OFFICIAL: Donald ***** thread.

[Motorcity Cobra]

Yeah and? Do you still think ****** got ***** elected still?

***** & KT McFarland believes it

[JimRaynor]

It's not known that there was on collusion. There simply was no evidence of collusion.

Regardless of collusion, there could have still been obstruction. That's precisely why this ordeal is still going on. Makes sense, doesn't it?


Again, it's not a hard concept to understand.

You can say that for literally any crime that a person was not convicted on. It's not known that Kobe didn't **** that girl, there was simply no evidence of ****....If you couldn't find cut clear evidence after 2 years of investigation not only about *****, but anyone in his whole team, then its safe to say there was no collusion. And if there is no collusion then no one cares if ***** obstructed an investigation about a crime that never happened.

[GGG Gloveking]

Why are you saying sorry to me? I'm not a ********.

And I'm pretty sure you knew I wasn't talking about a damn mascot. Why is there a jackass in the "elephant" party

I know damn good and well what you were doing. You were calling me a jackass. But at the end of the day...

1. ***** is president.

2. Team D told us for 2 years that ***** colluded with ******.

3. After 2 years, Mueller reported "no evidence of collusion".

4. To date no charges or impeachment proceedings have begun.

Team D has been reduced to saying "we can't prove he didn't do it"

[GGG Gloveking]

You can say that for literally any crime that a person was not convicted on. It's not known that Kobe didn't **** that girl, there was simply no evidence of ****....If you couldn't find cut clear evidence after 2 years of investigation not only about *****, but anyone in his whole team, then its safe to say there was no collusion. And if there is no collusion then no one cares if ***** obstructed an investigation about a crime that never happened.

That's the team D talking point now. We can't prove a person, who hasn't even been charged with a crime, didn't commit a crime that we can't even identity as having happened.

We can't prove you didn't **** that girl that we have no evidence of ever being ****d... But you might have done it

[man down]

That's the team D talking point now. We can't prove a person, who hasn't even been charged with a crime, didn't commit a crime that we can't even identity as having happened.

We can't prove you didn't **** that girl that we have no evidence of ever being ****d... But you might have done it

Pretty unreal isn't it? Just shows how far they're willing to reach for nothing.

[GGG Gloveking]

Pretty unreal isn't it? Just shows how far they're willing to reach for nothing.

The level of denial is amazing. Investigating for two years, and just like the election, are unwilling to accept the results

[travestyny]

You can say that for literally any crime that a person was not convicted on. It's not known that Kobe didn't **** that girl, there was simply no evidence of ****....If you couldn't find cut clear evidence after 2 years of investigation not only about *****, but anyone in his whole team, then its safe to say there was no collusion. And if there is no collusion then no one cares if ***** obstructed an investigation about a crime that never happened.

It doesn't mean that it's safe to say there is no collusion.


There are plenty of people who get away with crimes everyday...some for years. Some forever.


I'm not saying he is guilty of engaging in a conspiracy and I'm not saying he isn't. What I'm more interested in is why does it seem he committed obstruction of justice if there was no conspiracy?

The only 2 reasons I can think of is:

A. There was a conspiracy.
B. He was just scared shltless by there being an investigation and reacted like someone who had something to hide, whether he had something to hide or not.

I don't really see any way around those two options, in my humble opinion. And what is also interesting is, if he is not guilty of engaging in this conspiracy but he did indeed obstruct justice for whatever reason.....will they still want to impeach and remove him?

Time will tell. Obviously people do care or this wouldn't be a hot topic.

[travestyny]

I know damn good and well what you were doing. You were calling me a jackass. But at the end of the day...

Dude, go and read it again. Jesus Christ. I never knew you were so damn sensitive. I was NOT calling you a jackass. I was calling ***** a jackass. I thought that was clear.

1. ***** is president.

Um...so the fvvck what? That happened like years ago. Did you just need an extra point to make your post seem meaty?

2. Team D told us for 2 years that ***** colluded with ******.

3. After 2 years, Mueller reported "no evidence of collusion".

4. To date no charges or impeachment proceedings have begun.

Team D has been reduced to saying "we can't prove he didn't do it"

And what about obstruction, Glove? Are you going to address it, or keep ignoring it to stay in your safe space? Because there is evidence of it. But you'd rather play dumb

[man down]

It doesn't mean that it's safe to say there is no collusion.


There are plenty of people who get away with crimes everyday...some for years. Some forever.


I'm not saying he is guilty of engaging in a conspiracy and I'm not saying he isn't. What I'm more interested in is why does it seem he committed obstruction of justice if there was no conspiracy?

The only 2 reasons I can think of is:

A. There was a conspiracy.
B. He was just scared shltless by there being an investigation and reacted like someone who had something to hide, whether he had something to hide or not.

I don't really see any way around those two options, in my humble opinion. And what is also interesting is, if he is not guilty of engaging in this conspiracy but he did indeed obstruct justice for whatever reason.....will they still want to impeach and remove him?

Time will tell. Obviously people do care or this wouldn't be a hot topic.

With this said, I'm heading down to the local lotto office. I can't find my winning ticket but they have to prove I didn't buy it.
I'mma tell them you said they have to prove I didn't win. Should go over really well.

[travestyny]

With this said, I'm heading down to the local lotto office. I can't find my winning ticket but they have to prove I didn't buy it.
I'mma tell them you said they have to prove I didn't win. Should go over really well.

Do you happen to have a 400 page documented investigation about whether you bought it, with a good 10 accounts of you buying the ticket?


Then you might make some sense here. But as it stands right now, you make no damn sense.


What you guys are either playing dumb about or are too slow to comprehend is that you're stuck on collusion and everyone else is talking about obstruction. Could they be related? Absolutely. Because if not, why does it seem there was evidence of obstruction if your boy didn't do anything wrong? Why obstruct justice regarding an inquiry about collusion if there is no collusion? Let me guess. He didn't commit collusion but he wanted to obstruct justice with regards to the collusion investigation just to maintain the possibility of being impeached, hmm? Maybe those who say he's purposely trying to get kicked out of office are right.