The Durham Report and The Exposition of The Libbies

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, West said:

Even if true, why are you more concerned with Roger Stone than the sketchy nonsense the DNC was doing?

You mean stacking the deck against Sanders who was less likely to win the general election?

Winning the general election is the DNC's JOB. Duh.

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You mean stacking the deck against Sanders who was less likely to win the general election?

Winning the general election is the DNC's JOB. Duh.

Sooooo - wouldn't it have been trump's job too? So by your logic if he did collude with the russians he was just doing his job?

 

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nothing happened in concert. And given your constant lying so far i'm not inclined to believe your account of it   

Again - NOBODY got charged over trump "colluding" with the Russians to influence the election INCLUDING manafort. The fbi found NO evidence of it. The commission didn't.  NOBODY did.

You try to twist unrelated stuff INTO that but there just isn't anything there. 3 years of dozens of investigators and commissions and god knows what and ZERO charges relating to any collusion over the election.

It's a lie. YOU are a lie. You should be DEEPLY ashamed of yourself for being so gullible. There is much you can say about trump but YOU CANNOT SAY HE COLLUDED WITH THE RUSSIANS TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION.  That is a LIE.

Yeah, like how there's no evidence that OJ did it!

You are simply and shamelessly lying. The FBi, the Mueller investigation, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the follow up from Treasury ALL found significant evidence. It's been presented to you dozens of times. You simply pretend it doesn't exist. It maybe it's hard to see even a mountain of evidence with your head so far up Trump's ass? In either case, you're not fooling anyone. The evidence is there for all to see. 

He was not tried by his peers, but acquitted as a matter of partisan certainty. And just as certainly, his campaign colluded with Russia in an effort to win the election.  That's exactly what Manafort was doing. That's exactly what Stone was doing. And it's exactly why he pardoned them instead of feeling betrayed by the criminals within his organization.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Hodad

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, West said:

Even if true, why are you more concerned with Roger Stone than the sketchy nonsense the DNC was doing?

Are you talking about the primaries? I'm not a Democrat, but each party sets the rules for their primaries and there is a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes to promote more viable candidates. Welcome to politics.

[CdnFox]

33 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yeah, like how there's no evidence that OJ did it!

Ok. It's pretty much the same thing after all THat's why oj wasn't charged and didn't have to go to trial just like trump. Ohh.... wait....

33 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You are simply and shamelessly lying. The FBi, the Mueller investigation, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the follow up from Treasury ALL found significant evidence.

Nope. Even said it clearly in the mueller report.

33 minutes ago, Hodad said:

It's been presented to you dozens of times.

And debunked just as many.  Kid - you  are WRONG. It's that simple. They did not find evidence of any kind of collusion or conspiracy or the like, nor did any later behavior during the campaign suggest there was.

33 minutes ago, Hodad said:

 

He was not tried by his peers, but acquitted as a matter of partisan certainty.

He didn't even get charged and they were clear that there was no evidence to charge him with.

IF you ever wonder how a person can get so deluded that they can honestly believe the election was stolen and trump is actually president - go look in the mirror. You are every bit as delusional as they are and you should be deeply ashamed.

[Rebound]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nothing happened in concert. And given your constant lying so far i'm not inclined to believe your account of it   

Again - NOBODY got charged over trump "colluding" with the Russians to influence the election INCLUDING manafort. The fbi found NO evidence of it. The commission didn't.  NOBODY did.

You try to twist unrelated stuff INTO that but there just isn't anything there. 3 years of dozens of investigators and commissions and god knows what and ZERO charges relating to any collusion over the election.

It's a lie. YOU are a lie. You should be DEEPLY ashamed of yourself for being so gullible. There is much you can say about trump but YOU CANNOT SAY HE COLLUDED WITH THE RUSSIANS TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION.  That is a LIE.

Collusion is not a federal crime, which is why nobody was investigated or convicted of it. 

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

Yeah, like how there's no evidence that OJ did it!

You are simply and shamelessly lying. The FBi, the Mueller investigation, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the follow up from Treasury ALL found significant evidence. It's been presented to you dozens of times. You simply pretend it doesn't exist. It maybe it's hard to see even a mountain of evidence with your head so far up Trump's ass? In either case, you're not fooling anyone. The evidence is there for all to see. 

He was not tried by his peers, but acquitted as a matter of partisan certainty. And just as certainly, his campaign colluded with Russia in an effort to win the election.  That's exactly what Manafort was doing. That's exactly what Stone was doing. And it's exactly why he pardoned them instead of feeling betrayed by the criminals within his organization.

Lol...

The TDS is strong in this one.

[ironstone]

6 Documented Instances Of Systemic Pro-Democrat FBI Corruption (thefederalist.com)

I don't know how anyone can still say this abuse of power by the DOJ and the FBI isn't scandalous.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

Collusion is not a federal crime, which is why nobody was investigated or convicted of it. 

We've been over that.  Pls keep up.

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, ironstone said:

6 Documented Instances Of Systemic Pro-Democrat FBI Corruption (thefederalist.com)

I don't know how anyone can still say this abuse of power by the DOJ and the FBI isn't scandalous.

THere are a few ways they can.  One involves self delusion to a degree and scale hitherto unknown to man without the use of advanced narcotics, and the other way involves shoving a crayon up your nose and hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.

The real question is WHY?  Sure - i get some people really hated trump and fair enough, but to allow your hatred to descend SO far as to warp  your very perception of reality like that... it's unnerving.  And i mean it's not like there isn't plenty of OTHER things you could legitimately not like trump for.

Meanwhile there's ACTUAL evidence of justin colluding with the chinese and left wing voters are like "oh, well.. whatever he probably shouldn't but y'know..... "

[West]

12 hours ago, robosmith said:

You mean stacking the deck against Sanders who was less likely to win the general election?

Winning the general election is the DNC's JOB. Duh.

I mean alot of nonsense that was ultimately exposed. If you continue to support the democrats after that, I question your ethics

11 hours ago, Hodad said:

Are you talking about the primaries? I'm not a Democrat, but each party sets the rules for their primaries and there is a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes to promote more viable candidates. Welcome to politics.

The sanders thing gave the illusion they vote for their leader. If they can rig a primary, it's also not a stretch to question the legitimacy of the general

[robosmith]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sooooo - wouldn't it have been trump's job too? So by your logic if he did collude with the russians he was just doing his job?

 

There are RULES about WHO you can get campaign assistance from without paying THEM.

Getting campaign assistance from foreigners gratis is ILLEGAL.

Bet you don't even know why. LMAO.

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...

The TDS is strong in this one.

^This is JUST your COGNITIVE DISSONANCE talking. LMAO

[robosmith]

34 minutes ago, West said:

I mean alot of nonsense that was ultimately exposed. If you continue to support the democrats after that, I question your ethics

You make a DELUSIONAL case with your ambiguous CLAIMS of "alot of nonsense." LMAO

Let us know when you figure out the SPECIFICS.

34 minutes ago, West said:

The sanders thing gave the illusion they vote for their leader. If they can rig a primary, it's also not a stretch to question the legitimacy of the general

The PRIMARY is NOT run by the government NOR subject to the same rules as a Federal election. Duh.

[Hodad]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ok. It's pretty much the same thing after all THat's why oj wasn't charged and didn't have to go to trial just like trump. Ohh.... wait....

Nope. Even said it clearly in the mueller report.

And debunked just as many.  Kid - you  are WRONG. It's that simple. They did not find evidence of any kind of collusion or conspiracy or the like, nor did any later behavior during the campaign suggest there was.

He didn't even get charged and they were clear that there was no evidence to charge him with.

IF you ever wonder how a person can get so deluded that they can honestly believe the election was stolen and trump is actually president - go look in the mirror. You are every bit as delusional as they are and you should be deeply ashamed.

You are lying, plain and simple. That's why you can't cite any such finding. The Mueller report DOES NOT say there is no evidence. It literally spends *hundreds* of pages laying out evidence. What Mueller concluded is that due to obstruction, deletion and destruction of evidence, lying, taking the 5th etc., he could not build a legal case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

In his own words, explicitly, Mueller refused to exonerate Trump  Mueller hit a wall in terms  of a prosecutable case on any of the collusive activities, but he uncovered a ton of evidence. And the Senate committee added a lot more. And further investigations build on that. At this point it isn't a question if whether there was collusion, but rather if anyone will be held accountable for the shit that has been confirmed.

The DOJ policy is not to prosecute sitting presidents. There was really no question of Trump being tried in a regular court. He was impeached and tried, but Republicans choose party over country.

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, West said:

I mean alot of nonsense that was ultimately exposed. If you continue to support the democrats after that, I question your ethics

The sanders thing gave the illusion they vote for their leader. If they can rig a primary, it's also not a stretch to question the legitimacy of the general

No, it's a huge stretch. I'm not sure what you've heard about the Democratic primary that year, but it's nothing to do with voting hanky panky. Everything went down according to the voting rules and processes everyone knew getting into the race. It's okay if you don't like the notion of super delegates, or didn't know about it beforehand, but the candidates all knew what they had to do to win. 

Edited May 20, 2023 by Hodad

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You are lying, plain and simple. That's why you can't cite any such finding.

You mean i can't cite a finding that says trump is guilty? Well - i can't cite something that doesn't exist.

You were kind enough to post more than enough cites that show he's not guilty.  They all noted the same things - no evidence of collusion or conspiracy, no illegal transfer of info or anything like that, no wrongdoing.  They may not like that manafort shared the campaign strategy with a guy he did business with forever who would eventually tell the russians but they all agree it was his data and there's nothing wrong with sharing it.

And zero charges were ever laid against anyone in connection with russian 'collusion' in any form in connection with trump and the campaign.

This after YEARS of investigation by a huge team of FBI WHO WERE PREJUDICED AGAINST TRUMP AND WANTED TO FIND ANYTHING THEY COULD ON THE GUY.  Highly motivated - still couldn't.

Of course there are losers out there who claim "just because we found no evidence doesn't mean that somewhere there is evidence".  It's the kind of bullshit losers say.  Just because i haven't found evidence that Hodad isnt' a child rapist doesn't mean that he ISN'T one and the evidence is out there! ",  Right? It's technically true - but if i were to go around calling you a child rapist that would be a very very wrong thing to do.

You see how that works.

[Legato]

24 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, it's a huge stretch. I'm not sure what you've heard about the Democratic primary that year, but it's nothing to do with voting hanky panky. Everything went down according to the voting rules and processes everyone knew getting into the race. It's okay if you don't like the notion of super delegates, or didn't know about it beforehand, but the candidates all knew what they had to do to win. 

Are you enjoying the hood and the wink yet?

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

You mean i can't cite a finding that says trump is guilty? Well - i can't cite something that doesn't exist.

You were kind enough to post more than enough cites that show he's not guilty.  They all noted the same things - no evidence of collusion or conspiracy, no illegal transfer of info or anything like that, no wrongdoing.  They may not like that manafort shared the campaign strategy with a guy he did business with forever who would eventually tell the russians but they all agree it was his data and there's nothing wrong with sharing it.

And zero charges were ever laid against anyone in connection with russian 'collusion' in any form in connection with trump and the campaign.

This after YEARS of investigation by a huge team of FBI WHO WERE PREJUDICED AGAINST TRUMP AND WANTED TO FIND ANYTHING THEY COULD ON THE GUY.  Highly motivated - still couldn't.

Of course there are losers out there who claim "just because we found no evidence doesn't mean that somewhere there is evidence".  It's the kind of bullshit losers say.  Just because i haven't found evidence that Hodad isnt' a child rapist doesn't mean that he ISN'T one and the evidence is out there! ",  Right? It's technically true - but if i were to go around calling you a child rapist that would be a very very wrong thing to do.

You see how that works.

Jeebus, you have moved into pole position for the most profoundly dishonest poster. The idea that one can look at *hundreds* of pages of evidence and then say out the other side of their mouth that there is "no evidence" is appalling. 

You can correctly say that Mueller determined that he couldn't get a conviction with the evidence he had at the time, but to say there is no evidence--particularly as it's been spoon fed to--is a bald faced lie.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And zero charges were ever laid against anyone in connection with russian 'collusion' in any form in connection with trump and the campaign.

Not exactly true.

IMO Clinesmith counts because he was specifically doing work on the collusion investigation when he committed his crimes. 

Unlike other people who fit into the category of: "People who were disparaged by the MSM/Dems/KGB during the Russia trial and who were charged criminally by the collusion investigation and were found guilty of things completely unrelated to collusion", Clinesmith actually committed a crime that was entirely related to "Russian collusion" and nothing else.

And tbh, Clinesmith is just the fall guy. The FBI committed extremely serious crimes against the American people. This whole collusion thing was fraud/malfeasance/election interference on a massive scale and Clinesmith is made out to be the tip of the spear but let's be honest.... is it even slightly possible that no one above KC in the FBI was aware that CPage was actually a "CIA asset" during the time it took to get the initial FISA warrant and all of the subsequent renewals? Did no one in the CIA say "Hey, how come they're treating Carter Page like a spy... I thought he was working for us! Is he really a Russian spy? Is he doing some things that are worrisome? Let's look into this...."

Of course there were people in the CIA and FBI who knew about "Clinesmith's" crime. Schiff had to have known as well. 

Clinesmith is just the guy who has to fall on his sword to exculpate his higher-ups at the CIA and FBI. That's why he wasn't even punished. The deal is like this: "You take the guilty verdict, don't roll over on us, and we'll make sure that you don't go to jail or get disbarred."

Just like they have the RICO laws to go after crime bosses, the GOP should be looking for people in the chain of command above Clinesmith who knew about Carter Page and who knew about how the FBI were using him to get their bogus FISA warrants. 

Edited May 20, 2023 by WestCanMan

[Rebound]

20 hours ago, West said:

Even if true, why are you more concerned with Roger Stone than the sketchy nonsense the DNC was doing?

“Sketchy nonsense” or “crimes”?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Jeebus, you have moved into pole position for the most profoundly dishonest poster.

I would NEVER try to take away your coveted position

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

The idea that one can look at *hundreds* of pages of evidence and then say out the other side of their mouth that there is "no evidence" is appalling. 

Yeah i think so - but you do seem to be ok with doing just that.

Again - you constantly 'creatively interpret' the evidence.
 

if it's as clear as you claim - just point to the line that says they agree there was conspiracy or 'collusion' as the left called it for 4 years.  Go on. The evidence is so obvious they must have said so clearly.  Lets see that line.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

You can correctly say that Mueller determined that he couldn't get a conviction with the evidence he had at the time,

Or any time.  Period.  Not even enough for charges. And that's really the end of that.  YOU on the other hand insist he's guilty and anyone who says otherwise is dishonest.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

but to say there is no evidence--particularly as it's been spoon fed to--is a bald faced lie.

There's no evidence kiddo.  What YOU'VE 'spoon fed' is just pure pablum. You've indicated that a guy who works for trump talked to another guy he did business with for years and bragged about campaign strategy and polls. None of it classifed or in any way privileged information - all of it lawfully owned by trump, so he'd be the only one who would have had a right to complain.

But you have utterly failed to show that there was any agreement between them to interfere with the election, or that the information was ever used for that purpose, or that it was even likely used - or even a single instance where you could say "there - they only did THAT because they had the information".

None. Nothing, Zero 

Instead what you say is "ohhhh..welll...  there's no evidence of course but he MUST have!!!"

Nope. THat's not how it works.  And no matter how you've come at it we still get to THAT point where there's a gap between your so called evidence and any kind of collusion or conspiracy or anything.

YOU are the dishonest poster here. And you should be deeply ashamed.

[West]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

“Sketchy nonsense” or “crimes”?

The voting public had every right to know what the conniving democrats were up to

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, West said:

The voting public had every right to know what the conniving democrats were up to

Every Party has the right to keep their strategy CONFIDENTIAL and there's a big reason you consistently FAIL to cite ANYTHING to back YOUR OPINIONS. AKA, it's just DRIVEL.

Let us know when you FIND ANY EVIDENCE that Republicans are completely transparent. LMAO

[West]

9 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Every Party has the right to keep their strategy CONFIDENTIAL and there's a big reason you consistently FAIL to cite ANYTHING to back YOUR OPINIONS. AKA, it's just DRIVEL.

Let us know when you FIND ANY EVIDENCE that Republicans are completely transparent. LMAO

Their strategy was to screw over one candidate who had a substantial percentage of the vote. They wanted to keep that confidential because they are a corrupt party who knew there'd be backlash if found out. 

Blame Hillary for being a scuzz if you are gonna blame anyone