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

originally posted by: UKTruth
Oops... Brennan intimated that the Russians have more damaging information on Clinton that they did not release... Gowdy found out the details in closed session yesterday...

BRENNAN: No. I said, if they had collected additional information, as I think was implied, that the – the effort to try to further hurt her if she became president – that information – any type of derogatory information about her could have been husbanded for post-election period.

GOWDY: All right. But do you know if negative information was husbanded, to use your word, and not disseminated?

BRENNAN: Again, I – I – I think that would be inappropriate to talk about in an – in an open session like this.

GOWDY: Is it inappropriate to both – I get not asking you about the nature of it. Is it inappropriate to answer yes or no, whether or not that information was husbanded but not disseminated?

BRENNAN: My – my request would be that we could talk about that in closed session.

GOWDY: OK. I’ll honor your request, and we’ll talk about that in a little bit.

Got a feeling democrats are going to rue the day they demanded a special counsel.

Oh yeah, he will bite them on the ass, not that they don't deserve it.

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.

Goodness. No wonder the left is so messed up.

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?

As I've said before, maybe they shouldn't comment on an ongoing investigation by saying, in essence, there is no evidence.

But I suppose you're OK this time with ongoing investigations and hearings that waste taxpayer money right?

a reply to: Wayfarer

So, your evidence is to claim the video is a joke, claiming that my opinion and the evidence presented here means nothing, and resort to insult anyone who dares disagree with your rhetoric rant?... Not to mention trying to derail the thread with real nonsense...

BTW, what the hell is "non-nonsensical"?...

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?

Or, as wikileaks, the DNCleaks and the lawsuit against the DNC and HRC show, the DNC and their puppets are simply dragging this without any supporting evidence to keep this farce alive as long as possible, so people's negative perceptions about President Trump can keep as many people as possible from paying attention to the real evidence that shows the DNC colluding with the MSM.

In order for an investigation to be valid there has to be probable cause. Yet there is no evidence except the false claims from the DNC, and fans.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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!"?

No.... I say "I haven't found any #, so it must be coming from outside."

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: dragonridr

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?

No it is not. For example, both Bill and Hillary Clinton are considered to be part of the Washington establishment despite neither actually working in the government [any longer].

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If deleting evidence that is asked to be handed over for an investigation isn't obstruction of justice, what can be?

So when Comey and the FBI set the bar that Hillary had not obstructed justice with that, even when the person that deleted it was on Reddit the day before asking for help to alter or delete evidence at the request of a VIP, they damned any credibility to say

"Oh 7 months ago I feel Trump obstructed justice, and I didn't report this as I was legally obligated to because of whatever reason"

Your posts are spot on and KraZ and pals should be smacking their palms to their collective heads going "Oh damn, Grambler is RIGHT!!"

But if you hold your breath waiting for these guys to see the obvious, you might turn blue and die.. this is more than sad it is sick, this double standard.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

I added a well thought out rebuttal to the ongoing situation involving the Trump admin and you threw a #ty "what about Hillary" deflection at me and NOW you are accusing me of adding nothing to the conversation because I called you out on it and refuse to address that tired and dead horse? Get over yourself and get a better argument.

ROLFMAO!!

Nope you did not.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

a reply to: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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!"?

That's working from the premise that your house does indeed smell like #. In this case, it'd be more correct for the neighbors to say they believe your house smells like # but they can't prove it.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Wayfarer

It's really weird how the right bends over backwards to pretend like there is nothing to see here with the Trump admin and the investigations. Guilt or not is undetermined, but questions abound and these questions need answers.

I think that's because we haven't been shown anything. No leaks no scandal no nothing could this be any more boring.

I can't help it if you don't read any news beyond just your personal comfort zone echo chamber. I hear Fox News' ratings have suffered thanks to not covering these Trump scandals. How about putting out some effort and informing yourself instead of just sitting there pretending like nothing has been shown to you? Like WE, liberals, have an obligation to make you read the news or something. Much of these controversies and line of questioning are started by Trump's own words and actions. You may not want to hear this, but liberal news is NOT making up these controversies on the spot. You should pay attention more.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
But I suppose you're OK this time with ongoing investigations and hearings that waste taxpayer money right?

It isn't a waste until an investigation actually finishes up saying "nothing to see here" and THEN another investigation kicks off ignoring that proclamation like Trump is still guilty. At that point I'd be right there with the "waste of tax money" stuff. It took EIGHT investigations into Benghazi not finding anything before I was sick of hearing about that #. And they were one right after the other. Trey Gowdy was ready to open two more if Clinton was elected President (though for some reason that hasn't become necessary now... I wonder why?). Believe it or not, I DO have principles. They haven't been crossed yet with this investigation though.

Just bc i know that 4-ever-trumpiters like to ignore facts and logic that makes them look idiotic...I am going to post this again from Krazysh0t and ask a question that im SURE will not get answered...

How do you feel about the tax dollar money paid into these investigations into Benghazi that all came up ...nothing?
one investigation into another...all nothing? 8 investigations?

How do you feel about that money wasted?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
But I suppose you're OK this time with ongoing investigations and hearings that waste taxpayer money right?

It isn't a waste until an investigation actually finishes up saying "nothing to see here" and THEN another investigation kicks off ignoring that proclamation like Trump is still guilty. At that point I'd be right there with the "waste of tax money" stuff. It took EIGHT investigations into Benghazi not finding anything before I was sick of hearing about that #. And they were one right after the other. Trey Gowdy was ready to open two more if Clinton was elected President (though for some reason that hasn't become necessary now... I wonder why?). Believe it or not, I DO have principles. They haven't been crossed yet with this investigation though.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You guys keep telling yourself whatever you need to in order to get through this. The FBI isn't investigating a lack of evidence. And, since almost no one knows what evidence the FBI does have, almost no one's in a position of knowledge to say anything about the investigation. One thing seems clear though. Trump and Russia will be linked for the remainder of Trump's administration, no matter how long, (or brief), that might be.


Worst. President. Ever.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

not to spoil crazy with logic...But if Officials had solid public evidence that " Trump Colluded with Russia"..he would be in jail right now?

It seems to me this line of "Alternate" logic must first include the forced removal of the definition of "investigation" from one's brain.

Probable Cause/Circumstantial evidence leads to investigation to discover evidence.

Thus far that line of investigation has led to multiple non-partisan investigations, a grand jury being impaneled and subpoenas being issued, requests for immunity etc. etc. etc.

Maybe wait for the investigation to be concluded before declaring their conclusions?

Or maybe in general don't abuse your own thinking centers just because you are pro-trump? Not a healthy approach to life..

a reply to: User1138

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Patton never said that...

It was Truman's diary, 1944

www.snopes.com...