The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

32 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

 

The trumpkins and their trolls on this website are now constantly pushing the “move on” narrative. 

 

To be fair, I've seen some go from please-impeach-you-fools!-lol to "move on" within the span of a few posts.

 

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[JimmyJames 12271]

Once upon a time the nazi party was not the dominant party of Germany. During that period of time, I am absolutely sure that there were a large number of people, both of the party and not, that did not think ill of it and thought it might actually do the country some good. 

We see that once again today, except this time not just in person but in our face both on the tv, the radio, and for many especially on the net.

We have posters on here who excuse trump’s antics as “jokes,” like the recent “joke” he told when someone at one of his hate rallies suggested shooting immigrants and he “jokingly” went along with that suggestion. Yeah, just a small and simple “joke” that was.

The Nazis rose to prominence in Germany by preying on the ignorance of the masses and wound up later on and a few years later:

Killing millions.

Trump and his ilk haven’t gotten to that point yet. 

Are you willing to risk it and see if they might? Anyone who argues trump doesn’t want to be a dictator is a ridiculous fool. 

The good news is our institutions are much stronger than even those that existed in pre war Germany. Nevertheless, trump and the Republican criminal party and their supporters take dead aim at those instituations every single day trying to weakin them. It appears to be a goal of theirs.

They are therefore an extistential threat. 

[Crusher 127]

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

What do you think?

Is Trump throwing sand in the gears of the investigation? Did Putins Kremlin actively coordinate efforts to support Trump's election? Did Trump and/or his campaign know that the Kremlin was helping? Did he welcome that help? Did he ask for help? Did he attempt to capitalize on that help?

What do you think?

I know the question wasn't for me but I would like to answer. I'll break the questions out one at a time and answer.

Is Trump throwing sand in the gears of the investigation? :  Yes. I believe so.  He has fought back from what he believed was a witch-hunt. He didn't conspire with the Russians and the Mueller Report has backed him up. 

Did Putins Kremlin actively coordinate efforts to support Trump's election?:  No. To actively support Trumps campaign, no I don't believe that. I do believe the Russians were actively involved in the 2016 election to create chaos . They hacked the DNC and the GOP. I think they found more goodies in the DNC that they could effectively use. I still think the dossier was Russian disinformation that was put out to cover their ass so to speak. 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/index.html

Did Trump and/or his campaign know that the Kremlin was helping? Did he welcome that help? : I don't think Trump or his campaign were involved but they were glad that the US people got a look up Hillary's skirt so to speak. I think it had a huge influence. For me it confirmed what I thought but, for voters on the fence I think it definitely changed votes.

Did he ask for help?: No, definitely not. That was the crux of the Mueller investigation and if he had come back with an affirmative answer to that question I would be the first one to scream for Trumps head. Not going to hand off the United States of America to some Orange Manchurian Candidate while I'm alive.

Did he attempt to capitalize on that help?: Answered above. Hell yes. Would Hillary have taken advantage of Russian intel that disparaged Trump? Hell yes.

 

 

 

[Irieguy 1059]

2 hours ago, Crusher said:

That part reminds me , I'm hungry... Think I will have some jumbo shrimp. Then definitely maybe watch the Rockets. But my knee hurts so I may have to rub some Icy Hot on it.

It would have been clearer if he wrote, “make clear in a subtle way”. But in no way is subtly clear an oxymoron. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Crusher said:

I know the question wasn't for me but I would like to answer. I'll break the questions out one at a time and answer.

Is Trump throwing sand in the gears of the investigation? :  Yes. I believe so.  He has fought back from what he believed was a witch-hunt. He didn't conspire with the Russians and the Mueller Report has backed him up. 

Did Putins Kremlin actively coordinate efforts to support Trump's election?:  No. To actively support Trumps campaign, no I don't believe that. I do believe the Russians were actively involved in the 2016 election to create chaos . They hacked the DNC and the GOP. I think they found more goodies in the DNC that they could effectively use. I still think the dossier was Russian disinformation that was put out to cover their ass so to speak. 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/index.html

Did Trump and/or his campaign know that the Kremlin was helping? Did he welcome that help? : I don't think Trump or his campaign were involved but they were glad that the US people got a look up Hillary's skirt so to speak. I think it had a huge influence. For me it confirmed what I thought but, for voters on the fence I think it definitely changed votes.

Did he ask for help?: No, definitely not. That was the crux of the Mueller investigation and if he had come back with an affirmative answer to that question I would be the first one to scream for Trumps head. Not going to hand off the United States of America to some Orange Manchurian Candidate while I'm alive.

Did he attempt to capitalize on that help?: Answered above. Hell yes. Would Hillary have taken advantage of Russian intel that disparaged Trump? Hell yes.

 

 

 

Such a terrible and ignorant obvious troll response. Deserves no further response beyond that. 

[David Dennison 18656]

2 minutes ago, Crusher said:

I know the question wasn't for me but I would like to answer. I'll break the questions out one at a time and answer.

Is Trump throwing sand in the gears of the investigation? :  Yes. I believe so.  He has fought back from what he believed was a witch-hunt. He didn't conspire with the Russians and the Mueller Report has backed him up. 

Did Putins Kremlin actively coordinate efforts to support Trump's election?:  No. To actively support Trumps campaign, no I don't believe that. I do believe the Russians were actively involved in the 2016 election to create chaos . They hacked the DNC and the GOP. I think they found more goodies in the DNC that they could effectively use. I still think the dossier was Russian disinformation that was put out to cover their ass so to speak. 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/index.html

Did Trump and/or his campaign know that the Kremlin was helping? Did he welcome that help? : I don't think Trump or his campaign were involved but they were glad that the US people got a look up Hillary's skirt so to speak. I think it had a huge influence. For me it confirmed what I thought but, for voters on the fence I think it definitely changed votes.

Did he ask for help?: No, definitely not. That was the crux of the Mueller investigation and if he had come back with an affirmative answer to that question I would be the first one to scream for Trumps head. Not going to hand off the United States of America to some Orange Manchurian Candidate while I'm alive.

Did he attempt to capitalize on that help?: Answered above. Hell yes. Would Hillary have taken advantage of Russian intel that disparaged Trump? Hell yes.

 

You did not read the report. 

[Dbeasy 14966]

While I don’t agree with the posters who are advocating that we all “move-on”, because the obstruction issue is still unresolved, it’s very offensive to read posters constantly calling these other posters names, such as racists, trolls, misogynists, dotards, etc.

These posters that call other posters names come across as very immature (which is ironic, isn’t it), but what’s worse is that these attacks only cause the people they are attacking to harden their views.

Why listen to a bunch people hysterically calling you a troll or a racist? People constantly being improperly called racists or trolls get to the point where they vote just to stick it to the other side, rather than who is the best candidate.

Don’t think that happens? Just look at the 2016 election. There were more “Anybody but Hillary” voters than pro Trump voters.

Hugo takes a lot of heat on the politics board but I appreciate the fact that he doesn’t resort to name calling and adolescent behavior to make his points. He is a good example of how to have a mature discourse without resorting to immature behavior.

[Crusher 127]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

Such a terrible and ignorant obvious troll response. Deserves no further response beyond that. 

I didn't think so. Pretty even handed in what lead to this clusterfuck in 2016. To each his own.

 

[wildcat09 29240]

2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

While I don’t agree with the posters who are advocating that we all “move-on”, because the obstruction issue is still unresolved, it’s very offensive to read posters constantly calling these other posters names, such as racists, trolls, misogynists, dotards, etc.

These posters that call other posters names come across as very immature (which is ironic, isn’t it), but what’s worse is that these attacks only cause the people they are attacking to harden their views.

Why listen to a bunch people hysterically calling you a troll or a racist? People constantly being improperly called racists or trolls get to the point where they vote just to stick it to the other side, rather than who is the best candidate.

Don’t think that happens? Just look at the 2016 election. There were more “Anybody but Hillary” voters than pro Trump voters.

Hugo takes a lot of heat on the politics board but I appreciate the fact that he doesn’t resort to name calling and adolescent behavior to make his points. He is a good example of how to have a mature discourse without resorting to immature behavior.

Crusher is not engaging in good faith. There’s nothing gained by pretending that he is.

[Crusher 127]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Crusher is not engaging in good faith. There’s nothing gained by pretending that he is.

Really? Why do you believe that?

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Really? Why do you believe that?

I dunno? Maybe you can explain it to to us? 

[Crusher 127]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

I dunno? Maybe you can explain it to to us? 

Well, I asked a question to Wildcat why he felt that way because I don't know. Asking questions and getting answers is how people in the normal world get informed.....?

[JimmyJames 12271]

11 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

While I don’t agree with the posters who are advocating that we all “move-on”, because the obstruction issue is still unresolved, it’s very offensive to read posters constantly calling these other posters names, such as racists, trolls, misogynists, dotards, etc.

These posters that call other posters names come across as very immature (which is ironic, isn’t it), but what’s worse is that these attacks only cause the people they are attacking to harden their views.

Why listen to a bunch people hysterically calling you a troll or a racist? People constantly being improperly called racists or trolls get to the point where they vote just to stick it to the other side, rather than who is the best candidate.

Don’t think that happens? Just look at the 2016 election. There were more “Anybody but Hillary” voters than pro Trump voters.

Hugo takes a lot of heat on the politics board but I appreciate the fact that he doesn’t resort to name calling and adolescent behavior to make his points. He is a good example of how to have a mature discourse without resorting to immature behavior.

I hope those idiot people harden their views. Makes them easier to spot. Won’t affect an election one wit. 

I like Hugo and you are right he doesn’t “resort:” to name calling but your defense of him will leave you suspect on both sides. Not saying it’s right but the guy does post a whole fucking lot. Just saying. Maybe he day trades all day. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Well, I asked a question to Wildcat why he felt that way because I don't know. Asking questions and getting answers is how people in the normal world get informed.....?

Exactly. I asked you a question and you didn’t give me an answer? Was my question not clear to you? Please let me simplify it for you and I will ask it again?

Edited May 11, 2019 by JimmyJames

[wildcat09 29240]

11 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Really? Why do you believe that?

Because you’ve repeatedly misrepresented what the Mueller report says.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

17 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Did he ask for help?: No, definitely not. 

 

 

 

 

[bolverk 29399]

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

15 minutes ago, Crusher said:

I know the question wasn't for me but I would like to answer. I'll break the questions out one at a time and answer.

Is Trump throwing sand in the gears of the investigation? :  Yes. I believe so.  He has fought back from what he believed was a witch-hunt. He didn't conspire with the Russians and the Mueller Report has backed him up. 

So you agree that Trump is guilty of obstruction?

Did Putins Kremlin actively coordinate efforts to support Trump's election?:  No. To actively support Trumps campaign, no I don't believe that. I do believe the Russians were actively involved in the 2016 election to create chaos . They hacked the DNC and the GOP. I think they found more goodies in the DNC that they could effectively use. I still think the dossier was Russian disinformation that was put out to cover their ass so to speak. 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/comey-republicans-hacked-russia/index.html

But you disagree with the Mueller Report's findings that the Kremlin's efforts were "wide" and "sweeping?"

Did Trump and/or his campaign know that the Kremlin was helping? Did he welcome that help? : I don't think Trump or his campaign were involved but they were glad that the US people got a look up Hillary's skirt so to speak. I think it had a huge influence. For me it confirmed what I thought but, for voters on the fence I think it definitely changed votes.

You agree that they knew help was coming and welcomed it.

Did he ask for help?: No, definitely not. That was the crux of the Mueller investigation and if he had come back with an affirmative answer to that question I would be the first one to scream for Trumps head. Not going to hand off the United States of America to some Orange Manchurian Candidate while I'm alive.

Russia, are you listening?

Did he attempt to capitalize on that help?: Answered above. Hell yes. Would Hillary have taken advantage of Russian intel that disparaged Trump? Hell yes.

Yeah, but everyone sucks so nothing matters.

 

 

 

[Crusher 127]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

I hope those idiot people harden their views. Makes them easier to spot. Won’t affect an election one wit. 

I like Hugo and you are right he doesn’t “resort:” to name calling but your defense of him will leave you suspect on both sides. Not saying it’s right but the guy does post a whole fucking lot. Just saying. Maybe he day trades all day. 

Yes, they are very easy to spot.

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Yes, they are very easy to spot.

Glad we were able to reach a mutual point of agreement on that. 

You’re still gonna need to wear your wig though. My “contact” insists on that. HIgh heels would be better too.  Sorry. 

[EuroHorn 3204]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Now Chris Hayes is someone I would trust. Nothing partisan about that dude 

[JimmyJames 12271]

If Obama had done one 1/100 of the crap trump has pulled the right wing wackos on fox, Drudge, and this site would have blown up the White House by now and I HEREBY challenge all trolls to argue otherwise. 

Commence with the argument!!!

Can’t wait to hear it. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

The United States doesn’t negotiate with terrorists, but what if the terrorist is a very high ranking member or leader of the United States? 

Edited May 11, 2019 by JimmyJames

[bolverk 29399]

 

 

1

20 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

While I don’t agree with the posters who are advocating that we all “move-on”, because the obstruction issue is still unresolved, it’s very offensive to read posters constantly calling these other posters names, such as racists, trolls, misogynists, dotards, etc.

These posters that call other posters names come across as very immature (which is ironic, isn’t it), but what’s worse is that these attacks only cause the people they are attacking to harden their views.

Why listen to a bunch people hysterically calling you a troll or a racist? People constantly being improperly called racists or trolls get to the point where they vote just to stick it to the other side, rather than who is the best candidate.

Don’t think that happens? Just look at the 2016 election. There were more “Anybody but Hillary” voters than pro Trump voters.

Hugo takes a lot of heat on the politics board but I appreciate the fact that he doesn’t resort to name calling and adolescent behavior to make his points. He is a good example of how to have a mature discourse without resorting to immature behavior.

I agree that name-calling isn't very helpful but also wish that posters would also inform themselves on subject matter prior to spreading opinions as unfiltered fact.

Quote

Just look at the 2016 election. There were more “Anybody but Hillary” voters than pro Trump voters.

For example, explain this comment. Hillary received 3 million more votes than Trump across the country. The difference in the election could also be seen as there was fewer "anybody but Trump voters" in highly select localities.

The fact is that Trump won the election based off of a cumulative sum of 78,000 votes spread across three states. It was a razor-thin margin that accounted for fewer persons than could fill DKR Memorial Stadium, which even a minuscule effort by a middling candidate should've been able to overcome in a normal environment. That said, 2016 was far from normal when it comes to votes in these United States given the influence of an adversarial foreign power on these elections.

[Crusher 127]

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

 

So you agree that Trump is guilty of obstruction? No I do not. He used all the powers granted to him via the Office of the President to defend himself from a false accusation of a crime. A crime that theoretically could result in his death if proven true.

But you disagree with the Mueller Report's findings that the Kremlin's efforts were "wide" and "sweeping?"  No. I think I said just the opposite. Maybe reread that portion.

You agree that they knew help was coming and welcomed it.  I don't think they knew it was coming but, yes they welcomed the help. The Russians exposed a fraud named Hillary and as I said above this could have definitely won the race for Trump. 

Russia, are you listening?  Meh..I don't think the Russians hold Surly in high enough regard to be listening in on us...:)  

Yeah, but everyone sucks so nothing matters. Well do you agree that the dossier was funded by a cut out law form funded by the DNC ? That is fact. Christopher Steele himself admits that the dossier was Russian intelligence? Possible Russian disinformation to hurt Trump to cover their ass whoever won the vote. It was used to hurt Trump in the latter stages of the election cycle.. 

There is a middle ground here that I think we all can deal with.

[David Dennison 18656]

5 minutes ago, Crusher said:

So you agree that Trump is guilty of obstruction? No I do not. He used all the powers granted to him via the Office of the President to defend himself from a false accusation of a crime. A crime that theoretically could result in his death if proven true.

But you disagree with the Mueller Report's findings that the Kremlin's efforts were "wide" and "sweeping?"  No. I think I said just the opposite. Maybe reread that portion.

You agree that they knew help was coming and welcomed it.  I don't think they knew it was coming but, yes they welcomed the help. The Russians exposed a fraud named Hillary and as I said above this could have definitely won the race for Trump. 

Russia, are you listening?  Meh..I don't think the Russians hold Surly in high enough regard to be listening in on us...:)  

Yeah, but everyone sucks so nothing matters. Well do you agree that the dossier was funded by a cut out law form funded by the DNC ? That is fact. Christopher Steele himself admits that the dossier was Russian intelligence? Possible Russian disinformation to hurt Trump to cover their ass whoever won the vote. It was used to hurt Trump in the latter stages of the election cycle.. 

There is a middle ground here that I think we all can deal with.

He was not falsely accused of a crime. Robert Mueller lays out his crimes in great detail.

You need to read the report.

[bolverk 29399]

4 minutes ago, Crusher said:

So you agree that Trump is guilty of obstruction? No I do not. He used all the powers granted to him via the Office of the President to defend himself from a false accusation of a crime. A crime that theoretically could result in his death if proven true.

But you disagree with the Mueller Report's findings that the Kremlin's efforts were "wide" and "sweeping?"  No. I think I said just the opposite. Maybe reread that portion.

You agree that they knew help was coming and welcomed it.  I don't think they knew it was coming but, yes they welcomed the help. The Russians exposed a fraud named Hillary and as I said above this could have definitely won the race for Trump. 

Russia, are you listening?  Meh..I don't think the Russians hold Surly in high enough regard to be listening in on us...:)  

Yeah, but everyone sucks so nothing matters. Well do you agree that the dossier was funded by a cut out law form funded by the DNC ? That is fact. Christopher Steele himself admits that the dossier was Russian intelligence? Possible Russian disinformation to hurt Trump to cover their ass whoever won the vote. It was used to hurt Trump in the latter stages of the election cycle.. 

There is a middle ground here that I think we all can deal with.

There may well be some ground that we could agree on in terms of factual occurrences, but I highly doubt that we'd come to the same conclusions vis-a-vis logical and lawful consequences.

[JimmyJames 12271]

17 minutes ago, Crusher said:

So you agree that Trump is guilty of obstruction? No I do not. He used all the powers granted to him via the Office of the President to defend himself from a false accusation of a crime. A crime that theoretically could result in his death if proven true.

But you disagree with the Mueller Report's findings that the Kremlin's efforts were "wide" and "sweeping?"  No. I think I said just the opposite. Maybe reread that portion.

You agree that they knew help was coming and welcomed it.  I don't think they knew it was coming but, yes they welcomed the help. The Russians exposed a fraud named Hillary and as I said above this could have definitely won the race for Trump. 

Russia, are you listening?  Meh..I don't think the Russians hold Surly in high enough regard to be listening in on us...:)  

Yeah, but everyone sucks so nothing matters. Well do you agree that the dossier was funded by a cut out law form funded by the DNC ? That is fact. Christopher Steele himself admits that the dossier was Russian intelligence? Possible Russian disinformation to hurt Trump to cover their ass whoever won the vote. It was used to hurt Trump in the latter stages of the election cycle.. 

There is a middle ground here that I think we all can deal with.

Geez. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Idiocy, trolling or both?

[Thetexashammer 1062]

Lotta bitter clingers in this thread.

[Crusher 127]

21 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He was not falsely accused of a crime. Robert Mueller lays out his crimes in great detail.

You need to read the report.

People on this board have been all about the collusion and conspiracy aspect before the Mueller Report came out. Calling Trump a Russian Agent.  A Manchurian Candidate. That shit is just not true. I have always argued against that bullshit. That was my main concern.

Now if you want to pivot to obstruction because Mueller didn't make a call that's your choice. Barr did and I am ready to move on. That's it.

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by Crusher

[tantric superman 4667]

Well then move on, idiot.

[David Dennison 18656]

42 minutes ago, Crusher said:

People on this board have been all about the collusion and conspiracy aspect before the Mueller Report came out. Calling Trump a Russian Agent.  A Manchurian Candidate. That shit is just not true. I have always argued against that bullshit. That was my main concern.

Now if you want to pivot to obstruction because Mueller didn't make a call that's your choice. Barr did and I am ready to move on. That's it.

The Mueller report presents evidence of both collusion and conspiracy on the part of Donald Trump and the Trump campaign. Robert Mueller went out of his way to say that the report does not exonerate the president.

[notre dame joe 172]

42 minutes ago, Crusher said:

People on this board have been all about the collusion and conspiracy aspect before the Mueller Report came out. Calling Trump a Russian Agent.  A Manchurian Candidate. That shit is just not true. I have always argued against that bullshit. That was my main concern.

Now if you want to pivot to obstruction because Mueller didn't make a call that's your choice. Barr did and I am ready to move on. That's it.

 

 

 

Yeah but they never actually say what they mean.  Repeating the name of the crime over and over without naming the actions that supposedly constitute  collusion/obstruction/tax evasion.  That's why I never used the "witch hunt" metaphor.  Even those who accused others of witchcraft back when it was a crime had to name specific acts of sorcery.  

[Crusher 127]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

The Mueller report presents evidence of both collusion and conspiracy on the part of Donald Trump and the Trump campaign. Robert Mueller went out of his way to say that the report does not exonerate the president.

In the same regard. I don't think I read anywhere in the report that Mueller said he was guilty of treason?. 

Did it? No!!

Did it say he was a Russian agent?

Did it? No!!

Did it say that Trumps campaign was working with the Russians?

Did it? No!!

You need to wake up . 

[David Dennison 18656]

2 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Yeah but they never actually say what they mean.  Repeating the name of the crime over and over without naming the actions that supposedly constitute  collusion/obstruction/tax evasion.  That's why I never used the "witch hunt" metaphor.  Even those who accused others of witchcraft back when it was a crime had to name specific acts of sorcery.  

In the case of the SC, it's conspiracy with Russians.

There is still the matter of the 14 other investigations that have been farmed out to other U.S. attorneys.

[David Dennison 18656]

3 minutes ago, Crusher said:

In the same regard. I don't think I read anywhere in the report that Mueller said he was guilty of treason?. 

Did it? No!!

Did it say he was a Russian agent?

Did it? No!!

Did it say that Trumps campaign was working with the Russians?

Did it? No!!

You need to wake up . 

So do you.

"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

[Crusher 127]

Just now, David Dennison said:

So do you.

"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

Well just take your ball and go home you little bitch. You can't win.

[David Dennison 18656]

2 minutes ago, Crusher said:

Well just take your ball and go home you little bitch. You can't win.

Read the report.

[Crusher 127]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Read the report.

I have. It says the same thing I just said above.

Edited May 11, 2019 by Crusher

[David Dennison 18656]

1 minute ago, Crusher said:

I have. It says the same thing I just said above.

No, it doesn't.

[Crusher 127]

Just now, David Dennison said:

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

[Crusher 127]

“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

I guess I read some of it.

Edited May 11, 2019 by Crusher

[David Dennison 18656]

19 minutes ago, Crusher said:

“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

I guess I read some of it.

"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

Edited May 11, 2019 by David Dennison

[hobbes2702 12824]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

 

20 minutes ago, Crusher said:

“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

I guess I read some of it.

Clearly not all of it

[Crusher 127]

"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts but we will put this bullshit statement in here anyway because we have no proof".

[David Dennison 18656]

3 minutes ago, Crusher said:

"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts but we will put this bullshit statement in here anyway because we have no proof".

I like this bullshit statement: “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

[bolverk 29399]

29 minutes ago, Crusher said:

“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

I guess I read some of it.

It's funny how emphasizing a specific set of words can shed a whole new light on a situation.

[Crusher 127]

Again "we have no proof of a crime" 

What are you going to impeach him for? Because I don't like him? 

I don't think that will work... Good luck?

[Crusher 127]

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It's funny how emphasizing a specific set of words can shed a whole new light on a situation.

“Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” 

Governments all over the world do this all the time. The USA has made a living off of it. Have you ever heard of a little Govt org called the CIA?

[bolverk 29399]

The conclusion is quite simple. Trump saw Putin as an ally to his campaign.

Do you agree Putin is an ally to the American Dream?