Senate committee finds no russian collusion

originally posted by: 772STi
a reply to: Dfairlite

Just to add to your great post. There was over 10,000 people in attendance (capacity) and more importantly....

OVER 60,000 PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO ATTEND!!!!!!!!!!!

Honestly links234, your going to stick with "he lied about his crowd size"??? Really??

Out of curiosity how much did you pay for your shovel? I've never had to buy a shovel that I dug my own grave with. I'm curious how much they cost.

Please remember we are average Americans writing this 10 beers in on a weekday night at 1:42am and we are still running circles around you.

Really???? He lied??? Wtf lol. Close your account make a new one you lose.

Jeez that was too easy, your welcome ATS

If I am not mistaken to get tickets for Trump rallies you have to go online to order them and anyone around the country can try to get those tickets. So saying 60000 people signed up for tickets doesnt say much about local support. But I can see how that is confusing and misleading.

a reply to: links234

The most damaging lies from a recent President were..

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.

If you take the Blue Pill now, it will cost much less after Congress passed the Affordable Care Act!

A "crowd-size" lie, or any other superficial misrepresentation/exaggeration, only hurts those who get ulcers and hypertension because they're angry over what President Trump says. It's too bad, but they brought it on themselves!

a reply to: Pyle

Omg do I really have to break this down to you at 3am? F"it I'm off tomorrow. Do you think people in New York singed up for a elpaso rally? Obviously no. It was all locals.

The population of elpaso is 683,577. Do you think every Trump supporter signed up?? Obviously not. It's probably only a small percentage. Just the die hards. Btw only 55,512 people in El Paso voted for Trump in 2016 and there was over 60,000 that signed for his rally im 2019. Once again only the die hards signed up. Can't wait until 2020. He's already up lol and not even trying.

Please explain your logic to me so I can understand where your coming from. Because I just can't understand it

a reply to: 772STi

It's not logic, it's just sad how pathetic their arguments have become. Calling these types of arguments a reach is being too generous. It's just flat out dishonesty. Then they couple it with condescension: "I see how that is confusing." It's absurdity. If these people aren't being paid to troll, they've got a serious lack of mental fortitude.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Thank you for your reply and I understand your frustration. I'm lucky enough to be a good looking successful 32yo bachelor and I had a woman at my house the other night (couple weeks ago). We were watching a Trump press conference type thing and before hearing anything he had to say she said "I hate this pig" I asked her what she hated about him and she honestly had no response. Well she said some B's it was mainly pointless rambling.

Soooo.... lol... I decided to read her a article of Trump's 52 greatest accomplishments, it was mainly what he did with economy. And long story short I flipped her. I actually got her to watch the SOTU and she agreeded with EVERYTHING Trump said!!!!! No lie.

What I'm getting at is it's easy to belittle these people (very easy). If you look at my previous post I used facts and numbers. That all you have to do, is show someone in your life the truth and everything will work out. Keep it up dfairlite I'm sure you can help someone in your life see the truth

The law says investigate a crime, not investigate people looking for a crime. Big difference.

Because there wasn't any.... It was the UK that interfered in your Election or did everyone in America miss the Cambridge Analytica/Skripal debacle???

Democrats will never believe Trump is innocent of Russian collusion. They hate him so he must be guilty.

Occam's razor is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.

The Democratic version is that the only speculation is the one they decide you must believe unless you wish to be ostracized by their Religion and called a Racist. And most of the time...it is the most stupid explanation.

Dems: If it looks like a duck...walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it is a giraffe. And if you don't agree...RACIST!!!!

I am sure that no one was expecting to find a signed contract between trump and russia.
Burr is smoothing over details to come up with this determination.

a reply to: UKTruth

Sweety the GOP found nothing because they didnt want to find anything

Lets get real here. Mueller is doing his job quite well.

All those people guilty and in jail or waiting to go to jail.

Meanwhile in Virginia......
New charges of sexual assault made by the victim, but democratic lt governor refuses to step down.
But the senate intelligence committee says no evidence of collusion with russians dismissed as "smoothing over details"

You people are so quaint.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Sweety the GOP found nothing because they didnt want to find anything

Lets get real here. Mueller is doing his job quite well.

All those people guilty and in jail or waiting to go to jail.

House - No collusion
Senate - No collusion
Mueller - not a single indictment for Russian collusion

Not sure it can be much clearer.
You need to move with the times - your liberal friends have already moved to Saudi Arabian collusion...

a reply to: UKTruth

That will change when William Barr is confirmed as Attorney General later this week.

House GOP has 20 Criminal Referrals ready to send to him.

Senate GOP has 9 Criminal Referrals ready to send to him.

Source from yesterday: www.thegatewaypundit.com... ess-video/

a reply to: 772STi

You were lucky enough to have an open minded person. Some of the Trump haters are so deeply programmed to spew hate you can't reach them. I too had an opportunity to help our neighbor's kid in college, spewing the "misogynist, bigot, racist" narrative he was programmed with. It only took the first word, misogynist, to help him. A) He didn't even know what the word meant (no joke) so we started there. I asked him would a misogynist hire a woman to be in charge of building his skyscraper? I told him if there is one blatant lie, maybe there are others?

Then he said "Feel the Bern, free college"! And I changed is mind on that quickly too, telling him in ten years, when he has house, wife, kids and pets, that his check will have a nice "tax" on there paying for other people's college.

One at a time we are educating the ignorant. Be patient with them and realize how much programming they have endured to be ignorant and spew hate.

#MAGA

a reply to: Bluntone22

"Direct Evidence" is when a witness says he saw Joe shoot Bill.

Anything short of that is indirect evidence.

There has never been a presidential campaign in American History that had so many illicit contacts with Russian Officials and Agents where virtually everyone involved lied about it.

Trump and His Associates Had More Than 100 Contacts With Russians Before the Inauguration
www.nytimes.com...

November 11, 2016: Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks “It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”

December 18, 2016: Kellyanne Conway went on “Face the Nation,” and John Dickerson asked her, “Did anyone involved … in the Trump campaign have any contact with Russians trying to meddle with the election?”

Conway responded, “Absolutely not. And I discussed that with the president-elect just last night. Those conversations never happened.

January 15, 2017: Vice President-elect Mike Pence went on “Fox News Sunday,”and Chris Wallace asked him, “So, I’m asking a direct question: was there any contact in any way between Trump or his associates and the Kremlin or cutouts they had?”

Pence replied, “Of course not. Why would there be any contacts between the campaign?

February 16, 2017: Trump held a press conference and told reporters, "I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does.”


February 20, 2017: White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders denied contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign, stating,
“This is a nonstory because to the best of our knowledge, no contacts took place, so it’s hard to make a comment on something that never happened.”

Meanwhile..

Goldstone:
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

Trump Jr:
if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer.

Collusion is not a legal term, it is an adjective.

Conspiracy is a legal term, "An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal."

There is a tonnage of "indirect" evidence of a conspiracy known to the public.
There is no "direct evidence" (e.g. signed contract or testimony under oath of a verbal greement) of a "conspiracy" which would need to demonstrate and agreement by both parties to work together to achieve a mutual goal.

In my opinion the evidence is damning, but that is opinion since there is no direct evidence known to the public of technical "conspiracy".

Also my opinion that if there is direct evidence to be had it will be with Roger Stone, what senior member of the Trump Campaign directed him to work with Wikileaks and why? Or Paul Manafort, when he handed over internal polling data to the Russians to assist in thier interference campaign targeting, did he also promise to move the needle on Russian Sanctions and strip language from the GOP platform condemning the invasion of Ukraine etc.? Was it done solely for Manafort's personal interests or was the President aware?

Either way, "Collusion", "Conspiracy"? As long as all the facts come out the SC will have accomplished it's mission and the American People can come to their own conclusions. Sitting Presidents don't get indicted, they get impeached, but never successfully so far in our history. They have resigned though or lost re-election, that is quite common.

Looking forward to the Senate report and the Special Counsel's report. Both should be an interesting read.

a reply to: Bluntone22
Anyone with a brain new this. The real objective was to mind numb and convince a population to hate a standing President. They are achieving their goal. They learned this from Joseph Gobbels as he once said that telling a lie long enough it becomes the truth. There is more evidence that Comey and Muller destroyed and subverted investigations into the Clintons. Their ruse to harass this President was a deflection thus averting the attention away from Hillary. Leftists on this site eat it up cause misery loves company. Unsuccessful angry people lean toward Socialism/Communism as if they can't have it no one can. Read this.

www.zerohedge.com...