Comments by "Killed The Cat" (@killedthecat1034) on "Robert Mueller asked if Trump was totally exonerated" video.

  1.  @khyronkravshera7774  Actually it's not. Under American law, for innocent until proven guilty to go in effect, one has to be charged with a crime. He was not charged with a crime because you can't charge a sitting president with a crime. Therefore, he does not have the protection of innocent until proven guilty.
    6
  2.  @liam.s789  So did you miss the testimony and also not read the Report??? Or are you, that far indoctrinated?
    4
  3. @David N how does it come down to that? Or are you, as we all suspect, talking out of your ass?
    2
  4. @fred head This isn't the Trump Whitehouse, Spanky. Saying stuff does not actually make it true. Nice try though. 😜✌
    2
  5. @Tucker Carlson Lets see... Who paid for the Dossier before Clinton? Also, the whole thing wasn't true? Also, who's president again? Oh-oh! Right! The guy that had the two-year investigation on him that proved him guilty of at least nine charges when it comes to obstruction of justice. That's right. You need to step up your game on cherry picking your data. It just makes you look silly.
    2
  6.  @inov8shun  who has the majority of the Senate? The Democrats or the Republicans?
    2
  7.  @inov8shun  you can ignore pertinent facts all you want but we don't have to play along.
    2
  8.  @inov8shun  So ya think that might have something to do with why they don't impeach? Or how about the fact that that would stick them with Mike Pence? That wouldn't have anything to do with why they won't impeach him and instead just want to beat him in the next election.
    2
  9. @Tucker Carlson Prove it! All of us and reality will be waiting. 😜✌
    1
  10.  @brianschettler4004  Why should the president breaking the law, not matter?
    1
  11. @Tucker Carlson Idk, why didn't he look into the Republicans paying for the report before Hillary got ahold of it?
    1
  12. @Tucker Carlson there is a 448 page document that says it wasn't a Witch Hunt. So where's your proof that it was ? You want to talk about facts? We can get in to fax but you're going to have to start using some.
    1
  13.  @williamh5646  Come out of the closet!
    1
  14.  @williamh5646  I dount its only the torso. Come out of the closet! Its gonna be okay.
    1
  15.  @williamh5646  your obsession with homosexuality says different.
    1
  16.  Paul Belardo  That's a no, then? That's what I thought! 😜✌
    1
  17.  @williamh5646  so what you're saying is you desperately want to come out of the closet as a Democrat and a homosexual? Come on out baby 😜✌
    1
  18.  Paul Belardo  Ummm.... Okay, oh wise one.... What part of the Mueller Report can you prove to be inaccurate? This should be good! 😜✌
    1
  19.  Paul Belardo  SoOoOo... That's a No?
    1
  20.  Paul Belardo  Sure! As soon as you show me your time machine or possibly your magic powers? You know the thing that makes, what you just claimed was going to happen in the future, actually true, and not just you talking out of your ass... We will be waiting. Forever! 😜✌
    1
  21.  Paul Belardo  I'm not sure you understand the definition of proof... And this leaves me to ask if your magic again... cuz, just saying stuff, does not actually make it true. Got some actual proof for anything that you have said? Still waiting! 😜✌
    1
  22.  Paul Belardo  SoOoOo... Again... A No on any proof for all that noise you keep making? Can't say that I'm shocked. 😜✌
    1
  23.  Paul Belardo  maybe you should just stop making stuff up? Have you ever thought about that? Cuz you probably should. It doesn't bode well for you. 😜✌
    1
  24.  Paul Belardo  Oh! Good! That means you can answer my question then, right? Do you have any proof for your claims?
    1
  25.  Paul Belardo  Did it now? 😂😂😂 Thanks! This is why I kept asking you the question.... Yay! Good news for you then... I have another question for you then. How did the Dossier start the investigation, when the FBI didn't even know it existed until 7 weeks after the investigation began? ESP? Here's another one... Who paid for the dossier to be built in the first place? Another... Was the whole Dossier proven to be fake? Another... How do you know that they will lose? ESP again? One more thing... Lets explain your OH SO SHARP logic. Trump is a fake president. I don't need anything to prove that he is fake because I called him fake. So now I guess he needs to leave office. 😂😂😂😜✌🇺🇸
    1
  26.  Paul Belardo  I can't think for myself but you can't even get basic facts right... Yeah not going to be able to take your word on that one.... So, I'm guessing you can't answer any of those questions either? You're drowning here Jack. Maybe you should shut off all together before Rose pushes you completely off that door. Just a thought. 🤣🤣🤣
    1
  27.  Paul Belardo  I know... I know.. Your standard lines of trying to lie, divert and close your eyes real tight, while putting your hands over your ears, so none of those pesky facts get in, aren't working here. So you gotta keep going back to the trusty old stand in, of assuming that you have already won, even though it's still 2019. I mean... Why not. Nothing else that has come out of your mouth has been true. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣 Sad Boy!
    1
  28.  Paul Belardo  Ummm... HELLO! Have you been paying attention... To... Well.... Yourself? Why would I do that? Anyone I name you're just going to lie about anyways. You don't know what you're talkin about and have already proven that time and time again. You don't know basic facts about things your talking about. Your just making this shit up on the fly and your not very good at it. With that proven lack of credibility, nothing you say matters, sweetheart. That's why your mommy tried to teach you that lying was bad, before you got into the real world. So that one day you would present as credible and therefore be listened to and considered. But since you never got that lesson through your head... Sorry for ya! 🤣🙃🤙🇺🇸
    1
  29.  @indiasupportstrumpwwg1wga927  hopefully, that's the most ignorant comment I'm going to hear today.🙄
    1
  30.  @theone8327  You don't speak for them.
    1
  31. @NDFOOTBALL Okay, MS. Clio! 🙄
    1
  32. @Severin Department of Justice policy definitely applies.
    1
  33.  @masterofalltrades999  How? What exactly did he say?
    1
  34. @power 2 the people I would be more specific... I would say, while he is sitting in the Office of the presidency, he is, yes, unfortunately, above the law. That's a horse of a different color when he is no longer in that office, however.
    1
  35. @fred head So what you got is speculation... K... Got it. Do you think, maybe, when you're doing something as important as, testifying to Congress about an investigation into the president of the United States, you might want to be very precise in what you hear? And therefore how you respond? I have and... I'm going to go back to my original statement. This is not the Trump White House. Just saying things just not actually make it true. Also... Funny how your not saying anything about obstruction. 😜✌
    1
  36.  @inov8shun  Sounds like your awful afraid of them reading, pretty much anything from the second part of the Mueller report. Did you read it? I bet you didn't.
    1
  37.  @Thattallguy420  Seams to be the case. Lol
    1
  38.  @inov8shun  So why are you pretending impeachment has to do with guilt or innocence?
    1
  39.  @inov8shun  I'm not asking you for your opinion. I'm determining whether your opinion is credible by asking you what facts you are basing your opinion on. When did I assume to know your politics? You keep saying you know the law. I have no evidence of this. Like, for instance oh, you don't seem to understand that him being able to not gather enough evidence to prove conspiracy (and not collusion, law guy,) would have something to do with the obstruction case that he laid out? Have you read the second part of the Mueller report? Where he laid out nine different detailed incidences of obstruction of justice? You keep saying you know the law but then you make flagrant allegations with no proof. Like how he was set up. And are you saying that's not what the statute says? You don't have to be charged with a crime until innocent before proven guilty is applied? Then why would you have to even have that statement be true? If you're not charged with anything you don't have to worry about guilt or innocence, correct? You're claiming that I'm telling you about your politics but you want to assume my political affiliation. When have I said that? I don't think I will be taking your word for anything because you keep making baseless accusations, claiming you know the law but don't understand the basic properties of such, and assuming you know things about me that you do not while getting all pissy because you're assuming I'm making assumptions about you. That doesn't seem like somebody I'm going to be taking their word on anything.
    1
  40.  @inov8shun  it doesn't negate the fact that the Republicans paid for it either. Also, again assuming my actions mean things, they do not. If one is true then so is the other. You guys always bring up how Hillary paid for it but you always seem to forget that the Republicans paid for it first. You never seem to bring that up. Sure, if you want to cherry-pick the hell out of evidence and completely disregard pertinent facts about a meeting between the president of the United States eldest son and a Russian government spy. How does that speak to my hypocrisy, BTW? Who is we and why wouldn't you care who is president? I'm the fool but you're saying you don't care who's president. Yeah.... I'm not going to take your word on that one either, Spanky! Lol No laws were broken except the ones that were that you keep ignoring so you can make your argument. Come back to me when you have a law license, genius. 😜✌
    1
  41.  @inov8shun  I didn't even see you talked into power 2 the people. Really? A 448 page legal document laying out evidence and crime in a variety of different ways doesn't mean s**? Is that right "legal expert guy"? Maybe you shouldn't start out by calling somebody stupid if you're going to say stupid s** like that to them. Just a tip! 😜✌
    1
  42.  @inov8shun  Bet you haven't even read the report? Lol
    1
  43. @fred head Bet ya I did! Wanna quiz each other on it and test your theory out????? 😁😁😁😁😁 That will be fun! Easy, because I'm not in the Trump White House and therefore just saying things does not actually make it true. So you were bias and idiotic interpretation of what happened really doesn't have any effect on me. But I'm down for the quiz! You!?!?!? 😜✌
    1
  44.  @inov8shun  Okay, "Mr. Legal Experts", you do understand that denying large swaths of evidence in order to keep telling the lies that you're telling, means nothing, right? And I'll offer you the same thing I offered the last dumbass Who challenged me on the Mueller report. Let's quiz each other. Let's see who you really read and understood the report. I'm down for it if you are? So quit talking s*** and back your s*** up or slink away like a little b** you are. I'll be waiting! 😜✌
    1
  45.  @inov8shun  Who holds the majority in the Senate? Who will become president if Donald Trump is successfully impeached? That maybe wouldn't have anything to do with why they're not trying to impeach him and instead trying to beat him at the next election, when it? Why have the investigation? Because there was enough evidence on the president of the United States and the Russian government to open an investigation of that kind and then during the investigation he provided more evidence of obstruction of justice. You think you would know that being all "legal expert guy" and everything. Also because during an investigation you want to invest as soon as possible. That way later the charges can be picked up when he is able to be charged. That's easy. He didn't. He concluded that there was not enough evidence to charge for conspiracy. Do you think the obstruction of justice had anything to do with that? Also, he said not enough and not no evidence. You have to get a whole lot smarter chicken fuse me, Sugar Tits! 😜✌
    1
  46.  @inov8shun  I'm not pretending that a president can't be indicted. The US justice department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president can't be indicted, indicating that criminal charges against Trump would be unlikely, according to Legal experts. Ya know... The thing that your not. In 1973, in the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department's office of legal counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president can't be indicted. Nixon resigned in 1974, with the House of Representatives moving towards impeaching him. " The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief executor boggles the imagination," the memo States The department reaffirm the policy in a 2000 memo, saying Court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is "constitutionally immune" from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would "violate the Constitutional separation of powers," delineating the authority of the executive legislative and judicial branches of the United States government. I'm not saying it. The Department of Justice says it. You should know that if you know so much about the law. I'm not blaming the Senate. I'm stating facts. Those things you like to ignore if they don't fit your preconceived notion. Or are you saying the Republican owned Senate is going to impeach the Republican president? How many times do I have to tell you that you just saying s*** doesn't actually make it true? Are you a slow learner?
    1
  47.  @inov8shun  yes oh, I was saying you have a problem with facts. Which is why I'm insisting you give them to me if you keep making s*** up. Prove your case or move on with your life.
    1
  48. @fred head Do you think you're a wizard?
    1
  49. @fred head also, I didn't hear you take me up on my offer? Are you running away like a little b***? You think you know so much about all of this then, bring it? Let's give each other a little quiz on the Mueller report and see who's full of s***? Come on little b*** boy! I'm ready! How about you? 😜✌
    1
  50.  @inov8shun  aw, it's cute how you're trying to turn this whole legal expert thing around on me. You were the one swinging that dick around. Though I did noticed you were trying to change the subject. That's odd from someone who was so sure of himself a second ago? What's going on? Performance issues? Is it or is it not legal to go to a port of entry and claim Asylum? You repeating that he is an innocent man does not actually make him that. I'm only stating that because you don't really seem to know that. It takes these things like facts and evidence to show that. None of what you presented. Yes, they would have to legally prove that he obstructed and that proof is the entire second half of the Mueller report. Read it and then come back with that. I was hoping you were going to say there was no underlining crime. "Mr. legal expert man", do you need an underlining crime to charge for obstruction of justice? Mueller knew he was innocent. Prove that or move on with your life. I'm not a fool because I go by evidence and data and you go by speculation, hopes and dreams. Try again.
    1
  51.  @inov8shun  You don't understand the process because you are skipping a bunch of important steps. The house has to decide to bring it up.... Also, there is a vote. It is not restricted to what you are saying. Applicability does not necessarily mean it's going to happen it also doesn't apply two white people would have vote against impeachment. Congress is not held to the standard of Beyond A Reasonable Doubt as you would a jury in a trial. I am saying, it would be fruitless because the Senate would not reciprocate. Everybody knows that and you're trying to ignore that. That does not go to his innocence. That goes to politics. You keep lying and saying there isn't evidence of him doing things wrong when they're obviously is and you're choosing to ignore it. I've given you this evidence several times. You choose to ignore it because you don't want to admit that you were wrong. You continuing to claim that he is innocent does not make it so. You were not a wizard. You are not Magic. You do not have super powers to make your words magically become true. No matter how many times you say it, it will not be true. Now run along little b** boy.
    1
  52.  @inov8shun  WAIT! Almost forgot again, you want to tell us how innocent until proven guilty doesn't only apply two people who are being charged with a crime? You brought that up earlier and now you seem to be ignoring it. Odd.... it's like you've abandoned that argument because you know it's full of s*** but you don't want to actually have to admit it. After all you did claim to be a legal expert and kept talking about how other people didn't understand the law. When that's a basic tenant of the law and you don't seem to understand that. How about we talked about that for a minute.
    1
  53.  @inov8shun  If you know them and you're trying to explain to me how I do not, then would it not make sense to include them all? Calling me down while proving that you are, isn't the best tactic in the world. " but you're not interested in understanding you want to be right" Were you looking in the mirror when you said that? Cuz that would make more sense. When did I lie? Are we back to that oh, you're a wizard, thing again? I know, I know. I have to be a moron because I don't believe your baseless accusations. I think I'm going to go to bed ushered in the facts and knowledge and not in the crazy made-up stories about you being some kind of legal expert, that you keep touting.
    1
  54.  @inov8shun  What facts have you given? And now you're making assumptions on where I get my information. Maybe you should look up the definition of fact. Cuz I'm pretty sure you're getting it confused. As far as the report, I've offered you a couple of times now oh, let's quiz each other on it. We'll see who has actually read the report or not. You keep ignoring that. Just like you keep ignoring how you were trying to claim that innocent until proven guilty applies all the time and not just when being charged with a crime. Anytime you want to man up and bring me that statute, involving innocence and don't or anytime you want to man up and take that little quiz with me about the Mueller report, I'm right here b***. Stop talking s** and put your money where your mouth is. Bring it! 😜✌
    1
  55.  @stevegerhart8510  Dont tell inov8shun that! It breaks his brain! 😁😁😁
    1
  56.  @inov8shun  I know, I know... It's always my fault that you can't back up the s*** you say. It's always on me. The reason you can get basic facts about the law right... the reason you keep claiming to know what the Mueller report says but get major facts about that wrong with your persistent claim of no evidence... The reason you keep running away every time I tell you oh, let's just just quiz each then. All my fault. Cuz you could not possibly be wrong.
    1
  57.  @inov8shun  nope. You missed that one too... "Law expert".... But lets do this... let's say that your total b***** premise of no evidence of conspiracy is true. In order to charge for obstruction of justice do you or do you not require an underlining crime? Come on... I would expect that a "legal expert", such as yourself, would know that. Obstruction of justice does not require an underlying crime to have been committed, merely the intent to obstruct. Just like in cases, such as Start and Libby or the more Infamous one against Martha Stewart. Try again Perry Mason! 😜✌
    1
  58.  @inov8shun  I know... I know... I'm so pathetic in the ways that I am eviscerating any bulshit point you make! You should probably stop with all the b***** put-downs. At this point you sound more like you're trying to convince yourself, instead of me. 😉✌ And when a woman is being more of a man then you, maybe you should pay attention to that.... Is all I'm saying! 😆 "I am a real man." LMAO! He says, while staring in the mirror and masturbating with his tears... Did you really just say that? You didn't ask me for a statute? Quote yourself where you just asked me for a statute. Cuz if you want some... I would be glad to give some to you! Help you learn a little something. That way one day oh, maybe you'll stop only having to claim how much of the legal expert you are and you might actually be one.
    1
  59.  @inov8shun  you keep talking about how much of a liar I am but I keep telling you to man your ass up and let's quiz each other on the Mueller report. Let's see who's lying. You can stop assuming where I got my information because I keep sending you the Mueller report you keep telling me you have. So who's lying now b****? Could it be the one that won't take me up on my offer? You keep bobbing and weaving. That doesn't look good.😜✌
    1
  60.  @inov8shun  I wouldn't say that he colluded because collusion is not a legal term, Ally McBeal. Wasn't it you earlier who told me that I didn't understand legal terms, and yet you keep using ones that are not legal terms. Funny.... it's almost like you're a fraud.😜✌
    1
  61.  @inov8shun  Nope... Got that wrong... Now your MS. Cleo all the sudden. Do you have a secret time machine or is that just more b***** speculation? I think I know the answer. I think we both do. 😜✌
    1
  62.  @inov8shun  Boy! You have gone full conspiracy all up in your feelzzz guy! I must be triggering you or something. Hey, you know what you could do now to shut me off? Take me up on my offer for quizzing each other on the Mueller report. But we both know you're not going to do that, right? I think we both know how full of s*** you actually are. That's why you're getting so angry! 😜✌
    1
  63.  @inov8shun  LMAO! I do get such pleasure in watching you frauds, who try to act like you know s**, revert back to third grade in the end. Always happens. You can't handle people who actually know what they're talkin about. Maybe next time, you shouldn't go around proclaiming your expertise on the law, when you don't really know s** about it. You'll stop embarrassing yourself that way. Toodles B****! 😜✌😜✌😜✌😜✌
    1
  64.  @inov8shun  you know when it's a bad time to lie? When all you have to do is scroll up to see the truth. You made several claims. 1. No evidence of collusion... when collusion wasn't a thing under the law. Also, there had to be evidence to begin an investigation and to present to a grand jury. 2. That you knew the law... When it's very obvious you don't. 3. That you cannot charge obstruction without an underlying crime... Which is total b***** because all you need is intent. 4. That innocent until proven guilty applies without being charged with a crime first... And I kept asking you for the statute on that and you kept ignoring it. 5. That you read the Mueller report... But you're saying things came out of the Mueller report which did not and you won't take me up on my offer to quiz each other on the Mueller report. 6. That I was a liar... But you refuse to tell me how or present evidence to prove that I was lying. I'm sure there was a few more but you get my point. Try again Saul Goodman! 😜✌
    1
  65.  @inov8shun  More like, you've got nothing... But I recognize that you have to keep lying to yourself in order not to bruise that delicate little ego, of yours. 😜✌
    1
  66.  @inov8shun  Blah blah blah... Mpre baseless speculation about me and where I get my info. Tell me, where are you getting your claim from, that I get my "talking point" from CNN? Pulling it out of your a**, like everything else you say? Yeah, that's what I thought. You know, for someone who says he's not making any claims, you sure are making a lot of them. 😜✌
    1
  67.  @inov8shun  Again with the lies. "All you said was all 448 pages of the Mueller report." Again, silly a** lie, when all you have to do, in order to prove you wrong, is scroll up.... And I'm dumb? Wrong again, BOB! 😜✌
    1
  68.  @inov8shun  Lets add those claims of your, to the list of claims you "didn't" make. 1. No evidence of collusion... when collusion wasn't a thing under the law. Also, there had to be evidence to begin an investigation and to present to a grand jury. 2. That you knew the law... When it's very obvious you don't. 3. That you cannot charge obstruction without an underlying crime... Which is total b***** because all you need is intent. 4. That innocent until proven guilty applies without being charged with a crime first... And I kept asking you for the statute on that and you kept ignoring it. 5. That you read the Mueller report... But you're saying things came out of the Mueller report which did not and you won't take me up on my offer to quiz each other on the Mueller report. 6. That I was a liar... But you refuse to tell me how or present evidence to prove that I was lying. 7. I'm here with nothing more than CNN talking points and that Ive got nothing..... Except you disprove your own comment 3 sentences below by telling me I said 448 pages, refering to the Mueller Report. Getting smarter by the min, you are! 😂 8. All I said was 448 pages.... Except, which is it now? I'm confused. 🤔 Do I only have CNN talking points, nothing or 448 pages?
    1
  69.  @inov8shun  You want a place to start now... Okay.... I'll play along... But I bet your gonna end up looking stupid, calling me a Boo Boo Head and then taking your ball and going home! 😜✌
    1
  70.  @inov8shun You can start by proving your 8 claims down there. 😜 ✌ Have fun! 😜 ✌ 1. No evidence of collusion... when collusion wasn't a thing under the law. Also, there had to be evidence to begin an investigation and to present to a grand jury. 2. That you knew the law... When it's very obvious you don't. 3. That you cannot charge obstruction without an underlying crime... Which is total b***** because all you need is intent. 4. That innocent until proven guilty applies without being charged with a crime first... And I kept asking you for the statute on that and you kept ignoring it. 5. That you read the Mueller report... But you're saying things came out of the Mueller report which did not and you won't take me up on my offer to quiz each other on the Mueller report. 6. That I was a liar... But you refuse to tell me how or present evidence to prove that I was lying. 7. I'm here with nothing more than CNN talking points and that Ive got nothing..... Except you disprove your own comment 3 sentences below by telling me I said 448 pages, refering to the Mueller Report. Getting smarter by the min, you are! 😂 8. All I said was 448 pages.... Except, which is it now? I'm confused. 🤔 Do I only have CNN talking points, nothing or 448 pages?
    1
  71.  @inov8shun  and? Got some insecurities about your manhood, you need to talk over with the therapist? Why does that matter so much to you? You don't know me. Why do you give a s*** what I think about your manhood? This couldn't get more Freudian if he walked up and slapped you in the face! 😜✌
    1
  72.  @inov8shun 😂 LMFAO! 😂Told ya! 😋 Your dumb a** is shooting blanks! 🙊 I knew it! 😉 You don't have shit to back up what you say!😉 Your just all salty that someone called you out on it!😢 Look at ya! 🙈 All Triggered and s**! 🙉 Trying to tell everyone that they don't understand the law! 💩 Cuz your special a* is the only one who understands all this "legal" s***! 💩 You "read" the Mueller Report, "on your phone"! 😆 LMFAO! 😆 Your just a FRAUD and you can't handle being exposed! 😼 Man up and suck it up little boy! 😁 This is the real world. Be ready to back your s*** up or be ready to get destroyed! 😝 TOODLES MATLOCK! 😜✌
    1