OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[man down]

Jesus Christ. Why are you still going on and on about "exoneration" when both of us have agreed that saying Trump was exonerated is Incorrect.

Do you want to send a memo to Trump about this? He's the one who had some of you in here saying he was exonerated. Once again, WE ARE SAYING THE SAME THING. TRUMP WAS NOT EXONERATED.

Correct your president!!!!




I'm happy we can agree that there was no exoneration. But I'm not sure why you want to keep telling me that we agree!!!!



According to you, but Mueller is saying that the summary is off base.




I only meant worthless to the extent that you seemed to be saying you are not aware of anything in the report. There are plenty of websites that break down some of the main issues in the report, and you don't have to read the entire 400 pages.




The reason that I passed along what he said was because you were talking about reaching the threshold of a crime, and that's what he was discussing. I would have thought you would go back and read his tweets to see if they have any merit. Instead, you dismissed it and said that he should just bring the POTUS up on charges.

Again, I thought you might want a different opinion, but I should have known that the Trump boys don't want another opinion. My bad. Any opinion that doesn't fit in with already held beliefs are dismissed. I don't know why you guys can't just keep it real.



I'm pretty sure there is still a fight over receiving the unredacted report. That's the action that is taking place right now. You purposely respond about this as if you are living under a rock.


This was just written about 4 hours ago!




You do realize there is currently a subpoena for the report, right?

You know what would be awesome? If you would wait for Mueller to testify. That way you can say hes protecting Trump also. I mean I know we all like to argue around here but sometimes some people think they know more than the investigators.

[travestyny]

I'm interested in seeing if he still uses the term exonerate in light of the legal definition and that there's no conviction to be exonerated of

Do you understand yet that you are actually agreeing with me and disagreeing with Trump?


As for your definition of exonerate, you didn't have to use a legal dictionary. The president meant it in laymen terms, ie. being absolved from any blame. Which again, is false.


I'm surprised you guys that ride the Trump bandwagon so hard can actually disagree with him, though I'm not sure why you're pushing so hard to make it clear with everyone that you disagree with the Pres. Soon you'll be voting democrat.

[1bad65]

You know what would be awesome? If you would wait for Mueller to testify. That way you can say hes protecting Trump also. I mean I know we all like to argue around here but sometimes some people think they know more than the investigators.

Why would he bother waiting when no matter happens he's going to 'win' regardless?


If Mueller testifies and says what Travesty wants, he will say he 'wins' and Mueller confirmed it.

If Mueller testifies and doesn't say what Travesty wants, he'll still say he 'wins' and that Mueller was lying/bribed/replaced by a doppelganger, etc.



I'm stunned good posters are wasting their time with one of the site's worst base trolling cheerleaders.

[travestyny]

You know what would be awesome? If you would wait for Mueller to testify. That way you can say hes protecting Trump also. I mean I know we all like to argue around here but sometimes some people think they know more than the investigators.

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of claiming to know.

The ONLY thing I've claimed here thus far is that there is no exoneration and it has not been proven that Trump is innocent.

I've pretty much said over and over that anyone who wants to give an informed opinion about this should read the report or at least visit a website where they summarize the main arguments in the report.

And I have NO PROBLEM at all with Mueller testifying. But again, isn't it your President that DOESN'T want Mueller to testify?


I got one Trumpster on me about an exoneration, not realizing that we both disagree with Trump about it. Now I have you telling me to wait for Mueller to testify, which I can agree with, so seems you and I are both disagreeing with Trump now as well.


You Republican fans are finally beginning to see the light!!!!

[man down]

Game changer

[travestyny]

I'm stunned good posters are wasting their time with one of the site's worst base trolling cheerleaders.

LMAOOOO. Me calling you a cheerleader clearly made you feel some kind of way.


Your own quotation fits you PERFECTLY!

[man down]

I'm not sure what you're accusing me of claiming to know.

The ONLY thing I've claimed here thus far is that there is no exoneration and it has not been proven that Trump is innocent.

I've pretty much said over and over that anyone who wants to give an informed opinion about this should read the report or at least visit a website where they summarize the main arguments in the report.

And I have NO PROBLEM at all with Mueller testifying. But again, isn't it your President that DOESN'T want Mueller to testify?


I got one Trumpster on me about an exoneration, not realizing that we both disagree with Trump about it. Now I have you telling me to wait for Mueller to testify, which I can agree with, so seems you and I are both disagreeing with Trump now as well.


You Republican fans are finally beginning to see the light!!!!

How did I know you would try and argue with me?

[travestyny]

How did I know you would try and argue with me?

So I'm arguing with you by asking you to clarify what you think I am claiming to know?


For the first time, I'm recognizing how sensitive you Trump fans are. Is that something that trickled down from the Orange man himself, or what?

I'm not arguing with you. I'm agreeing that more will be known if/when Mueller testifies. Ok?

However, you should realize that what you are saying is in contradiction to what your boy says and wants.

Trump: 'Mueller should not testify'

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...illine-1302632

[GGG Gloveking]

Do you understand yet that you are actually agreeing with me and disagreeing with Trump?


As for your definition of exonerate, you didn't have to use a legal dictionary. The president meant it in laymen terms, ie. being absolved from any blame. Which again, is false.


I'm surprised you guys that ride the Trump bandwagon so hard can actually disagree with him, though I'm not sure why you're pushing so hard to make it clear with everyone that you disagree with the Pres. Soon you'll be voting democrat.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the Mueller Report, which was written by an attorney, that says, 'there is no exoneration'.

There is no underlying conviction that would require an exoneration.

Saying "there is no exoneration" is misleading as one would infer that a conviction exists which would require an exoneration.

Using the legal definition of "not guilty" vs "innocent" is misleading as one would infer that we are talking about an actual court case or even an actual crime.

[travestyny]

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the Mueller Report, which was written by an attorney, that says, 'there is no exoneration'.

There is no underlying conviction that would require an exoneration.

Saying "there is no exoneration" is misleading as one would infer that a conviction exists which would require an exoneration.

And for the record, just what would you call saying that there was a complete exoneration? Was that ol' wily Trump trying to be "misleading."

Had the investigation proven that he 100% didn't do anything, that would have been an exoneration. You do realize that words don't have to be used in the legal sense, right?

You know...much in the way that you stated the attorney who created the report said it wasn't an exoneration...and didn't say it's not an exoneration because there is no court case, did he? Or did you think he meant it in a legal sense and was confused?

Using the legal definition of "not guilty" vs "innocent" is misleading as one would infer that we are talkingh about an actual court case or even an actual crime.

Which is why I used the term actual innocence in contrast with legal innocence


You are trying very hard to argue with me, but I still see absolutely nothing to argue about