DEMS will read the ENTIRE (tho redacted) MUELLER report on House FL THU!

CharacterAssassin said:
No, you pathetic, miserable cunt, it's a summation of points from the report. And I notice you can't address or refute a single on of them.

The report established and demonstrated collusion, sill whore. Your denial of that reality won't change a single thing.
Click to expand...

LMAO... wrong again moron. Your author's 'summation' is full of shit.

"Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election."
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... wrong again moron. Your author's 'summation' is full of shit.

"Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election."
Click to expand...

LOL! Criminal conspiracy was not established by the available facts beyond a reasonable doubt, silly whore, and I never contended otherwise. Collusion most definitely was.

Fun to watch you wail and scream and still remain incapable of disputing any fact in the summation. If it's so 'full of shit', you'd be able to demonstrate that.

But you can't.

Silly whore, you're really not very good at this.
 
CharacterAssassin said:
It's a simple statement of objective reality. Clearly something you lack the emotional capacity to face. Bummer.

Yes, there was, and Mueller explained it.

More denial of objective reality.

Nah. He handed a roadmap to congress for even deeper, far reaching investigations into your god.

And that's fun!
Click to expand...

Mullet explained why he ‘couldn’t’ indict Trump but you’re unable to lol?
 
Superfreak said:
This simply proves you are not paying attention.

The Mueller teams redactions are the SAME as Barr's. They worked together to redact what they are LEGALLY required to redact.

Barr's redactions are absolutely valid. You have no basis to claim otherwise.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... wrong. If there was overwhelming evidence others in trumps campaign did, Mueller would have indicted them. There is nothing. There always was nothing. Mueller knew it a year ago.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Those who were complicit went to jail, albeit for reduced charges because they cooperated.

trumpco is filthy. Wait for SDNY if you like, but we all know exactly what happened. I'm going to love when the inauguration funding hits the news.
 
lying rules said:
sure.

direct quote:



this is not "not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt."

it literally says in black and white "no evidence at all"

as in zero.

2 years of fake news.
Click to expand...

Please stop showing up here cum-drunk to the gills and lying through your tooth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...rump-russia-collusion/?utm_term=.38700e7bd525

"To assert “no evidence,” however, is another matter altogether. Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s ubiquitous chief legal analyst, tells the Erik Wemple Blog: “One thing we know with certainty is that Mueller is not bringing a criminal case based on the collusion set of issues.” Toobin was addressing none of the journalism of recent days — merely the legal issues at hand. “But that doesn’t mean there’s no evidence of collusion. It only means there’s not a prosecutable case. There’s a world of difference between ‘no evidence’ and not enough evidence to bring an actual case,” Toobin says.

A former federal prosecutor, Toobin noted that people in this line of work don’t traffic in terms such as “no evidence.” Prosecutors tend to speak in terms of “sufficient evidence” to bring a case vs. “insufficient evidence” to do so. Use of the term “did not establish,” says Toobin, is appropriate for these circumstances: “It’s important to recognize what it means. It means not proven. It doesn’t mean zero evidence,” he says."

Nice owning you, silly whore.
 
Last edited:
The live reading of the Mueller report just came to the part where it states "TRUMP WAS NOT EXONERATED!!!" hahahahahahahahahaha
 
CharacterAssassin said:
Please stop showing up here cum-drunk to the gills and lying through your tooth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...rump-russia-collusion/?utm_term=.38700e7bd525

"To assert “no evidence,” however, is another matter altogether. Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s ubiquitous chief legal analyst, tells the Erik Wemple Blog: “One thing we know with certainty is that Mueller is not bringing a criminal case based on the collusion set of issues.” Toobin was addressing none of the journalism of recent days — merely the legal issues at hand. “But that doesn’t mean there’s no evidence of collusion. It only means there’s not a prosecutable case. There’s a world of difference between ‘no evidence’ and not enough evidence to bring an actual case,” Toobin says.

A former federal prosecutor, Toobin noted that people in this line of work don’t traffic in terms such as “no evidence.” Prosecutors tend to speak in terms of “sufficient evidence” to bring a case vs. “insufficient evidence” to do so. Use of the term “did not establish,” says Toobin, is appropriate for these circumstances: “It’s important to recognize what it means. It means not proven. It doesn’t mean zero evidence,” he says."

Nice owning you, silly whore.
Click to expand...

So, he’s saying there was almost nearly collusion lol?
 
Darth Beto Omar said:
So, he’s saying there was almost nearly collusion lol?
Click to expand...

Afraid to read the report or even listen to someone else doing the work by reading it for you? Just wow!!!

There Was Lots of Collusion and Conspiracy. Mueller Proved It

Contrast the Mueller report with the Starr report on President Clinton, which framed itself as an impeachment referral, not a prosecution decision, and thus avoided having to reach the more daunting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It applied a lower standard of “substantial and credible information” and titled each of its 11 grounds of impeachment in these terms, even when they invoked (or evoked) the criminal conduct of “lying under oath” and “obstruction of justice.”

The Mueller report, holding itself to the higher standard, concluded that it did not find proof beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal conspiracy with Russia. It also offered an explanation: Lies by individuals associated with the Trump campaign “materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.” Witnesses deleted emails and used applications with encryption or deletion functions, which also thwarted fact-finding. Part II of the report on obstruction explains why Part I may have fallen short of such a high burden.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/there-was-lots-of-collusion-and-conspiracy-mueller-proved-it
Click to expand...

The text of the Mueller report, however, offers a very different picture. While an improbable smoking gun showing an agreed upon deal between the Trump campaign and Russian officials has not been produced, the report—even with all its redactions—is full of instances in which Trump and a number of his aides, advisers, and family members are talking with figures linked in various ways to Russia. These conversations broadly fall into two disquieting categories: what the hacked information being disseminated by WikiLeaks might contain; and what Russia, its officials, operatives, or cutouts could do for the campaign. Even without clear evidence of criminal conspiracy, there’s plenty of evidence of collusion in what amounts to a consistently damning portrait of a campaign welcoming—and egging on—election interference.

The Mueller report represents a clear narrative on interference in the 2016 election. Russia chose to intervene in the election in an effort to promote Trump and damage Hillary Clinton. The Trump campaign welcomed their help and encouraged it, both publicly and privately. Trump’s “Russia, if you’re listening” comment from July 2016 is presented as evidence in the report, as are more than one hundred interactions between campaign officials and figures with ties to Russia.

https://newrepublic.com/article/153618/mueller-report-shows-trump-collusion
Click to expand...
So one can parrot Trump talking points until they are blue in the face...or orange...but the truth is Trump was nnt exonerated and there indeed collusion.
 
Cinnabar said:
Afraid to read the report or even listen to someone else doing the work by reading it for you? Just wow!!!



So one can parrot Trump talking points until they are blue in the face...or orange...but the truth is Trump was nnt exonerated and there indeed collusion.
Click to expand...

If there was obstruction and collusion by all means go for it lol.

Why are democrats wasting time reciting Mullet’s Holy Writ? Press on with impeachment.
 
CharacterAssassin said:
No, that's not what he's saying.

Please stop feasting on your own shit.
Click to expand...

I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this lol.

Did the writer compare the Trump campaign kinda/sorta collusion with the Russians with the DNC/Hillary campaign *actual* collusion with the Russians?

Or does he have an ideological blind spot?
 
dukkha said:
next up: Congress reads "Green Eggs and Ham" Sam-I-Am
Click to expand...

Suess was at least entertaining lol.

Democrats are engaged in a vain attempt to keep the collusion narrative alive. Or is it the obstruction narrative—it’s hard to keep track. The Resistance has an astounding lack of self-awareness. Even if Trump underlings were egging-on the Russians in releasing Hillary’s dirty laundry—it would have been impossible without Hillary’s *dirty laundry*.

Not to mention the fact Hillary’s campaign and the DNC colluded with Steele, who colluded with Russians, in releasing the Steele Dossier, which is Russian propaganda, which Comey and Brennan are both blaming each other for becoming part of the Russian investigation.

The latter is the real story. Collusion is yesterday’s Fake News.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top