The Durham Report and The Exposition of The Libbies

[TreeBeard]

29 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The Durham report found no wrongdoing. Nobody was convicted of any crimes. He didn’t indict a single person. He didn’t get a single person fired. He didn’t even recommend a personnel letter for a single person. 
 

He indicted 3, but all were quickly found not guilty.  There doesn’t seem to be any further charges forthcoming, so….   Where’s the beef, so to speak??

[Hodad]

37 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The Durham report found no wrongdoing. Nobody was convicted of any crimes. He didn’t indict a single person. He didn’t get a single person fired. He didn’t even recommend a personnel letter for a single person. 
 

There were 3 over the course of the investigation. Two not guilty verdicts and a guilty plea with no jail time. Nothingburger. Which is really saying something for a side show that was purely partisan fodder from the beginning.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Hodad

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Hodad said:

There were 3 over the course of the investigation. Two not guilty verdicts and a guilty plea with no jail time. Nothingburger. Which is really saying something for a side show that was purely partisan fodder from the beginning.

So how many charges did trump wind up with during or after the investigation with regards to this matter?  Oh that's right - NONE

I guarantee you would NOT be saying trump was a 'nothing-burger' if he'd been charged with three things and found guilty on one.

Three indictments and one guilty in an investigation is TERRIBLE.  This is the fbi - not sherrif roscoe p coltraine and boss hogg. And that doesn't account for the stuff which wasn't criminal but was definitely inappropriate and outside of normal procedures.  

Trump didn't do anything wrong - the FBI did in chasing him. End of story.

 

[Hodad]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So how many charges did trump wind up with during or after the investigation with regards to this matter?  Oh that's right - NONE

I guarantee you would NOT be saying trump was a 'nothing-burger' if he'd been charged with three things and found guilty on one.

Three indictments and one guilty in an investigation is TERRIBLE.  This is the fbi - not sherrif roscoe p coltraine and boss hogg. And that doesn't account for the stuff which wasn't criminal but was definitely inappropriate and outside of normal procedures.  

Trump didn't do anything wrong - the FBI did in chasing him. End of story.

 

Eight convictions. Five within the Trump campaign itself. An incomplete early picture of collusion with Russia and multiple implications of Trump himself obstructing justice. 

I'd quote the report again, but you don't give a shit about what has been discovered and documented. Parrots don't need to read or think for themselves. "Awwwwk. No collusion! No collusion!"

The contrast between reports is pretty stark, as were the stakes themselves.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

Eight convictions.Five within the Trump campaign itself. An incomplete early picture of collusion with Russia and multiple implications of Trump himself obstructing justice. 

So ... absolutely zero then. Trump didn't get charged with anything. Gotcha.

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

I'd quote the report again, but you don't give a shit about what has been discovered and documented. Parrots don't need to read or think for themselves.

You're proof of that You keep running into the same problem. The report doesn't indicate any collusion or cooperation and only notes that a person involved with trump passed along INTERNAL information with not even a hint of collusion or the like. You want to turn it into more but you always come up with that same gap where you have to say 'well OBVIOUSLY that's what they did" without any evidence.

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

The contrast between reports is pretty stark, as were the stakes themselves.

Sorry kiddo. No collusion, no charges, no nuthin for trump - and the investigation was improper. That's the fact.

[Hodad]

57 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So ... absolutely zero then. Trump didn't get charged with anything. Gotcha.

You're proof of that You keep running into the same problem. The report doesn't indicate any collusion or cooperation and only notes that a person involved with trump passed along INTERNAL information with not even a hint of collusion or the like. You want to turn it into more but you always come up with that same gap where you have to say 'well OBVIOUSLY that's what they did" without any evidence.

Sorry kiddo. No collusion, no charges, no nuthin for trump - and the investigation was improper. That's the fact.

So people from the Trump campaign feeding strategy and targeting data to the Russians running the pro-Trump election effort is cool, at long as Trump didn't do it personally. ?

^^This us the "hai" into which you fall. A gaping black hole of dishonesty. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Hodad said:

So people from the Trump campaign feeding strategy and targeting data to the Russians running the pro-Trump election effort is cool, at long as Trump didn't do it personally. ?

Its cool even if he does do it personally. It's his data. Manifort wasn't charged for turning that info over to the russians. In fact what he was charged for tends to prove his innocence in this case.  He was acting FOR the russians to launder money and such. Which had nothing to do with trump.

So he was MOST likely bragging that he would be close to the next president and look their plan is workign and check out these polling numbers to prove it. He was selling himself.

So trump can turn over that info no problem. There's nothing wrong. Now - if he says 'here's the data so you guys do this illegal thing on this date and then i'll do this and we'll win",  then there's a problem. But he didn't. They found no evidence of that at all, and nothing showed up in teh campaign that suggested he did.

And here we are back at your little logic leap.  "Oh but he MUST have becuase MUH FEEEEELS!"  Sorry kiddo.

The only one being dishonest here is you.

No evidence of collusion, no conspiracy, no charges for trump and the investigation was inappropriate and illegal in some parts.

[reason10]

14 hours ago, Hodad said:

"Russian collusion good! Investigating Russian collusion is corrupt and wrong. The guy who's been exposed for lying to me for years is the only source of truth and Imma keep listening!"

You're a very silly, simple person.

There was no Russian collusion. Hillary was unpopular and unelectible. Trump was a better candidate and he was the best president of the 21st Century. Your Nazi side of the aisle tried to overturn a legitimate LANDSLIDE election with LIES.

You're a very stupid person. You should consider a brain transplant, mostly because you don't have a functioning brain.

[Hodad]

57 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Its cool even if he does do it personally. It's his data. Manifort wasn't charged for turning that info over to the russians. In fact what he was charged for tends to prove his innocence in this case.  He was acting FOR the russians to launder money and such. Which had nothing to do with trump.

So he was MOST likely bragging that he would be close to the next president and look their plan is workign and check out these polling numbers to prove it. He was selling himself.

So trump can turn over that info no problem. There's nothing wrong. Now - if he says 'here's the data so you guys do this illegal thing on this date and then i'll do this and we'll win",  then there's a problem. But he didn't. They found no evidence of that at all, and nothing showed up in teh campaign that suggested he did.

And here we are back at your little logic leap.  "Oh but he MUST have becuase MUH FEEEEELS!"  Sorry kiddo.

The only one being dishonest here is you.

No evidence of collusion, no conspiracy, no charges for trump and the investigation was inappropriate and illegal in some parts.

Yeah, the Manafort Intel wasn't helping the Russians in the same way that we're not helping Ukraine. We're just giving them the ammo they need. No big deal. Who knows what they're going to do with them? They're our arms to give! Hyuk!

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yeah, the Manafort Intel wasn't helping the Russians in the same way that we're not helping Ukraine. We're just giving them the ammo they need. No big deal. Who knows what they're going to do with them? They're our arms to give! Hyuk!

Riiight - so just to be clear - you're comparing someone saying "our plan to win the election is to go after hillary's weakness"  to providing advanced long range artillery, guns and tanks. That's pretty much the same thing.

Well - at least now you've left no doubt in anyone's mind how deep your delusions go

Hyuk!

[robosmith]

On 5/16/2023 at 11:42 PM, suds said:

The best way to deal with your nonsense is to post Durham's conclusions in its entirety and not something cherry picked...

Conclusion

Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report. As noted, former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith committed a criminal offense by fabricating language in an email that was material to the FBI obtaining a FISA surveillance order. In other instances, FBI personnel working on that same FISA application displayed, at best, a cavalier attitude towards accuracy and completeness. FBI personnel also repeatedly disregarded important requirements when they continued to seek renewals of that FISA surveillance while acknowledging - both then and in hindsight - that they did not genuinely believe there was probable cause to believe that the target was knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence  activities on behalf of a foreign power, or knowingly helping another person in such activities. And certain personnel disregarded significant exculpatory information that should have prompted investigative restraint and re-examination. Our investigation also revealed that senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents. The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when at about the same time the Director of the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence.  In light of the foregoing, there is a continuing need for the FBI and the Department to recognize that lack of analytical rigor, apparent confirmation bias, and an over-willingness to rely on information from individuals connected to political opponents caused investigators to fail to adequately consider alternative hypotheses and to act without appropriate objectivity or restraint in pursuing allegations of collusion or conspiracy between a U.S. political campaign and a foreign power. Although recognizing that in hindsight much is clearer, much of this also seems to have been clear at the time. We therefore believe it is important to examine past conduct to identify shortcomings and improve how the government carries out its most sensitive functions. Section V discusses some of these issues more fully. This report does not recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and the FBI now have in place to ensure proper conduct and accountability in how counterintelligence activities are carried out. Rather, it is intended to accurately describe the matters that fell under our review and to assist the Attorney General in determining how the Department and the FBI can do a better, more credible job in fulfilling its responsibilities, and in analyzing and responding to politically charged allegations in the future. Ultimately, of course, meeting those responsibilities comes down to the integrity of the people who take an oath to follow the guidelines and policies currently in place, guidelines that date from the time of Attorney General Levi and that are designed to ensure the rule of law is upheld. As such, the answer is not the creation of new rules but a renewed fidelity to the old. The promulgation of additional rules and regulations to be learned in yet more training sessions would likely prove to be a fruitless exercise if the FBI's guiding principles of "Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity" are not engrained in the hearts and minds of those sworn to meet the FBI' s mission of "Protect[ing] the American People and Uphold[ing] the Constitution of the United States.

^MILD criticisms in procedures but NO denial of the justification for the INVESTIGATION. Duh.

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So how many charges did trump wind up with during or after the investigation with regards to this matter?  Oh that's right - NONE

I guarantee you would NOT be saying trump was a 'nothing-burger' if he'd been charged with three things and found guilty on one.

Three indictments and one guilty in an investigation is TERRIBLE.  This is the fbi - not sherrif roscoe p coltraine and boss hogg. And that doesn't account for the stuff which wasn't criminal but was definitely inappropriate and outside of normal procedures.  

Trump didn't do anything wrong - the FBI did in chasing him. End of story.

 

BARR'S DoJ POLICY prohibited CHARGING Trump. Duh.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Its cool even if he does do it personally. It's his data. Manifort wasn't charged for turning that info over to the russians. In fact what he was charged for tends to prove his innocence in this case.  He was acting FOR the russians to launder money and such. Which had nothing to do with trump.

So he was MOST likely bragging that he would be close to the next president and look their plan is workign and check out these polling numbers to prove it. He was selling himself.

So trump can turn over that info no problem. There's nothing wrong. Now - if he says 'here's the data so you guys do this illegal thing on this date and then i'll do this and we'll win",  then there's a problem. But he didn't. They found no evidence of that at all, and nothing showed up in teh campaign that suggested he did.

And here we are back at your little logic leap.  "Oh but he MUST have becuase MUH FEEEEELS!"  Sorry kiddo.

The only one being dishonest here is you.

No evidence of collusion, no conspiracy, no charges for trump and the investigation was inappropriate and illegal in some parts.

YOU not understanding the PURPOSE of sharing the data with the RUSSIAN Internet Research Agency DOES NOT make it "cool."

The IRA was TARGETING US citizens for ILLEGAL campaign contributions to Trump's CAMPAIGN. Duh.

Of course you STILL don't understand that Trump GUTTED the FEC right AFTER he took office, to evade accountability. LMAO

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

BARR'S DoJ POLICY prohibited CHARGING Trump. Duh.

TrUmP iSnT PRes NoW - StIlL NoT charGEd.

Duh.

Nor were any charges ever recommended.  In fact - mueller specifically said there was no evidence of wrongdoing.  So no - it wasn't barr's policy

The closest they came is mueller claiming trump tried to interfere but also had to admit the investigation wasn't hindered in any way and pretty much every legal expert noted that it didn't amount to a criminal offense (except of course the 'experts' on CNN)

So that'd be a big 'nope'.

Sorry - i mean ThAt'D Be A Biig NoPe.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

YOU not understanding the PURPOSE of sharing the data with the RUSSIAN Internet Research Agency DOES NOT make it "cool."

you having no evidence in the slightest that it was used for anything inappropriate doesn't make it "hot".  Some guy brags to his contact that trump, his boss, is going to win the election and shows 'proof' of it and somehow that's a crime? Get real. 

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The IRA was TARGETING US citizens for ILLEGAL campaign contributions to Trump's CAMPAIGN. Duh.

Well that wouldn't be russian collusion would it.

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Of course you STILL don't understand that Trump GUTTED the FEC right AFTER he took office, to evade accountability. LMAO

Sooooo -  yoiu're saying the FBI didn't investigate him thoroughly?  That Trump is some sort of criminal genius?

LMAO indeed    - sorry kiddo.  I'm sure you can find all kinds of reasons to dislike trump but this one was a huge lie from teh beginning

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^MILD criticisms in procedures but NO denial of the justification for the INVESTIGATION. Duh.

they actually got convicted of committing forgeries and falsefying documents in the investigation.

That's a 'mild critisism'?

This is a scathing report that spells out a horrendously unprofessional department doing borderline criminal things (and sometimes over the border) because they didn't like the current president and wanted 'regime change'.  This is really really bad.

[robosmith]

On 5/17/2023 at 3:40 AM, Nationalist said:

Merrick Garland had to review and approve the release of this report to the public, as this was a DOJ report.

So what? You STILL have NO EVIDENCE Garland influenced what was written; just SPECULATION on YOUR part.

AND you have no evidence of Garland being a FRAUD, like there is of YOU HERE.

Show us the MARKUPS!

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Riiight - so just to be clear - you're comparing someone saying "our plan to win the election is to go after hillary's weakness"  to providing advanced long range artillery, guns and tanks. That's pretty much the same thing.

Well - at least now you've left no doubt in anyone's mind how deep your delusions go

Hyuk!

Ask someone cleverer than you to explain what an analogy is. 

The Senate intelligence committee deemed Manafort's activities and Russian influence a grave security threat. Manafort undertook extensive, multilayer secrecy protocols to hide the information sharing. That you dismiss or as no big deal is of little concern to me. Everyone involved thought otherwise. 

Large or small whatever your judgement, it is NEVER okay for a US Presidential campaign to be having secret Intel and strategy sharing sessions with Russian intelligence operatives--and it's doubly true when the Russians are actively targeting Americans to influence the election.

How does Trump feel about loyalty. And how does he treat people who "betray" him? He turns on them fast and viciously. If he discovered that Manafort was going behind his back with these clandestine efforts that could have jeopardized his campaign and potential presidential agenda, he should have been outraged. He should have cheered Manafort's felony conviction. The "tough on crime" president should have left Manafort to rot.

But Trump wasn't shocked. He wasn't outraged. He didn't feel betrayed. Because he farking knew. Manafort took the fall, lying the whole way down, never rolling on Trump. So Trump rewarded him with a presidential pardon. There has never been anyone so wholly corrupt and self serving in the oval office.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Hodad said:

Ask someone cleverer than you to explain what an analogy is. 

Well this is what the dictionary says an 'analogy' is  - "A comparison based on such similarity."

Soooo  - providing weapons of war to a country defending itself from an invasion is pretty much the same as providing a poll to someone.

Yeap.  Maybe you should be looking for someone "cleverer" than you.

Just now, Hodad said:

The Senate intelligence committee deemed Manafort's activities and Russian influence a grave security threat.

So grave they charged him for it!!!!  Oh.. wait.

In any case they didn't find it was collusion or the like.

Just now, Hodad said:

Large or small whatever your judgement, it is NEVER okay for a US Presidential campaign to be having secret Intel and strategy sharing sessions with Russian intelligence operatives--and it's doubly true when the Russians are actively targeting Americans to influence the election.

First off sure it is. They can share their campaign strategy and internal polling with anyone they like

Second off for it to be 'sharing' something would have to be given back - and there wasn't. This  was a guy who was bragging about his boss winning.

Just now, Hodad said:

How does Trump feel about loyalty. And how does he treat people who "betray" him? He turns on them fast and viciously. If he discovered that Manafort was going behind his back with these clandestine efforts that could have jeopardized his campaign and potential presidential agenda, he should have been outraged. He should have cheered Manafort's felony conviction. The "tough on crime" president should have left Manafort to rot.

Or he knew it was bullshit - like everyone else does now after this report.

Just now, Hodad said:

But Trump wasn't shocked. He wasn't outraged. He didn't feel betrayed.

Why would he, The guy 'shared' that trump was going to win and some polling data to prove it. Not much of a betrayal.

Now - if he'd told the russians HILLARY was going to win....

Just now, Hodad said:

 

So Trump rewarded him with a presidential pardon.

Sure. the guy was unfairly targeted by the FBI. Trump hates the FBI. This is his way of stabbing them in the eye. That's very trump. 

Just now, Hodad said:

 

There has never been anyone so wholly corrupt and self serving in the oval office.

Since Clinton.

[Hodad]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well this is what the dictionary says an 'analogy' is  - "A comparison based on such similarity."

Soooo  - providing weapons of war to a country defending itself from an invasion is pretty much the same as providing a poll to someone.

Yeap.  Maybe you should be looking for someone "cleverer" than you.

So grave they charged him for it!!!!  Oh.. wait.

In any case they didn't find it was collusion or the like.

First off sure it is. They can share their campaign strategy and internal polling with anyone they like

Second off for it to be 'sharing' something would have to be given back - and there wasn't. This  was a guy who was bragging about his boss winning.

Or he knew it was bullshit - like everyone else does now after this report.

Why would he, The guy 'shared' that trump was going to win and some polling data to prove it. Not much of a betrayal.

Now - if he'd told the russians HILLARY was going to win....

Sure. the guy was unfairly targeted by the FBI. Trump hates the FBI. This is his way of stabbing them in the eye. That's very trump. 

Since Clinton.

Manafort's secrecy and perjury and repeated updates--and sending unwitting minions to deliver updated Intel-- puts to rout your limp "just a casual chat" excuse.

And no, you twit, sharing does not have to be reciprocal. Though in this case it clearly was, as Kilimnik delivered the Intel back to Russian intelligence, who were working to help Trump win.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Hodad

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

they actually got convicted of committing forgeries and falsefying documents in the investigation.

That's a 'mild critisism'?

This is a scathing report that spells out a horrendously unprofessional department doing borderline criminal things (and sometimes over the border) because they didn't like the current president and wanted 'regime change'.  This is really reallty bad.

One agent pled guilty to editing an email. Got 12 months PROBATION. THAT'S IT.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

Manafort's secret and perjury and repeated updates--and sending unwitting minions to deliver updated Intel-- puts to rout your limp "just a casual chat" excuse.

Hardly. He's bragging and showing he's going to be a valuable player being close to a president. They had been talking for years before this, they had 'other business' to discuss - why not keep your buddy up to date and brag a little. The amount of data shared was minimal.

Again - show me where this data was used. Show me where there was some sort of indication of coordinated efforts or timing or the like. Nobody else could find it maybe you can.

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

And no, you twit, sharing does not have to be reciprocal.

Of course it does. Other wise it's just giving.

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

Though in this case it clearly way, as Kilimnik delivered the Intel back to Russian intelligence, who was working to help Trump win.

Working with this data?  how? point to where he used this data to do something he wouldn't have done anyway. Show me where it was used. If it was valuable in the fight to help trump win then there must be evidence of that.  The steele dossier was used to attack trump - we know exactly how and where and why.  So - where's this coordinated effort between the russians and trump?

Doesn't exist. Guess why.

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Hardly. He's bragging and showing he's going to be a valuable player being close to a president. They had been talking for years before this, they had 'other business' to discuss - why not keep your buddy up to date and brag a little. The amount of data shared was minimal.

You are making up a motivation and explanation--that are absurdly implausible--to excuse egregious behavior. It's completely disingenuous. Or maybe you just have very strange relationships with your buddies?  How many layers of encryption do you use when you are "bragging to a buddy"? Do you often delegate someone to boast to your buddy on your behalf through secret communications channels? Do you and your buddy use coded language when you are bragging? Do you buy burner phones to brag to your buddy? Does your buddy think your bragging is valuable enough to pass it to national intelligence agencies? If authorities asked you if you had bragged to your buddy, would you perjure yourself to deny having bragged at risk of prison time? (I mean, it's just casual bragging, right?) Come on.

Manafort and Kilimnik worked together to coordinate a Russian electoral interference in Ukraine to get Putin's puppet Yanukovych elected. They had literally run this kind of operation together before.Neither of them had any question about what that sort of data could and would be used for. 

Quote

Again - show me where this data was used. Show me where there was some sort of indication of coordinated efforts or timing or the like. Nobody else could find it maybe you can.

Nobody can show you explicit records of what  Russian intelligence services did with the intelligence from Manafort. And frankly that's an unreasonable request. 

But we know that Manafort gave it to Kilimnik and Kilimnik gave it to intelligence. We do know it was data and strategy for how Trump could win with specific voting demos in specific swing states. And we do know that the Russians were trying to help Trump win. And we do know that the Russian ads did increase severalfold in those key states after Manafort shared the information. 

Could Russia have made their targeting and strategy decisions independently, in other ways? Sure. But they didn't need to, because Manafort gift-wrapped it for them.  

 

Quote

Of course it does. Other wise it's just giving.

 

This is the weirdest thing to dig in about, and pure nonsense. If I have Twix bar and give one of the sticks to my friend then I shared my Twix with them. Whether or not they give me something in return, I have shared. <-- sharing is literally kindergarten curriculum. Or, alternatively, let me share a story about XYZ...  <-- look I shared information, whether anyone else returns the favor or not.

But again, in this case, Russian intelligence was certainly returning the favor. There's zero debate that they were trying to get Trump elected. 

 

Seriously. Starting at page 27 there's like a hundred pages of Manafort's shady shit. And Trump wasn't angry about such a betrayal. He pardoned him for it, and for literal felony offenses. Because Manafort didn't talk.

 

[WestCanMan]

On 5/16/2023 at 4:07 AM, Rebound said:

It’s a 316 page report and people are claiming to know what it says minutes after it’s released. I conclude, therefore, it has not changed anyone’s mind. No indictments, arrests, or convictions, so it accomplished nothing. 

I agree that it accomplished nothing.

Honestly, when was the last time that a leftist ever changed their mind from the opinion that they were originally given by CNN and the Dems? 

Leftists aren't even mad about the fact that they supported rioting, arson, looting and some even supported the assassinations of police officers all in the name of M Brown, and we now know that CNN was aware that he was a violent criminal back when they were pimping him as a gentle giant. 

I'd be livid if someone stooged me like that. Leftists don't care. They'll make excuses to not be mad all day.

Is the truth about Russian collusion going to matter to them? Not one bit.

Quote

Probable cause existed. A hostile foreign government was breaking multiple laws to hack and steal confidential information from a U.S. Presidential candidate in order to support her opponent.

That's just a stream of lies.

1) Probable cause was a hoax: Hillary's dossier was completely bogus and it was presented to the FBI from her lawyer "as a concerned citizen" although he was paid to do it.  There is no question that this is true. 

2) No one has ever determined that the server was hacked and the most likely scenario is that it wasn't. There is no question that both of those statements are 100% true. 

Dem IT people had access to that server and statistically speaking, more of them supported Bernie than Hillary, and he's the one who was affected by the DNC's dirty dealings that were leaked, not Trump. There is no question that every single bit of this is true, pertinent, and doesn't leave out any important considerations. 

The CEO of Crowdstrike, the guy who actually got his hands on it, testified in court that he didn't have any concrete proof that it was actually hacked.

Julian Assange said that the emails came to him from a leak, and Assange has never been caught lying about his sources. That's more than you can say for the FBI and Dems, especially in this case. All of those guys committed crimes with regard to Russian collusion - in a real court they would only be allowed to testify in their own defence, not against anyone else. 

To go even further, Assange has the moral conviction to protect his sources to this very day when he could make his life a lot easier by spilling the beans on all of the people who leaked info to him. No one in the DNC has 0.1% of his character.

Quote

There is no question that this is true. 

It was actually a total lie.

Quote

Second, the opponent gleefully celebrated this lawlessness AND encouraged more of it.  Every decent human in America should have stopped supporting him right then.  He was running for office as chief of all law enforcement, while celebrating and encouraging crime.

Your misguided belief that this was "lawlessness" is predicated on your false belief that the leaks were the result of Russian hacks. 

The only reason that you believe that there were "Russian hacks" is the fact that the aforementioned criminals (Hillary, Sussman, the FBI) said that the emails were probably hacked.

Who the hell is stupid enough to believe the mere opinion of a known criminal, about the very crime he's guilty of? And you know for a fact that the FBI and Dems were criminals in this instance. Do you think that Schiff didn't know that Page was a CIA asset? How does the opinion of those people equate to "a fact" from your POV? Are you retarded?  

One more thing.... Donald Trump never had an 'opinion' about Russian collusion: he knew from day 1 whether or not he did it. Do you understand that? The MSM constantly said that he was lying when he said that he never colluded, or that the FBI's investigation would determine whether or not he colluded, but they were 100% wrong... Trump had every right to say that he was innocent every single time he said it and there was never a single second of his life when he should have felt obliged to wait and see what the FBI had to say.

If I accuse you of molesting kids right now do you have to wait for the FBI/RCMP to clear your name before you say that you're innocent? Of course not. Would it be fair for me to call you a liar when you denied it? Of course not. But the standards for talking about the Russian collusion farce was upside down from day 1. The criminal FBI and Dems

Quote

 Third, US intelligence already knew there were ties between senior campaign staff and Russian government agents and had even warned some of these staffers to avoid further communications, which they ignored.

"Third" lol. You're still 0-fer, dude. 

You'd have to explain specifically what you even mean by this, and then explain why Hillary was never warned about working with Russians to start a bogus investigation into a political opponent herself. 

Quote

 That is a literal mountain of probable cause that conspiracy was occurring.

That was a literal mountain of BS. I can't even believe how low your understanding of all this is after such a long time. 

Its weird that you have to ignore the most serious aspects of this case to try to make your point, right? Like FBI CRIMES, for example? 

Quote

Not “collusion,” because that’s not what the law is called. That is why Trump kept claiming “no collusion,” it’s because “conspiracy” is the crime, not “collusion.”

What a stupid comment. 

It was the leftards who named it, not Trump. It was their fantasy, not his.

And FYI leftists would never call their own BS trial a "conspiracy" because their toadies are conditioned to believe that the word "conspiracy" always means that something's fake. 

[Deluge]

On 5/15/2023 at 9:13 PM, West said:

This just shows there's no reason to believe any investigation into Donnie is legit.. all just frivolous nonsense

There needs to be some kind of severe penalty for weaponizing the legal system - these a$$holes are unhinged.