Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
) or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.""No evidence of conspiracy with Russia is clearly stated"Top of Page 2 says "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired (colluded
Oh, I see we're back to not understanding "proof" vs. "evidence". You said the report concluded there was no evidence. It did not conclude that and clearly states as much in the summary you point to as your source.
As usual you are defining the other side's various positions in a narrow way that suits your argument. Most reasonable people never alleged the vast international conspiracy you are straw-manning. Most simply claim that Trump welcomed and lied about Russia's support of him, and in doing so compromised his own position, and that there may also have been some collaboration on a smaller scale, say for example meeting in secret to discuss their mutual interest in defeating Clinton, sharing polling data, etc..
IOW, after throwing two years and the unlimited resources of the Federal government at looking, they did not find any collusion or conspiracy
This is why letting Trump define the story in terms of "collusion!" was such a bad move for politicians and the media. IMO it really doesn't matter whether and to what degree they conspired with the Russians to commit illegal acts. As soon as the campaign welcomed Russian assistance and then lied about it (not to mention pushing forward with business interests in Russia and then lying about that too) they were compromised. A president who can be exposed and embarrassed by a foreign adversary at any time if he crosses them is a far bigger deal than whether any of their actions violate federal criminal law.
This statement is correct. With regard to the IRA's social media exploits, Mueller found that certain members of the Trump campaign did cooperate in some ways, but didn't realize that the people they were cooperating with were Russian. They were fooled. That is a legal exoneration (since criminal coordination must be done knowingly). But with regard to the GRU's release of hacked materials, while Mueller was not able to prove coordination, he also was not able to establish that coordination didn't happen. The Stone stuff is redacted, so we don't know exactly what he found there. The Manafort stuff, though, likely amounted to coordination ... but evidence sufficient to establish coordination couldn't be obtained because Manafort, Kilimnick, Putin and various other persons who may have been able to provide such evidence all refused to cooperate with the investigation. That's not an exoneration. It's just a legal dead end.
You obviously don't get your books from Texas...
Nope. Barr said there wasn't. And he is the top lawyer in the land! So he must be right.
From Texas... Chapter 20: The Advanced Conservatism
Better yet...show me the evidence that you've seen....not heard about.
No...you made a claim and have been asked to support it.
https://nypost.com/2019/04/19/top-10-things-the-media-got-wrong-about-collusion-and-obstruction/
I am sure that they'll have to be lies by the MSM reported by the MSM as being lies in order to be accepted here.
How about lies I have accepted at all? Or anyone here. Start with those. Just a link or two.
Board Cop Sho. Ignores facts that don't fit his shtick and then attacks the source. So typical.
You made a claim that people here believed the lies. That is what was asked of you. You have provided nothing. In addition lies made by the MSM and democrats was the first claim. You’ve shown nothing.
I've never claimed that. Sho thinks there have been no lies from the media and Democrats about Russia.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
NY Post: Skews/Hyper-Partisan Right; Nonsense damaging to public discourse
no strutting needed...it took absolutely zero energy to ask you to back up your claims and watch you continue to refuse to do so.
Also...I never claimed what he said...and just how many of his posts in there have been about me?
