Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

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

  1. Top | #11
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,439
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    27,180
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    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?
    Roger Stone was a FORMER campaign member who colluded with the campaign and Russia. So, technically, Mueller was right since the CURRENT campaign just indirectly colluded with Russia. Russianpublican traitors don't really care about the truth though which is why they want Bill Barr to lighten Roger Stone's sentence. You can whine about specific Mueller words the Russianpublicans cherry-picked from the report, but at the end of the day Roger Stone got convicted and President Dear Leader is crying about it on Twitter.

  2. Top | #12
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,722
    Archived
    229
    Total Posts
    2,951
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    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?
    Roger Stone was a FORMER campaign member who colluded with the campaign and Russia. So, technically, Mueller was right since the CURRENT campaign just indirectly colluded with Russia. Russianpublican traitors don't really care about the truth though which is why they want Bill Barr to lighten Roger Stone's sentence. You can whine about specific Mueller words the Russianpublicans cherry-picked from the report, but at the end of the day Roger Stone got convicted and President Dear Leader is crying about it on Twitter.

    This is appalling. Have we already forgotten about Manafort and his dealings. There's a documentry on Netflix called Get me Roger Stone. It was filmed early in 2017 and trust me, it has not aged well. It's worth watching for a giggle however.

  3. Top | #13
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,059
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    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..Where did he say that?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?
    unfortunately, since Half-Life has proven himself to be a dishonest reporter of what someone else has written or said, as evidenced in dialog between he and I documented in various threads, one will need to revisit the report to read for oneself what was written, as his alleged quoting of it must be suspect.
    That said, my recollection of the sentiment was a paraphrasing of the like, "Since a sitting president cannot be indicted by policy, it would be inappropriate to say if what Trump did would put someone else into prison, because that would serve as a form of indictment of a sitting president".
    So they couldn't even have said that he totally did break the law, even that he did. That is what the report said, with a bit of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge in the direction of ,"he totally did break the law - we just can't even imply it - or Barr will fire us"

  4. Top | #14
    Veteran Member funinspace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,563
    Archived
    10,245
    Total Posts
    13,808
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Do you English? This statement does not support your thread title.
    I think H-L speaks Orange English, which has very little syntax and definitions are quite fungible and time independent.

  5. Top | #15
    Senior Member starwater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    852
    Rep Power
    12
    Who is Trum anyway and why do I care about more lies.
    Keep messing with 45

  6. Top | #16
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,554
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    43,054
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by starwater View Post
    Who is Trum anyway and why do I care about more lies.
    He's a fraud, and you're supposed to be triggered.

  7. Top | #17
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,554
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    43,054
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Patooka View Post
    This is appalling. Have we already forgotten about Manafort and his dealings.
    Old news, years ago, back when people still thought there was a lower limit to the depths this administration would crawl.

    Some even thought we had reached it!

    Ah. The sweet, simply naivety of the insufficiently disappointed.

  8. Top | #18
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,722
    Archived
    229
    Total Posts
    2,951
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Patooka View Post
    This is appalling. Have we already forgotten about Manafort and his dealings.
    Old news, years ago, back when people still thought there was a lower limit to the depths this administration would crawl.

    Some even thought we had reached it!

    Ah. The sweet, simply naivety of the insufficiently disappointed.
    Ah, yes. 2017. When we thought Game of Thrones was a good TV show, Bill Cosby was sketchy but still a good bloke and Trump would grow into the job of President and not corrupt it into an office that enables the whims of a man-child. Simpler times.

    Bourbon was cheaper then as well.

  9. Top | #19
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    13,397
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    14,104
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    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..Where did he say that?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?
    unfortunately, since Half-Life has proven himself to be a dishonest reporter of what someone else has written or said, as evidenced in dialog between he and I documented in various threads, one will need to revisit the report to read for oneself what was written, as his alleged quoting of it must be suspect.
    That said, my recollection of the sentiment was a paraphrasing of the like, "Since a sitting president cannot be indicted by policy, it would be inappropriate to say if what Trump did would put someone else into prison, because that would serve as a form of indictment of a sitting president".
    So they couldn't even have said that he totally did break the law, even that he did. That is what the report said, with a bit of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge in the direction of ,"he totally did break the law - we just can't even imply it - or Barr will fire us"
    That's a pretty good recounting. A memo here, a crooked Senator there and pretty soon your President is wiping his ass with the Constition.

Posting Permissions

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