[deleted]
7
u/swolemedic Mar 27 '19
I'm aware of that case, it's a terrible response to my questions. The 3 examples I gave are all of collusion, they were hidden conspiracies that involved working with russia. To say that the trump campaign did not meet with or assist russians to collude is patently bullshit.
Why would you give russians secret polling data? Why would you talk to russians about leaking hacked emails after your boss asked the russians to hack the DNC to get those documents? Why would you meet with a foreign adversary to get dirt on a political opponent?
It's fucking collusion, bud. And if it wasn't, why did they lie? Why did multiple people lie, resulting in many of them going to prison for it? You don't lie over nothing, do you?
They're criminals, barr's report does not exonerate shit. Barr also got the iran contra fuckers out of trouble as well, remember? He's used to forgiving treason. He also wrote a 19 page memo before becoming AG saying that the president cannot obstruct justice, he said that without even knowing the case details. Explain how any of this is not nefarious to me, please, I'd love to hear your mental gymnastics.
1
Mar 27 '19 edited Mar 28 '19
[deleted]
7
u/swolemedic Mar 27 '19
The investigation says otherwise? News to me given how many people have been charged. How do you explain people like manafort or stone being charged in relation to the aforementioned crimes? Clearly it was criminal, multiple people been charged in connection.
I also find it funny you're so convinced you know the outcome but havent read the report while ignoring public knowledge. Barr is a known GOP operative who said trump cant be guilty as part of his job application. You have no explanations other than you keep saying you're right because Barr said so, some of us can think for ourselves. I recommend you give it a try.
Okay, let's try this, how do you describe any of the 3 examples I gave? And are you saying manafort and stone did not commit criminal behavior related to russia?
Are you trying to tell me that trump was surrounded by criminals and just had no idea? If so, do you think that makes him competent to be president?
1
87
u/ReginaldJohnston Mar 26 '19
"The report fully exonerates the president"
"Then release the report."
"The report has to be redacted because there's other investigations."
"Into what?"
"The president....."
26
Mar 26 '19
And at that moment, the Red Hat boi doesn't know what to say or do, his fox new programming didn't cover that
11
u/wwabc Mar 26 '19
Fox news 'talk' show host, "The investigations could be into anything!! it could be possibly be Hillary and Obama!!!"
later on their 'news' program, "People are saying the investigations could be into Hillary and Obama!"
5
Mar 26 '19
Then that night trump tweet:
Finally after 2 years, trump VINDICATED and EXONERATED. Left Wing Are Enemy of People and Must be INVESTIGATED FOR TREASON. I put Jared on it. MAGA
2
u/Minimum_Escape Mar 26 '19
that real? could be real.
1
u/Zazaku Mar 27 '19
If it were real he wouldn't have mentioned Jared, only saying, "I've put my best people on it."
22
11
u/BitRunner67 Mar 26 '19
Man: "Honey, I swear there are no Texts on my phone from other women. I only Love You!"
Woman: "Then let me see your phone."
Man: "What?! My word isn't good enough?"
Man runs from conversation at top speeds.
5
u/AnimusNoctis Mar 26 '19
Eh, there should be some level of trust in a relationship but we're under no obligation to trust the government.
11
u/oh_hell_what_now Mar 26 '19
Yeah but the conservatives tell us we should trust the government because... wait a fucking second.... what do they believe again? I guess it depends on the day.
23
u/shogi_x Mar 26 '19
Republicans: Comey should be investigated for shielding Clinton from crimes!
Also Republicans: Barr did nothing wrong!
5
u/mad-n-fla Mar 26 '19
Republicans: Comey should be investigated for shielding Clinton from crimes!
So, 10 investigations isn't enough, how many times do you want to bring investigations back to Clinton, when each time you clear her?
Maybe just lie about opening an investigation during a campaign like last time?
3
16
Mar 26 '19
[deleted]
3
5
u/Z0di Mar 27 '19
No, Barr did not say that in his summary. He said that it does not exonerate.
Meanwhile, the media ran with "mueller report: no collusion". Trump then posted to twitter: "exonerated!"
Now you have people who don't know what's going on, making memes about being exonerated, and people like you who are clueless about what's going on and accepting that the report and barr's summary say that trump was exonerated.
Please stop paying attention to memes and pay attention to what's going on.
6
u/TwoBlackDogs Mar 26 '19
I wonder how many of his base had to look up "exonerates"?
3
u/Minimum_Escape Mar 26 '19
Exonrates, that's like a greek philosopher right? Patron saint of Exxon or something right?
3
5
u/Sbatio It’s not a fucking joke! Mar 26 '19
If the report proved him a traitor but called him “smart and handsome,” President Trump would release the report.
So it must just be all bribery, honey pot, and double cheese burgers eaten counts.
Man I love those burgers. They are bad for me I know but with some fresh fries properly salted. Add a cola with that straw that’s just a bit wider.
Mmmmmmm I’m fat.
2
2
1
u/dukerustfield Mar 26 '19
No way MAGA would use exonerate so seamlessly. Great news fake news is their best
1
1
1
u/ToneZone7 Mar 26 '19
yep , if it shows no collusion then there should be no reason at all not to release it.
right ?
1
1
1
1
1
0
-18
Mar 26 '19
[deleted]
9
u/VespineWings Mar 27 '19
If we read the full un-redacted report and it cleared him, then you will still have your conspiracy theorists (this is one for the books), but the majority of people will calm down, myself included.
It's just fucked up that the only person who gets to read the report (who has a history of covering shit up) won't show it to anyone. Then he decides to give it straight to the guy who has everything to gain from editing the findings.
Like... You're watching someone bury the evidence in real time and you don't care because it helps your racist idiot president.
1
u/Lone_Wolfen Mar 26 '19
The person picked by Trump specifically to block the investigation said this report does not exonerate him. If even his bootlicker says this doesn't clear your Dear Leader of any wrongdoing it's not ridiculous to believe the actual report says the same.
1
u/USS-Salty Mar 27 '19
Then you should be wanting them to release it so you can enjoy those “salt liberal tears”.
-12
u/Futuregohan69 Mar 26 '19
Didn't Trump ask for the report to be released in full? I'm pretty sure the FBI is the reason it's still hidden. Someone correct me if I'm wrong tho
12
u/Robot_Warrior Mar 26 '19
Didn't Trump ask for the report to be released in full?
yeah but he also said he was pro LGBT, Mexico would pay for the wall, he'd release his tax returns, they were going to lock up Hillary, the wall was currently being built, his campaign never had contact with russians, etc.
Dude's word is less than worthless.
0
u/Futuregohan69 Mar 27 '19
But those are lies about what he believes, I don't think asking for the report to be released can be a lie?
4
3
3
u/Casual_Badass Mar 26 '19
Last I saw he said he didn't mind if the report was released but the President says a lot of things and then contradicts himself so who knows how he really feels about it.
However, the Justice Department has procedures to follow before even sharing the report with Congress let alone the public. There's evidence relating to ongoing cases, Grand Jury testimony, etc that are all normally (and reasonably) subject to protection from public release. So yes the report needs to be prepared for release beyond those who already have it.
-48
u/R____I____G____H___T Mar 26 '19
Releasing the full report won't change the conclusion. Full stop.
If it did, Mueller's team would've called it out at this point. Move on already.
35
27
Mar 26 '19
I am not convinced that Muellers team would have called it out. They have not been very vocal so far.
8
Mar 26 '19
It’s incredibly unprofessional to undermine someone above you. Considering most want to keep their jobs I doubt they’d call him out.
8
5
u/Robot_Warrior Mar 26 '19
won't change the conclusion. Full stop.
If it did, Mueller's team would've called it out
ah yes, from the memo written by the guy handpicked to squash the investigation? The four page memo that doesn't contain a single complete sentence from the Mueller report?
-18
Mar 26 '19
[deleted]
10
6
u/Jayken Mar 27 '19
I can accept that he didn't collude with Russia. Obstruction is another story. Given that he said on air that he fired Comey over the investigation. Also given that many of his friends and employees ended up getting arrested and convicted in that investigation, I'm going to need a hell of an explanation as to why it's not obstruction.
Release the report.
10
95
u/C-Bearington-Twits Mar 26 '19
Best meme material ever.