So now that it is documented that the Russians aided Trump in 2016

[Earl]

No collusion, insufficient proof to pursue obstruction.

[Darth Omar]

is it any wonder looking ahead to 2020 that the White House has dragged its feet to ensure the next election won't be tainted by Russian efforts, why would they, it worked for them once, and as the Trumpkins tell us, to concern oneself with Russia is only Russiaphobia

Logic has never been the Russia-phobes strong suit lol.

How do you know the Russians will make FB memes just for Trump next time?

[evince]

No collusion, insufficient proof to pursue obstruction.

that is not in the Mueller report



go read the actual thing

[evince]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/polit...pdf/index.html


tell us which page your claims are on



then tell us the page and paragraph

[Earl]

No collusion, insufficient proof to pursue obstruction.

[evince]

what page and paragraph you lying shit weasel

[Earl]

“Barr was joined by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as he outlined the findings from Mueller's investigation and explained their process for review and their decisions to redact certain material in the report.”

"After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government-sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes," Barr said, adding that Americans "should be grateful" for the findings.

He said that Mueller's report also went on to "consider whether certain actions of the president could amount to obstruction of the Special Counsel investigation."

Barr touched on some critical points, explaining that Trump is not invoking executive privilege over any portions of the report, though other categories of material will be redacted. He also revealed that the White House counsel, as well as Trump's personal lawyer, were able to review a redacted version of the report in advance.

He said he will release that redacted version to Congress at 11 a.m. ET Thursday, describing the redactions as "limited." It will then be posted publicly.

But as the DOJ tangles with Congress over redactions, Barr vowed to make a less-redacted version available to certain lawmakers.

Barr, meanwhile, sought to head off another controversy during his press conference over the issue of obstruction of justice. The Mueller probe did not reach a conclusion on whether the president committed this offense, but Barr and Rosenstein determined there was not sufficient evidence on that front.”

Ya esta.

[Granule]

is it any wonder looking ahead to 2020 that the White House has dragged its feet to ensure the next election won't be tainted by Russian efforts, why would they, it worked for them once, and as the Trumpkins tell us, to concern oneself with Russia is only Russiaphobia

HRC is dirtier than Trump will ever be, and not a peep from you diapered psychopaths. lol

Take this comment and stick it back up your ass.

[Stretch]

Wikileaks is a journalist organization? They have reporters? They have press credentials?

Journalists, more like reporting the news...you know...like all those lefty leakers who leaked to our press for the past 2 years.........all they do is release already gathered information, documents, reports that OTHER persons have compiled.

[JPF]

Journalists, more like reporting the news...you know...like all those lefty leakers who leaked to our press for the past 2 years.........all they do is release already gathered information, documents, reports that OTHER persons have compiled.

Press organizations usually confirm the items that are being released. Such confirmations are not done by Wikileaks. If you want to call Wikileaks a "journalist organization", you are broadening the definition to include beauty shop gossipers as "journalist organizations". Impartiality is a quaint notion but at their heart, journalists are supposed to work for their readers.... Clearly Wikileaks does not do that. They settle personal scores. Otherwise, you'd see dumps of information from ISIS, Al Queda, North Korea, Russia, etc... Western Democracies are their only target. If they were lead by a Muslim (like Al Jazerra is), they would gain zero traction with the Trump folks.

[Yurt]

It isn't documented. The IC said they had no effect on the outcome.

Can democrats be honest about anything?

[Stretch]

Press organizations usually confirm the items that are being released. Such confirmations are not done by Wikileaks. If you want to call Wikileaks a "journalist organization", you are broadening the definition to include beauty shop gossipers as "journalist organizations". Impartiality is a quaint notion but at their heart, journalists are supposed to work for their readers.... Clearly Wikileaks does not do that. They settle personal scores. Otherwise, you'd see dumps of information from ISIS, Al Queda, North Korea, Russia, etc... Western Democracies are their only target. If they were lead by a Muslim (like Al Jazerra is), they would gain zero traction with the Trump folks.

Wiki has a 100% accuracy record in what they release. They've leaked facts on Dems, Pubs and governments around the world.
When their releases become public, heads roll. Like those involved with tanking Bernie Sanders. Dems never fought it,
they just started firing people or moving them out of whatever job they had into another "quieter" position.

[JPF]

Wiki has a 100% accuracy record in what they release. They've leaked facts on Dems, Pubs and governments around the world.
When their releases become public, heads roll. Like those involved with tanking Bernie Sanders. Dems never fought it,
they just started firing people or moving them out of whatever job they had into another "quieter" position.

Really? 100% accuracy? Who has certified this?

[Stretch]

Really? 100% accuracy? Who has certified this?

Read all the posts from 2016. I supplied one example already.

[JPF]

Read all the posts from 2016. I supplied one example already.

Again, who has certified that everything they published is 100% accurate?