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

a reply to: uncommitted

My concern is Democrats pushing this bs in order to prevent Trump / Republicans from governing.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: uncommitted

My concern is Democrats pushing this bs in order to prevent Trump / Republicans from governing.

It's not the Democrats who keep defeating Trump's bills.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: uncommitted

My concern is Democrats pushing this bs in order to prevent Trump / Republicans from governing.

It's not the Democrats who keep defeating Trump's bills.

and it wasnt the Russians that cost Clinton the election.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: uncommitted

My concern is Democrats pushing this bs in order to prevent Trump / Republicans from governing.

It's not the Democrats who keep defeating Trump's bills.

and it wasnt the Russians that cost Clinton the election.

Allegedly, that is your current understanding right? Or if the investigation should show otherwise, will you accept it, or will you pretend it's irrelevant?

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: uncommitted

My concern is Democrats pushing this bs in order to prevent Trump / Republicans from governing.

It's not the Democrats who keep defeating Trump's bills.

and it wasnt the Russians that cost Clinton the election.

Allegedly, that is your current understanding right? Or if the investigation should show otherwise, will you accept it, or will you pretend it's irrelevant?

The investigation has already proven russia had no impact on the election. No votes were changed and no election systems were hacked (except y our own DHS).

The Russians didnt write the emails.
The russians didnt provide Podestas email.

Finally there is no evidence russia hacked the DNC. The DNC still refuses to allow the FBI access to the server. The IT firm Crowdstrike, who the DNC contracted and who made the russia claim, have since retracted that claim.

So I guess the question should be can you accept the facts we already know about?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: uncommitted

My concern is Democrats pushing this bs in order to prevent Trump / Republicans from governing.

It's not the Democrats who keep defeating Trump's bills.

and it wasnt the Russians that cost Clinton the election.

Allegedly, that is your current understanding right? Or if the investigation should show otherwise, will you accept it, or will you pretend it's irrelevant?

The investigation has already proven russia had no impact on the election. No votes were changed and no election systems were hacked (except y our own DHS).

The Russians didnt write the emails.
The russians didnt provide Podestas email.

Finally there is no evidence russia hacked the DNC. The DNC still refuses to allow the FBI access to the server. The IT firm Crowdstrike, who the DNC contracted and who made the russia claim, have since retracted that claim.

So I guess the question should be can you accept the facts we already know about?

What you cannot say with any certainty is information that was released to wikileaks allegedly by Russia helped influence some peoples minds. Of course that could never be proved either way and to suggest otherwise is naive. For the rest of it...... that's for the investigation. You've already made up your own mind, haven't you.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: uncommitted

My concern is Democrats pushing this bs in order to prevent Trump / Republicans from governing.

It's not the Democrats who keep defeating Trump's bills.

and it wasnt the Russians that cost Clinton the election.

Allegedly, that is your current understanding right? Or if the investigation should show otherwise, will you accept it, or will you pretend it's irrelevant?

The investigation has already proven russia had no impact on the election. No votes were changed and no election systems were hacked (except y our own DHS).

The Russians didnt write the emails.
The russians didnt provide Podestas email.

Finally there is no evidence russia hacked the DNC. The DNC still refuses to allow the FBI access to the server. The IT firm Crowdstrike, who the DNC contracted and who made the russia claim, have since retracted that claim.

So I guess the question should be can you accept the facts we already know about?

What you cannot say with any certainty is information that was released to wikileaks allegedly by Russia helped influence some peoples minds. Of course that could never be proved either way and to suggest otherwise is naive. For the rest of it...... that's for the investigation. You've already made up your own mind, haven't you.

Which do you think helped "influence some people's minds" more -- the Seth Rich/Wikileaks DNC emails proving that the DNC colluded with Bill Clinton's wife's campaign to cheat Bernie Sanders out of the Democrat nomination, the fact that Bill Clinton's wife was under two FBI investigations during that campaign, or maybe the broader issue of her decades of negative baggage and scandal coupled with the fact that she has spent those decades defending and enabling a proven serial sexual predator?

It's only my opinion of course -- try as I might, I can't read minds -- but if I were evaluating a presidential candidate given their history as described above, a few leaked emails would be way down the list of things I'd be concerned with.

Especially since those emails turned out to be 100% authentic.

a reply to: uncommitted

There is absolutely no evidence russia hacked the election. There is absolutely no evidence that russia was able to change votes.

There iws absolutely no evidence russia hacked the DNC or Podesta. Crowdstrike has already retracted their russia claims. The msm on the left doesnt report on that for some reason and democrats dont discuss it either.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: uncommitted

There is absolutely no evidence russia hacked the election. There is absolutely no evidence that russia was able to change votes.

There iws absolutely no evidence russia hacked the DNC or Podesta. Crowdstrike has already retracted their russia claims. The msm on the left doesnt report on that for some reason and democrats dont discuss it either.

SO why don't you just try and calm down, stop being such a child and let the investigation run its course. Sheesh, you all seem very nervous about something. If there's nothing to find, then there's nothing to find.

a reply to: uncommitted

So when presented with facts you dont like you attack the poster... ooooooook

There is nothing to find -
- Comey stated this in front of Congress
- Clapper stated this to congress
- Brennan stated this to congress
- Nancy Pelosi stated this to tv cameras
- Maxine Waters stated this to tv cameras
- Feinstein stated this to tv cameras.

Have you not wondered why, when the Democrats got their wish of a special counsel, they all of a sudden started backtracking on the russia collusion mess and impeachment talk.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: uncommitted

So when presented with facts you dont like you attack the poster... ooooooook

There is nothing to find -
- Comey stated this in front of Congress
- Clapper stated this to congress
- Brennan stated this to congress
- Nancy Pelosi stated this to tv cameras
- Maxine Waters stated this to tv cameras
- Feinstein stated this to tv cameras.

Have you not wondered why, when the Democrats got their wish of a special counsel, they all of a sudden started backtracking on the russia collusion mess and impeachment talk.

You aren't presenting any facts. If there's nothing to find, there will be nothing found. I didn't attack the poster due to lack of facts, but for their childishness. Sorry if that hurts.

a reply to: uncommitted

Everything I types in the post is a fact. Sorry if you cant handle the reality of that.

Maybe you can provide the evidence that all of those democrats have failed to find.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: uncommitted

Everything I types in the post is a fact. Sorry if you cant handle the reality of that.

Maybe you can provide the evidence that all of those democrats have failed to find.

So just let the investigation take place then, I really don't see what is getting you so vexated.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: uncommitted

Everything I types in the post is a fact. Sorry if you cant handle the reality of that.

Maybe you can provide the evidence that all of those democrats have failed to find.

So just let the investigation take place then, I really don't see what is getting you so vexated.

Nothing is getting me vexed. I am pointing out the investigation has already done what you want and has been for the last 8+ months now. The conclusion is going to be the same conclusion it is now - no evidence of collusion. The Russia lie was used to give Democrats cover to illegally spy on political enemies. The russia lie was used to distract from the fact Seth Rich leaked the DNC documents to wikileaks and not Russia.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: uncommitted

Everything I types in the post is a fact. Sorry if you cant handle the reality of that.

Maybe you can provide the evidence that all of those democrats have failed to find.

So just let the investigation take place then, I really don't see what is getting you so vexated.

Nothing is getting me vexed. I am pointing out the investigation has already done what you want and has been for the last 8+ months now. The conclusion is going to be the same conclusion it is now - no evidence of collusion. The Russia lie was used to give Democrats cover to illegally spy on political enemies. The russia lie was used to distract from the fact Seth Rich leaked the DNC documents to wikileaks and not Russia.

I personally don't want one thing or another - nothing to do with me, but it seems some of your fellow republicans are now becoming unconcerned if Russia did in some way influence the election...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Interesting that, isn't it?

a reply to: uncommitted

Well for starters I am not a Republican, I am an independent. i have voted for people of both main parties and non main parties.

You on the other hand claim you dont want one thing or the other yet your entire angle thus far is to go after Republicans and Trump - Russia collusion.

As for the link take it up with the OP of the thread.

While your at it feel free to cite for me the statute for Collusion Trump / Trump campaign violated.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: uncommitted

Well for starters I am not a Republican, I am an independent. i have voted for people of both main parties and non main parties.

You on the other hand claim you dont want one thing or the other yet your entire angle thus far is to go after Republicans and Trump - Russia collusion.

As for the link take it up with the OP of the thread.

While your at it feel free to cite for me the statute for Collusion Trump / Trump campaign violated.

I'm not sure where you think you have got 'my angle'. If you look through all of my responses in this thread, at no stage have I suggested that Trump/Team Trump has or has not colluded with Russia - I have an opinion on that which I will keep personal. What I have said to you and others is that if there is nothing to show, the investigation will come to that conclusion. You seem to be suggesting you already know the outcome.