Here's a Montage of Democrats Confirming They Have ZERO Evidence Trump Colluded with Russia

Yes, the source is Hannity, but guess what? He made a montage of democrats, and people within the intelligence agencies stating that none of them have found any evidence of collusion between President Trump, or any of his team of advisors.



Here is the Hannity link.

www.hannity.com...

This whole thing has been a farce from the beginning. To try to frame President Trump and his team, meanwhile we have "real collusion" occurring within the DNC and several left-wing news sources.

Not to mention that the whole claim from cyber security firm Crowdstrike is also a made up story, just like Crowdstrike made up a report claiming that the "same Russian hackers which hacked the DNC, had been able to destroy the majority of the Ukrainian artillery, yet this is all false. The CIA, the FBI, and the NSA are all making allegations that steem from another false report made by cyber security firm Crowdstrike.

So there is no evidence whatsoever to corroborate these false claims made by the MSM.

The most ironic part is that to this day the DNC labels the "leaks" as a "hack". Which would mean all the information contained in the wikileaks, and DNCleaks is real, and this is why the DNC and their media have been making false stories about President Trump and his campaign advisors.

It is time to make an investigation of the report that the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA used from Crowdstrike to claim there was/is collusion, and if
we find it that Crowdstrike made up this report, just like they did with the Ukraine report which they completely made up, these people at Crowdstrike should be held accountable and we should know if the DNC paid Crowdstriike to imnplant these false stories so people don't concentrate on the wikileaks and DNC leaks.

BTW, has anyone found that "Comey memo yet?... Or is the memo trapped in "never never land" alongside flying ships and little kids that never grow up and can fly?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You could have a much bigger montage of all the Democrats and Republicans who have zero evidence that Hilary Clinton ordered the deaths of any journalists, or that she was in some way a trafficker of children to be used as sex slaves. Plenty on ATS seem to believe both though.

Why don't you just let the investigation run its course instead of trying to predict its outcome?

Outstanding !
What makes these statements important, they are in made on the Congressional record and that's all that's needed.

I was just reviewing much of this and correlating it with documents and transcripts.

Buck

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It's funny how the mind works. Very precise statements that the investigation is ongoing, and that no specific evidence can be discussed publicly at the moment gets twisted between the ears into: "The evidence is that there is no collusion."

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You could have a much bigger montage of all the Democrats and Republicans who have zero evidence that Hilary Clinton ordered the deaths of any journalists, or that she was in some way a trafficker of children to be used as sex slaves. Plenty on ATS seem to believe both though.

Why don't you just let the investigation run its course instead of trying to predict its outcome?

So your OK with accusations being made without proof?? I feel if your going to accuse someone of wrong doing you first need to let them know what they did. This is a conspiracy in search of a cause. We have nothing to indicate the president did anything and can't tell you even what he supposedly did. Open ended investigations that are looking for a cause is not the amarican way. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their Graves

Since when in history do we get a prosecutor when we can't even tell you if a crime occurred.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
So there is no evidence whatsoever to corroborate these false claims made by the MSM.

Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it isn't true. MSM sources may be insiders who have not been identified.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It's funny how the mind works. Very precise statements that the investigation is ongoing, and that no specific evidence can be discussed publicly at the moment gets twisted between the ears into: "The evidence is that there is no collusion."

Well it's Hannity. His job is to tell you what to think not to let you do your own thinking.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

If your house smells like # but you haven't located it yet, do you just say "well I haven't found the # yet, it must not exist!"?

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
So there is no evidence whatsoever to corroborate these false claims made by the MSM.

Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it isn't true. MSM sources may be insiders who have not been identified.

Yes it does that is what no evidence means. Have people just gone brain dead.

a reply to: dragonridr

I wonder that everyday since investigations exist to collect evidence. If the evidence is already there, there would be no need for the investigation right?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dragonridr

I wonder that everyday since investigations exist to collect evidence. If the evidence is already there, there would be no need for the investigation right?

You bring up another point how do you have an investigation without a crime. If I accuse someone of a crime say murder for example. I know what crime was committed. What I don't know is who did it. But in this we don't even have a crime they can't say so and so committed treason. Because let's face it that's the only crime it could be. So how do you collect evidence without a crime??

a reply to: dragonridr

The alleged crime is collusion with the Russian government. It is quickly morphing into one of obstruction of justice too.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dragonridr

The alleged crime is collusion with the Russian government. It is quickly morphing into one of obstruction of justice too.

Collusion isn't a crime in fact a candidate could directly work with a foreign entity it's not illegal. In fact if I ran for president I could have say a brit or any other nationality on my campaign staff. I can work with them even using their contacts they made in there countries. It becomes illegal if I am doing something to harm the US govt. At that point the crime becomes treason. Notice no one is discussing treason not even with Flynn because to do that requires proof.

a reply to: dragonridr

This isn't the same as lobbying for a foreign government. This is collusion with a government that the US has had an antagonistic attitude in the past with and who could have influenced our election to further their own ends. This investigation isn't just targeting Trump either. It is looking into the people around him. Flynn is now getting in trouble for not disclosing that he was lobbying for Turkey and there is proof surfacing that he influenced policy in a way that Turkey would approve before this was disclosed. There are a lot of angles being explored. And the more that is explored the more smoke and questions appear. Ultimately whether Trump goes to jail or is impeached or not is up in the air, but these questions need answers.

PS: I'm not discussing any guilt at this moment as the investigation is ongoing. You guys seem to have a disconnect here as you are used to assuming guilt first while doing the investigation. I'm not assuming guilt. I'm just letting the investigation go where it goes and then I will look at the evidence presented and either agree with the verdict or disagree at that time. Talking about treason at this stage in the game is a red herring and a distraction. Almost like you don't care to find answers to these questions.

a reply to: dragonridr

Collusion isn't a crime in fact a candidate could directly work with a foreign entity it's not illegal.

When collusion is not transparent, it is called "conspiracy," and that is illegal.

It becomes illegal if I am doing something to harm the US govt. At that point the crime becomes treason.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Trump campaign on his intention of destroying the Washington Establishment? Isn't that the US government?

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
So there is no evidence whatsoever to corroborate these false claims made by the MSM.

Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it isn't true. MSM sources may be insiders who have not been identified.

Yes it does that is what no evidence means. Have people just gone brain dead.

No, it doesn't. Sometimes sources don't want to be revealed because they will lose their jobs.

a reply to: DJW001

Conspiracy only applies to US government employees using their job to harm the intrests of the US. Your mixing up your crimes the only charge that can apply to us citizens during a campaign is treason. So we have no mention of treason we have no crime. By the way collusion is a spy agency word has no meaning in prosecution.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You could have a much bigger montage of all the Democrats and Republicans who have zero evidence that Hilary Clinton ordered the deaths of any journalists, or that she was in some way a trafficker of children to be used as sex slaves. Plenty on ATS seem to believe both though.

Why don't you just let the investigation run its course instead of trying to predict its outcome?

So your OK with accusations being made without proof?? I feel if your going to accuse someone of wrong doing you first need to let them know what they did. This is a conspiracy in search of a cause. We have nothing to indicate the president did anything and can't tell you even what he supposedly did. Open ended investigations that are looking for a cause is not the amarican way. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their Graves

Since when in history do we get a prosecutor when we can't even tell you if a crime occurred.

Did you miss the point where I suggested the investigation should run its course and if it finds no proof, then it finds no proof.

There is plenty to suggest that Russia did in some ways influence the electorate - I thought even Trump had acknowledged that? Investigations are set up to find proof, that's the whole point.

If you are really strongly against accusations without proof, ATS must drive you insane, or is it only accusations against Trump that you aren't keen on?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: dragonridr

The alleged crime is collusion with the Russian government. It is quickly morphing into one of obstruction of justice too.

If Trump would not tweet stupid stuff nobody would conclude obstruction of justice. The problem is he practically admits it in his tweets.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Yeah. I originally wrote "slowly" instead of quickly but then I changed my mind when I remembered all the news that broke this week. My head is still spinning trying to understand it all and there are conservatives trying to tell me there is nothing to see here. Lol. Yeah right!