>>6637132 lb

Stating it happened without directly accusing someone is 2 different things. As the Chief law enforcement officer in the country, it's Barr's duty to uphold the law. The law states you don't accuse someone(s) broadly of crimes without proof. There is no proof yet because investigations are still ongoing. Didn't we just deal with this matter with Mueller accusing Potus without charging him? That's not legal in this country. Atleast, it didn't use to be.

Barr is exactly the person we need to restore the rule of law here. Look at everything from a legal standpoint and stay keep politics out of it.

>>6637190

Maybe you need to pay moar attention We're talking about Barr, not Trump.

>>6637218

Let me spell it out for you, brainless. Some are melting down because Barr would not use the word treason to accuse certain people without evidence. Why you keep trying to say because Potus did it Barr should too, in spite of the fact that it would be illegal for the top law enforcement officer to do so. Potus can get away with it as being political. I would not want Barr to do so without the evidence to back it up. Had my fill of political cops. Breath of fresh air to see Barr not being one of them.

Following along now cupcake?

>>6637202

Who was President at the time?

Who was his boss?

>>6637270

Doubling down on stupid in spite of lengthy explanation. Define the difference between a legal charge of traitor v treason. Not wasting anymoar time trying to explain basic law elements to you. which you clearly want to overlook. Bye now.

>>6637220

A year ago, I would have said you were full of shit. Not anymoar. Have witnessed it firsthand. Prime example is MO a tranny. Watched in awe as the clowns pushed it and pushed it for months on end. Now, most here think it's true, with zero evidence but obviously poorly shooped pics.

>>6637387

I rest my case.

>>6637382

It's the perfect example and you are a perfect example of brainwashing. The hips don't lie, idiot.

>>6637422

besides shooped pics, what evidence do you have? Show me another male with hips like that. DNA don't lie, but you do.

>>6637444

you are beyond help

>>6637469

Doesn't mean there are no mil flights. Means all flights are blocked from radar.

>>6637492

So tired of the same old argument with you clowns. My point still stands and you can't refute it. But you can alter pics and vids. Plus, you obviously have zero knowledge on clothing. Fabric that she is wearing and with her fat fucking ass, which is a female trait btw, and with a stiff zipper, will sometimes give the impression of a bulge at the front of the pants.

I'm done trying to explain basic human anatomy to either clowns or the brainwashed.

>>6637513

Welcome. It could mean several things. Feels like the need to keep all flights blocked from public eyes very important atm. NATSEC and all that.

>>6637541

the retard here grows ever day.

>>6637609

Some me any man with wide hips, fat ass and small tits and then I might listen to you.

>>6637641

Personally, I don't agree. It can be preferenced with IMO, making it opinion and not fact. If making a point, state it instead of asking questions, imo.

>>6637666

prefaced, not preferenced*

>>6637699

Really depends on the context surrounding the post. Sometimes questions are moar appropriate. Sometimes giving conjecture and stating as opinion rather than this is what you should believe is moar appropriate. But making a post with not much else but asking questions leading to divisive answers does not promote respect.

Stated another way. If you ask if others agree is with your statement is making the statement on what your opinion is. It is not asking broad riddling questions. That's my opinion. We can either agree or agree to disagree, with respect.