Sleepy J refuses to acknowledge his granddaughter who was conceived in Hunter's drug fueled relations with a stripper

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, West said:

Its their statement ?... It's obvious you are simply just trolling at this point because you are dumb enough to listen to bug eyed Schiff and the dude who was having sex with a Chinese spy

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. It's not a statement from the committee nor a finding of fact in the report. The section label explains exactly what it is and identified exactly which members  agreed to that statement. It's quite like a dissenting or concurring opinion on a SCOTUS case. It's an expression of one or several member opinions outside of the binding opinion, or in this case, outside of the facts and conclusions in the report.

Edited April 30, 2023 by Hodad

[Hodad]

42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Of course he is.  This kind of pathetic clinging to a lie which was obviously a lie from the get go is why the dems are unfit to lead their country.  As biden is proving daily.

But you have to admit,  The "that's not a committee report that's just the commitee reporting" angle was pretty amusing

It's neither the committee report nor the committee reporting, jackass. As explained now several times. 

[West]

58 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. It's not a statement from the committee nor a finding of fact in the report. The section label explains exactly what it is and identified exactly which members  agreed to that statement. It's quite like a dissenting or concurring opinion on a SCOTUS case. It's an expression of one or several member opinions outside of the binding opinion, or in this case, outside of the facts and conclusions in the report.

It's not "one" member... it's the majority REPUBLICAN members who sat on that committee. 

The fact you claim REPUBLICANS said there was collusion is false. 

Why won't you just drop the delusional nonsense already?

Edited April 30, 2023 by West

[West]

57 minutes ago, Hodad said:

It's neither the committee report nor the committee reporting, jackass. As explained now several times. 

Point in the report where it says there was "collusion". It doesn't exist and you, jackass, are a lying pos

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

It's neither the committee report nor the committee reporting, jackass. As explained now several times. 

As you have lied several times.

No collusion kiddo. As EVERYONE has pointed out to you.

And this is after YEARS of investigation with SEVERAL DOZEN experts who are bias against trump and desperately wanted to bust him putting in a massive effort to find SOMETHING. 

And nothing. No Collusion.

Of course the dems still try to deny - how else can they justify the millions and millions wasted on this. But  - facts are facts.

 

[Hodad]

33 minutes ago, West said:

It's not "one" member... it's the majority REPUBLICAN members who sat on that committee. 

The fact you claim REPUBLICANS said there was collusion is false. 

Why won't you just drop the delusional nonsense already?

I didn't say that Republicans said there was collusion. I said that the Republican-led committee investigation documented collusion. Which is factually correct. -- How some of the Republicans attempted to spin it after the fact finding of the full committee report is purely political. They can say anything they want in that section, even if it is obviously untrue. 

I mean, try to be honest for a moment, when you look at the facts of that report, with Manafort feeding intel into Kiliminik's pro-Trump Russian interference effort, and say that it's not collusion? That's absurd. 

And as a reminder, your claim was that no one on the Trump campaign had any contact with the Russians. Which, you know, is wildly untrue. Completely divorced from reality. But you're sticking with the "no collusion" position as if your understanding of the situation didn't just turn upside down. 

Edited April 30, 2023 by Hodad

[West]

11 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I didn't say that Republicans said there was collusion. I said that the Republican-led committee investigation documented collusion. Which is factually correct. -- How some of the Republicans attempted to spin it after the fact finding of the full committee report is purely political. They can say anything they want in that section, even if it is obviously untrue. 

I mean, try to be honest for a moment, when you look at the facts of that report, with Manafort feeding intel into Kiliminik's pro-Trump Russian interference effort, and say that it's not collusion? That's absurd. 

And as a reminder, your claim was that no one on the Trump campaign had any contact with the Russians. Which, you know, is wildly untrue. Completely divorced from reality. But you're sticking with the "no collusion" position as if your understanding of the situation didn't just turn upside down. 

To prove your claims you'd have to show: 

1. The info given was used for campaign purposes. There's far more evidence it was just a business transaction. 

2. Manafort know this guy was connected to the Kremlin. 

All we have evidence of is Russia meddling in the US election (which by the way was for and against the Trump campaign). There's far more evidence this had more to do with destabilizing the US. The Democrats have done far more damage in that department than the Russians ever could... they've divided the country for political advantage and it's vile and low. 

 

And you are lying again. My claim wasn't that there was no contact. My claim is actually you are engaging in vile Mccarthyism by claiming every communication with a Russian is nefarious

Edited April 30, 2023 by West

[Hodad]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

As you have lied several times.

No collusion kiddo. As EVERYONE has pointed out to you.

And this is after YEARS of investigation with SEVERAL DOZEN experts who are bias against trump and desperately wanted to bust him putting in a massive effort to find SOMETHING. 

And nothing. No Collusion.

Of course the dems still try to deny - how else can they justify the millions and millions wasted on this. But  - facts are facts.

 

You are such a weasly troll. You will literally look at documented findings of collusion and then repeat "no collusion!" like some kind of parrot. It's literally right there in front of you.

From the damn report, again.

"On numerous occasions over the course of his time on the Trump Campaign, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information with Kilimnik. Gates, who served as Manafort' s deputy on the Campaign, aided Manafort in this effort. Manafort communicated electronically with Kilimnik and met Kilimnik in person twice while serving on the Trump Campaign. Manafort briefed Kilimnik on sensitive Campaign polling data and the Campaign's strategy for beating Hiliary Clinton. At Manafort's direction, Gates used an encrypted messaging application to send additional Campaign polling data to Kilimnik. "

 

^^ In what way does that not meet the definition of collusion? Jeebus. Manafort was farking feeding the Russian election interference efforts--efforts intended to help Trump win.  What more would one have to do to constitute collusion?? 

 

[West]

32 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You are such a weasly troll. You will literally look at documented findings of collusion and then repeat "no collusion!" like some kind of parrot. It's literally right there in front of you.

From the damn report, again.

"On numerous occasions over the course of his time on the Trump Campaign, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information with Kilimnik. Gates, who served as Manafort' s deputy on the Campaign, aided Manafort in this effort. Manafort communicated electronically with Kilimnik and met Kilimnik in person twice while serving on the Trump Campaign. Manafort briefed Kilimnik on sensitive Campaign polling data and the Campaign's strategy for beating Hiliary Clinton. At Manafort's direction, Gates used an encrypted messaging application to send additional Campaign polling data to Kilimnik. "

 

^^ In what way does that not meet the definition of collusion? Jeebus. Manafort was farking feeding the Russian election interference efforts--efforts intended to help Trump win.  What more would one have to do to constitute collusion?? 

 

You have not proven collusion. You have proven that a Senator, Jeff Sessions, did Senator stuff and talked to a Russian Ambassador. 

A bunch of meetings with no clear collusion. Just lefty delusions as we've said 

[Hodad]

30 minutes ago, West said:

To prove your claims you'd have to show: 

1. The info given was used for campaign purposes. There's far more evidence it was just a business transaction. 

2. Manafort know this guy was connected to the Kremlin. 

All we have evidence of is Russia meddling in the US election (which by the way was for and against the Trump campaign). There's far more evidence this had more to do with destabilizing the US. The Democrats have done far more damage in that department than the Russians ever could... they've divided the country for political advantage and it's vile and low

1. Nope. The US government knows exactly what Kilimnik did with the intelligence from Manafort.
Konstantin Kilimnik (Kilimnik) is a Russian and Ukrainian political consultant and known Russian Intelligence Services agent implementing influence operations on their behalf. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy.

2. No one can prove what was in Manafort's brain, but we certainly know he lied about passing the information to Kilimnik, indicating that he was hiding something untoward. We also know that Manafort and Gates went to extraordinary lengths to maintain secrecy, again indicating that they did not want to be caught. It was not information of a casual nature nor were they casual chats. Still from the senate report:

During the 2016 campaign,-Kilimnik flew to the United States in order to discuss sensitive topics with Manafort in person, rather than rely on electronic communications. When they did communicate electronically, Manafort, Gates, and Kilimnik used a variety of encrypted applications, eliminating a documentary record of many communications that almost certainly would have had high investigative value. 86 Manafort, Gates, and Kilimnik also shared an email account in order to practice foldering, a technique used to avoid detection when communicating.87 The three used coded language in other, less secure communications.88 After he was indicted, Manafort purchased a pay-as-you-go phone specifically fqr the purpose of communicating with Kilimnik and Gates. 

...

 Lastly, Manafort, who was interviewed by the SCO approximately a dozen times, lied consistently to the SCO during these interviews about one issue in particular: his interactions with Kilimnik, the Russian intelligence officerat the center of the Committee's investigation.91 These lies violated Manafort's plea agreement, which obligated him to be truthful in his cooperation with the government, and exposed him to a more severe prison sentence than the agreement contemplated.92 Manafort's obfuscation of the truth surrounding Kilimnik was particularly damaging to the Committee's investigation because it effectively foreclosed direct insight into a series of interactions and communications which represent the single most direct tie between senior Trump Campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services. Manafort' s true motive in deciding to face more severe criminal penalties rather than provide complete answers about his interactions with Kilimnik is unknown, but the result is that many interactions between Manafort and Kilimnik remain hidden. 
 

^^And Trump gave him a pardon for his discretion. 

 

3. Again, from the Senate Intelligence report
The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.

 

 

So I say again, how much more obvious does the collusion have to be before you stop lying about it. Does Trump have to sign a confession in his own blood? Jeebus.

[CdnFox]

47 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You are such a weasly troll. You will literally look at documented findings of collusion and then repeat "no collusion!" like some kind of parrot. It's literally right there in front of you.

It's not collusion.  Sorry. 

So what's really happening here is if ANYBODY who even knows trump speaks to a russian about anything - it's collusion as far as you're concerned.

Which is a lie. 

 

47 minutes ago, Hodad said:

^^ In what way does that not meet the definition of collusion? Jeebus. Manafort was farking feeding the Russian election interference efforts--efforts intended to help Trump win.  What more would one have to do to constitute collusion??

In every way. NONE of that is collusion. At all. Which is why they don't use the word 'collusion'.

How is it collusion? What 'collusion' is going on? There's none.  He talked to him about their game plan. Well that's nice - but that's not collusion at all.  In what way did that affect the outcome of the election?

Sharing YOUR strategy to win with someone else is not collusion, it's not a crime, it's not anything like that. The most LIKELY reason to do it is to convince those guys that you're going to win and they'd better be ready to do deals and work with you and not help the other guy.

Remember - russians had already supplied the fake steele dossier info.  So it's pretty likely trump was giving them a heads up that he was goingto be president so maybe don't do that

 

But the report very conspicuously does NOT say 'collusion' - does it.

No collusion kiddo.

[Hodad]

20 minutes ago, West said:

You have not proven collusion. You have proven that a Senator, Jeff Sessions, did Senator stuff and talked to a Russian Ambassador. 

A bunch of meetings with no clear collusion. Just lefty delusions as we've said 

WTF? Are you day drinking? I haven't mentioned Jeff Sessions once. 

[robosmith]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Exactly - there's no evidence at all trup did anything wrong or that there was any collusion, None zero zip. All the reports agree, he committed no crime and did nothing wrong

Sorry little  guy, but we need some PROOF if you're going to make that claim

The proof has been posted here MANY TIMES. It's in the REPORT YOU CLAIM YOU READ.

Obviously YOU LIED.

[robosmith]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure he did. He said specifically there was no evidence of him interfering with the election.

Any collusion that resulted in an effect on the election would have been illegal. So - no collusion. 

At least you admit it now. Took you long enough

No evidence to believe ^this OPINION. Show us where Mueller said there was NO EVIDENCE of Russian interference.

Mueller INDICTED Russian Internet Research Agency OFFICERS for interfering in the election. Duh.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

1. Nope. The US government knows exactly what Kilimnik did with the intelligence from Manafort.
Konstantin Kilimnik (Kilimnik) is a Russian and Ukrainian political consultant and known Russian Intelligence Services agent implementing influence operations on their behalf. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy.

Then why doesn't that say what he did with it? You say they know -  but they don't seem to

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

2. No one can prove what was in Manafort's brain,

So they don't know. So - no proof of collusion.

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

...

 Lastly, Manafort, who was interviewed by the SCO

Everyone lies to the committee.  All that suggests is he doesn't want to talk to the committee.  Hell - HILLARY lied to the senate committees she was in front of too.

But it doesn't even come close to suggesting collusion,

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

3. Again, from the Senate Intelligence report
The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.

Do you see ANYTHING there that says trump asked them to? Or aided them in that attempt?

Nope. Nothing. No collusion.

I'm sure russia wanted to hurt clinton, i'm sure Trump wasn't upset to hear that, but that is NOT collusion

You can lie all you like - but the committee doesn't say it's collusion, mueller doesn't say it's collusion, none of the evidence presented shows collusion,

THERE IS NO COLLUSION. And lying about it won't change that.

[robosmith]

11 hours ago, West said:

What's wrong with YOU? You were duped

Prove it.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The proof has been posted here MANY TIMES. It's in the REPORT YOU CLAIM YOU READ.

Obviously YOU LIED.

The proof has been completely debunked.  The 'proof' turned out to be fake news as expected.

And seeing as that's been explained, that would make YOU the liar.

No collusion, no evidence of collusion, trump did nothing wrong. Cry harder, maybe it'll magically change things

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Prove it.

Already done.  The senate report didn't show collusion,  the mueller report didn't show collusion, there's been no evidence. of collusion

Yet you have been sold on the idea that there was.

That's duped.  Proven and verified.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

It's neither the committee report nor the committee reporting, jackass. As explained now several times. 

It's impossible to penetrate the cognitive dissonance of the MAGA CULT.

[robosmith]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The proof has been completely debunked.  The 'proof' turned out to be fake news as expected.

And seeing as that's been explained, that would make YOU the liar.

No collusion, no evidence of collusion, trump did nothing wrong. Cry harder, maybe it'll magically change things

Stop ^LYING. Manafort sharing private polling data with  Russian agent Kilimnik is OBVIOUS COLLUSION.

[robosmith]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Already done.  The senate report didn't show collusion,  the mueller report didn't show collusion, there's been no evidence. of collusion

Yet you have been sold on the idea that there was.

That's duped.  Proven and verified.

^This OPINION proves NOTHING. AKA, I REFUTE it with MY OPINION you are WRONG.

[Legato]

I suppose the Steele dossier was a recipe for Borscht.

All the collusion facts could be written on the back of dime in foot high letters.

[Hodad]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It's not collusion.  Sorry. 

So what's really happening here is if ANYBODY who even knows trump speaks to a russian about anything - it's collusion as far as you're concerned.

Which is a lie. 

 

In every way. NONE of that is collusion. At all. Which is why they don't use the word 'collusion'.

How is it collusion? What 'collusion' is going on? There's none.  He talked to him about their game plan. Well that's nice - but that's not collusion at all.  In what way did that affect the outcome of the election?

Sharing YOUR strategy to win with someone else is not collusion, it's not a crime, it's not anything like that. The most LIKELY reason to do it is to convince those guys that you're going to win and they'd better be ready to do deals and work with you and not help the other guy.

Remember - russians had already supplied the fake steele dossier info.  So it's pretty likely trump was giving them a heads up that he was goingto be president so maybe don't do that

 

But the report very conspicuously does NOT say 'collusion' - does it.

No collusion kiddo.

Yeah, casually talking with somebody about your strategy is exactly like having secretive communications channels to feed targeting information to people engaged in the Russian election interference campaign. lol 

You're pathetic. 

[ironstone]

On 4/27/2023 at 9:55 PM, Contrarian said:

Your mind goes to NBC, why, how about the Wall Street Journal, Axios, Forbes, many other organizations that are not NBC, do they have the news?

 

On 4/28/2023 at 12:17 AM, robosmith said:

No, you're "judging" Joe based on a STORY perpetrated by FOX LIES.

Apparently there has been a DNA test which indicates Hunter is the father. He got this lady pregnant while he was also dating his brothers widow.

Hunter Biden DID father child with ex-stripper Lunden Roberts while dating his brother’s widow, judge rules – The US Sun | The US Sun (the-sun.com)

Hunter Biden's ex-stripper baby mama was on his payroll while pregnant: texts (nypost.com)

Isn't is sad that that Joe won't acknowledge this seventh grandchild at all? The Biden family is quite wealthy and this little girl gets left out, no birthday cards, nothing. She does not exist to the Biden family.

Biden fails to acknowledge seventh grandchild at center of Hunter's court case | Washington Examiner

The younger Biden had initially denied paternity and any memory of meeting the mother at the Mpire Club in Washington, D.C. A DNA test in 2019 proved his paternity, and Biden settled with Roberts for $2.5 million in 2020, but the case was later reopened.

This is not the first time Joe Biden has publicly snubbed Hunter Biden’s out-of-wedlock daughter. For Christmas displays at the White House in 2021 and 2022, the Bidens hung Christmas stockings for each of their grandchildren, with the exception of the daughter Hunter Biden had with Roberts.

[Hodad]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Then why doesn't that say what he did with it? You say they know -  but they don't seem to

So they don't know. So - no proof of collusion.

Everyone lies to the committee.  All that suggests is he doesn't want to talk to the committee.  Hell - HILLARY lied to the senate committees she was in front of too.

But it doesn't even come close to suggesting collusion,

Do you see ANYTHING there that says trump asked them to? Or aided them in that attempt?

Nope. Nothing. No collusion.

I'm sure russia wanted to hurt clinton, i'm sure Trump wasn't upset to hear that, but that is NOT collusion

You can lie all you like - but the committee doesn't say it's collusion, mueller doesn't say it's collusion, none of the evidence presented shows collusion,

THERE IS NO COLLUSION. And lying about it won't change that.

Are you illiterate? It says right in the paragraph to which you responded that Kilimnik passed the Manafort intel to Russian intelligence. That is, after all, the entire job of an intelligence officer. Jeebus.

And you are surely dumber than you present if you think guilt is only established if authorities can prove what was in a defendant's brain. We have always relied on the actions of the individuals under suspicion to reveal what we can reasonably assume they knew.

The evidence is indisputably collusion, no matter how much you lie about it. -- Think for a moment just how farking far you've gone to defend and dismiss what is plainly written in official reports. Manafort is feeding Kilimnik information through elaborate secrecy methods and then lying about feeding him information and you want to pretend it's about two buddies just talking strategy. Holy shite, you're unbelievably dishonest.