Jussie Smullett hoax

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As you claimed in your post, which I read, perhaps you did not, so for your edification I will quote it here.
"HOW MANY TIMES do these morons have to end up with egg on their faces, before they just wait for investigations to take place? Duke lacrosse, hands up don't shoot, the Rolling Stone U-VA rape case, the Covington kids, now this."

Of course he's been exonerated now, that's defined as not going forward with a prosecution in your book, isn't it?

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/03/juss...-no-collusion/

the people with egg on their faces, are the monsters in the media who yet again, rushed to judgment and spun the story in a way to bash Trump supporters, and also to fan the flames of racial unrest. it’s disgusting.

the prosecutors specifically said its not an exoneration, and that they believe he lied to the police. there’s absolutely no way of knowing what happened, but if he was exonerated, he’d get his bail back, wouldn’t he?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

.

the prosecutors specifically said its not an exoneration, and that they believe he lied to the police. there’s absolutely no way of knowing what happened, but if he was exonerated, he’d get his bail back, wouldn’t he?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought it worked like this:

No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!

“while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I thought it worked like this:

No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!

“while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Stop confirming your lack of comprehension PeteF. Unless you are just being contrarian. In which case you have accomplished nothing. Go play with more straws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I thought it worked like this:

No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!

“while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

here’s the thing. there’s no evidence trump colluded. there’s all kinds of evidence that Smlet stages this.

what do you think happened here? what do you think is the most likely story? is it more likely that he truly staged this, or that the police framed him for that?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I thought it worked like this:

No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!

“while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

If the Special Counsel did not conclude that Trump committed a crime, then there could not be an indictment. The matter was thoroughly investigated. There was no crime found. End of matter. Nothing more need, nor should, be said. There is no need to "exonerate" someone for what has not been concluded to be a crime. And the DOJ concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute for a crime. The DOJ's conclusion was part of the whole process of the investigation. Therefor, part of the final report.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If the Special Counsel did not conclude that Trump committed a crime, then there could not be an indictment. The matter was thoroughly investigated. There was no crime found.
Barr reported this “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election”
End of matter. Nothing more need, nor should, be said. There is no need to "exonerate" someone for what has not been concluded to be a crime. And the DOJ concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute for a crime. The DOJ's conclusion was part of the whole process of the investigation. Therefor, part of the final report.

What we currently know about the Mueller report is as conclusive as what we know about Benghazi and the email investigation.
Lock him up

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What we currently know about the Mueller report is as conclusive as what we know about Benghazi and the email investigation.
Lock him up

Pete, do you think Smullett staged this?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pete, do you think Smullett staged this?

Waiting for due process to take place

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Waiting for due process to take place

It did take place, it's done. So what do you think happened?

We get it, you don't want to answer. because if you say he staged it (which he obviously did), you go against the narrative, and liberals can't do that. If you say you don't think he staged it, you know you look stupid.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What we currently know about the Mueller report is as conclusive as what we know about Benghazi and the email investigation.
Lock him up

Even if they can prove he colluded (which they can't), there is question about whether or not that's even a crime.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What we currently know about the Mueller report is as conclusive as what we know about Benghazi and the email investigation.
Lock him up

I don't know WTF you're trying to say here. It is often dizzying trying to follow your trains of thought. Your brain seems to be wired differently than usual humans. Perhaps you are a superior form of life.

As far as I know, there were no special counsels appointed to investigate Benghazi or Hillary's emails. Nonetheless, incorporating your whataboutisms (it seems that you and wdmso are constantly allowed whataboutisms but others of us are chided against doing so) are you saying that either both Trump and Hillary should be locked up, or that neither of them should?

Could you please clarify?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As far as I know, there were no special counsels appointed to investigate Benghazi or Hillary's emails.
Investigations only count if you employ a special counsel?Nonetheless, incorporating your whataboutisms (it seems that you and wdmso are constantly allowed whataboutisms but others of us are chided against doing so) are you saying that either both Trump and Hillary should be locked up, or that neither of them should?

Could you please clarify?

Pretty simple, perhaps both should be locked up using Trump's logic

Both Benghazi and the email issue were investigated and no indictments issued
Never stopped the opposition from calling: Lock them up

What is the difference between those investigations and this one, other than that the same people are now on the opposite sides?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Pretty simple, perhaps both should be locked up using Trump's logic

Both Benghazi and the email issue were investigated and no indictments issued
Never stopped the opposition from calling: Lock them up

What is the difference between those investigations and this one, other than that the same people are now on the opposite sides?

Whether they are or not, special counsels are not ostensibly politically driven. Congressional investigations are. That's why, as in Benghazi, the opinions of what was "found" were quite contrary. And Hillary's failure in Benghazi was not a crime, nor treason, nor conspiracy, but just plain incompetence. Incompetence is not an indictable offense. And neither investigation, Benghazi nor the emails, required under oath interviews subject to perjury traps. The lenience given to Hillary and those around her in the email investigation was not afforded in Mueller's investigation. People like Flynn and Papadopoulos were convicted of silly process crimes that Hillary's people were spared from being subjected to. In the email investigation there was no attempt to squeeze witnesses into "singing" and "composing" or facing criminal charges or worse convictions .

Comparing the thoroughness, intensity and strictness of Mueller's investigation to the laxity of the email scandal "investigation" is a farce.