Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: It Has Been 100% Proven That Trum's campaign Did Not Use Russian Interference

  1. Top | #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,198
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    4,448
    Rep Power
    0

    It Has Been 100% Proven That Trum's campaign Did Not Use Russian Interference

    I just want to set the record straight. Hopefully, this thread will be the be all and end all of the Russia hoax.

    https://thehill.com/policy/national-...on-but-did-not

    "Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit form 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,” Mueller wrote in his report released Thursday."

    "Mueller said that while his investigation “identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign,” there was not enough evidence to bring forward any criminal charges on that front."

    I still see people on this board claiming, "Russia collusion with Trump!" I just wanted to set the record straight. Mueller himself said there was no evidence of any collusion with the Trump campaign.

    Why do people still spout the "Russia collusion!" hoax? Trump has always said it was a hoax. Mueller proved it was a hoax. But, you guys think it's still real? I am very curious why. How can you refute the truth?

  2. Top | #2
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,349
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    42,849
    Rep Power
    80
    the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government
    Do you English? This statement does not support your thread title.
    not enough evidence to bring forward any criminal charges on that front.
    This statement does not support your thread title.
    Mueller himself said there was no evidence of any collusion with the Trump campaign
    .Where did he say that?
    Mueller proved it was a hoax
    Nope.

  3. Top | #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,198
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    4,448
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Do you English? This statement does not support your thread title.
    This statement does not support your thread title.
    Mueller himself said there was no evidence of any collusion with the Trump campaign
    .Where did he say that?
    Mueller proved it was a hoax
    Nope.
    What does this phrase mean to you, Keith?

    "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    If someone was conducting a murder investigation and questioning you, Keith, about the murder and said, "the investigation did not establish that Keith was the murderer," what would you say that means, Keith?

  4. Top | #4
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,632
    Archived
    229
    Total Posts
    2,861
    Rep Power
    64
    In case anyone is wondering where Half-life is going with this:

    BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 04/18/19 01:04 PM EDT
    This article was published a mere 4 hours after the report was released (which means it was actually written minutes after the report was released and was fast tracked through editorial and legal I assume) and three months before Mueller's testimony. And everything the article quotes is from AG Barr's 4 page lie fest that he had to later backpeddle, not the report itself.

    At least you're sourcing articles, so that's progress.

  5. Top | #5
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,632
    Archived
    229
    Total Posts
    2,861
    Rep Power
    64
    Personally, I believe if people are innocent, they tend to cooperate with investigations. As the Report shows:

    The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information—such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media—in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or “taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well—numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States.

    Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant
    communications or communicated during the relevant period
    using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.
    Page 10 of the report in case anyone is wondering. It's a bit rich to say anything has been proven when the Trump Administration went out of their way to make sure the evidence won't see the light of day. So much so, the evidence is most likely gone for good. Sorry, but innocent people aren't generally in the habit of destroying evidence and be uncooperative to law enforcement. In my experience at least.

  6. Top | #6
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,349
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    42,849
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    If someone was conducting a murder investigation and questioning you, Keith, about the murder and said, "the investigation did not establish that Keith was the murderer," what would you say that means, Keith?
    get it right.
    If there was a murder investigation in, say, Scotland, where i was afforded diplomatic immunity, and British Law Enforcement released a report that specifically said they did not investigate me, because thry could not charge me, BUT ALSO were careful to point out that they could not exonerate me, either, then anyone reading any other part of the report, and claiming it proved the murder was a hoax would either be illiterate or would be serving some agenda at odds with the actual report.

    Now, where do YOU read that Mueller clearly said that collusion was a hoax?

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,357
    Archived
    3,288
    Total Posts
    4,645
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    If someone was conducting a murder investigation and questioning you, Keith, about the murder and said, "the investigation did not establish that Keith was the murderer," what would you say that means, Keith?
    get it right.
    If there was a murder investigation in, say, Scotland, where i was afforded diplomatic immunity, and British Law Enforcement released a report that specifically said they did not investigate me, because thry could not charge me, BUT ALSO were careful to point out that they could not exonerate me, either, then anyone reading any other part of the report, and claiming it proved the murder was a hoax would either be illiterate or would be serving some agenda at odds with the actual report.

    Now, where do YOU read that Mueller clearly said that collusion was a hoax?
    In my day in Scotland the verdict would probably have been "Not Proven." Has the law changed there since then?

  8. Top | #8
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,349
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    42,849
    Rep Power
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by 4321lynx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    If someone was conducting a murder investigation and questioning you, Keith, about the murder and said, "the investigation did not establish that Keith was the murderer," what would you say that means, Keith?
    get it right.
    If there was a murder investigation in, say, Scotland, where i was afforded diplomatic immunity, and British Law Enforcement released a report that specifically said they did not investigate me, because thry could not charge me, BUT ALSO were careful to point out that they could not exonerate me, either, then anyone reading any other part of the report, and claiming it proved the murder was a hoax would either be illiterate or would be serving some agenda at odds with the actual report.

    Now, where do YOU read that Mueller clearly said that collusion was a hoax?
    In my day in Scotland the verdict would probably have been "Not Proven." Has the law changed there since then?
    I dunno about British law.

    MUELLER said he didn't investigate Trump because he couldn't indict no matter what he found. He also pointed out specifically that they could not exonerate Trump. Not sure how that translates, but it's pretty clear for anyone without a case of TDS.

  9. Top | #9
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    27,148
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,900
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by 4321lynx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    If someone was conducting a murder investigation and questioning you, Keith, about the murder and said, "the investigation did not establish that Keith was the murderer," what would you say that means, Keith?
    get it right.
    If there was a murder investigation in, say, Scotland, where i was afforded diplomatic immunity, and British Law Enforcement released a report that specifically said they did not investigate me, because thry could not charge me, BUT ALSO were careful to point out that they could not exonerate me, either, then anyone reading any other part of the report, and claiming it proved the murder was a hoax would either be illiterate or would be serving some agenda at odds with the actual report.

    Now, where do YOU read that Mueller clearly said that collusion was a hoax?
    In my day in Scotland the verdict would probably have been "Not Proven." Has the law changed there since then?
    Yeah, I would really like to see an innocent/not proven/guilty system.

  10. Top | #10
    Senior Member Alcoholic Actuary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    858
    Archived
    2,403
    Total Posts
    3,261
    Rep Power
    53
    You accidentally put a 1 in front of the zeroes on your thread title.

    aa

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •