Donald Trump

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.

No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 

I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.

I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 

My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work.  At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed.  I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.

So then come here and ask questions. Don't come in like you know what's in the report after seeing a few talking heads talk about.....

Better yet, read the report for yourself. It’s available online for free or spend 10 bucks and read 3 pages a night before you fall asleep. 147 nights you’re done.
 

tbergs said:

cincybearcat said:

You mean it’s easy to bust someone when you specifically see and have undeniable evidence? Weird

You know what I mean, or maybe you don't. Both of those scenarios involve either a dickhead trooper with a hard-on hiding somewhere to bust some middle class schmuck to meet a quota or some undercover narc surveilling an underling. They aren't any more openly obvious. Deception and cover is needed to catch both. Most likely in both cases, the person will just pay a fine or plead guilty because they don't have the time or resources to get off. Low hanging fruit. Whatever, this isn't worth it.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.

No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 

I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.

I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 

My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work.  At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed.  I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.

You caught a bunch of things that you think essentially exonerate Trump and you missed the most significant take away regarding obstruction? Probably just a coincidence. 

I'm a single dad on Thursdays, what can you expect? Kids are lucky if they don't get sick Friday morning.

Just exercise common sense. If it looks like shit and smells like shit... it's likely shit.

To boot... the central character is a lying, immoral, idiotic, slovenly conman that demonstrates on a daily basis he's completely unstable- hardly worthy of the benefit of doubt.

You should be crossing your fingers that they have enough evidence to definitively hammer the guy- not express that you're probably going to vote for him again. What is wrong with you?

cincybearcat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.

No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 

I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.

I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 

My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work.  At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed.  I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.

So then come here and ask questions. Don't come in like you know what's in the report after seeing a few talking heads talk about.....

Better yet, read the report for yourself. It’s available online for free or spend 10 bucks and read 3 pages a night before you fall asleep. 147 nights you’re done.
 

Ima save myself the $10 and the time and let you tell me all about it when you are done!

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.

No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 

I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.

I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 

My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work.  At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed.  I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.

You caught a bunch of things that you think essentially exonerate Trump and you missed the most significant take away regarding obstruction? Probably just a coincidence. 

I'm a single dad on Thursdays, what can you expect? Kids are lucky if they don't get sick Friday morning.

Just exercise common sense. If it looks like shit and smells like shit... it's likely shit.

To boot... the central character is a lying, immoral, idiotic, slovenly conman that demonstrates on a daily basis he's completely unstable- hardly worthy of the benefit of doubt.

You should be crossing your fingers that they have enough evidence to definitively hammer the guy- not express that you're probably going to vote for him again. What is wrong with you?

I've said many times I'm not a fan of the president. I don't want another 4 years. But I think 4 more years won't accomplish anything, it will be a stale term with nothing getting done. I think some of Sander's ideas could be financially harmful to me and the middle class. So if I have to chose between a failed and potentially damaging platform or something stale, I'll go with stale. 
Just because I would vote for someone doesn't mean I think he is a good person. And I can still have an opinion about the future of this country without something being wrong with me.

mace1229 said:

Who here has really read 488 pages in 24 hours?
I see a lot of criticism for those who haven't, but really, have any of you? I highly doubt it.

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.

No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 

I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.

I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 

My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work.  At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed.  I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.

You caught a bunch of things that you think essentially exonerate Trump and you missed the most significant take away regarding obstruction? Probably just a coincidence. 

I'm a single dad on Thursdays, what can you expect? Kids are lucky if they don't get sick Friday morning.

Just exercise common sense. If it looks like shit and smells like shit... it's likely shit.

To boot... the central character is a lying, immoral, idiotic, slovenly conman that demonstrates on a daily basis he's completely unstable- hardly worthy of the benefit of doubt.

You should be crossing your fingers that they have enough evidence to definitively hammer the guy- not express that you're probably going to vote for him again. What is wrong with you?

I've said many times I'm not a fan of the president. I don't want another 4 years. But I think 4 more years won't accomplish anything, it will be a stale term with nothing getting done. I think some of Sander's ideas could be financially harmful to me and the middle class. So if I have to chose between a failed and potentially damaging platform or something stale, I'll go with stale. 
Just because I would vote for someone doesn't mean I think he is a good person. And I can still have an opinion about the future of this country without something being wrong with me.

Trump is counting on your vote...as well as the votes of millions of others who've expressed similarly flawed and uninformed opinions of the Mueller Report findings. 

Isn't that a little harsh? It was just released yesterday. Give me some time to gather information before you us of being flawed and uninformed on the matter. I mean, jeez, when was I suppose to catch up on all the news? Working full time with 2 small kids is going to take a few days. Thats why my first posted I asked what was I missing, because I didn't understand the uproar. 
Still didn't get an answer other than saying I'm a bad person for not having read up on 488 pages in less than a day....

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.

No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 

I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.

I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 

My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work.  At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed.  I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.

You caught a bunch of things that you think essentially exonerate Trump and you missed the most significant take away regarding obstruction? Probably just a coincidence. 

I'm a single dad on Thursdays, what can you expect? Kids are lucky if they don't get sick Friday morning.

Just exercise common sense. If it looks like shit and smells like shit... it's likely shit.

To boot... the central character is a lying, immoral, idiotic, slovenly conman that demonstrates on a daily basis he's completely unstable- hardly worthy of the benefit of doubt.

You should be crossing your fingers that they have enough evidence to definitively hammer the guy- not express that you're probably going to vote for him again. What is wrong with you?

I've said many times I'm not a fan of the president. I don't want another 4 years. But I think 4 more years won't accomplish anything, it will be a stale term with nothing getting done. I think some of Sander's ideas could be financially harmful to me and the middle class. So if I have to chose between a failed and potentially damaging platform or something stale, I'll go with stale. 
Just because I would vote for someone doesn't mean I think he is a good person. And I can still have an opinion about the future of this country without something being wrong with me.

Trump is counting on your vote...as well as the votes of millions of others who've expressed similarly flawed and uninformed opinions of the Mueller Report findings. 

Isn't that a little harsh? It was just released yesterday. Give me some time to gather information before you us of being flawed and uninformed on the matter. I mean, jeez, when was I suppose to catch up on all the news? Working full time with 2 small kids is going to take a few days. Thats why my first posted I asked what was I missing, because I didn't understand the uproar. 
Still didn't get an answer other than saying I'm a bad person for not having read up on 488 pages in less than a day....

Halifax2TheMax said:

cincybearcat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

oftenreading said:

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.

No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 

I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.

I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 

My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work.  At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed.  I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.

So then come here and ask questions. Don't come in like you know what's in the report after seeing a few talking heads talk about.....

Better yet, read the report for yourself. It’s available online for free or spend 10 bucks and read 3 pages a night before you fall asleep. 147 nights you’re done.
 

Ima save myself the $10 and the time and let you tell me all about it when you are done!

Plausible deniability and failure to take responsibility for your knowledge. Not surprised.
 

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Who here has really read 488 pages in 24 hours?
I see a lot of criticism for those who haven't, but really, have any of you? I highly doubt it.

If you’ve read any of it, you’d know there’s a summary, a richly detailed table of contents and what’s in those few pages has been reported on. Not hard to do unless you don’t.

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

Who here has really read 488 pages in 24 hours?
I see a lot of criticism for those who haven't, but really, have any of you? I highly doubt it.

So you need to read the whole report to decide wether this man is unfit to lead this country? Ok I can understand that specially since he’s only been in office for more than two yrs , sometimes it takes a long time to figure out you’ve been fooled..

That wasn't want I asked. There were several comments criticizing people for not reading it, including one of you. So I was just wondering f those criticiszing others for not reading the report had done so themselves. Looks like the answer is "no" since I am now being told a summary is fine or that just general observations and no report is needed at all.
Which I could agree with, but then don't go dismiss people and tell them to come back once they read it.