What if it's found that Trump did help the Russians

[The Observer 641]

Just now, TimmySmith said:

   Totally agree. In theory a country could send millions of people here to support a certain party and that party could reciprocate with money directed to those people that actually finds it's way back to the country.  In theory. 

Just remember, right now we have Russia doing everything to help Trump win.  So this seems awesome. But it won't always work out in your favor. Maybe in the next election, China tells a Democratic candidate that it has some dirt on Trump. Or if it's 2024, dirt on Nikki Haley. You'd be cool with the Democrat promising to lift sanctions in return for this dirt?    This is an important time in US history. We are now going to decide if we want other countries determining our leaders. Remember that and don't cry when it's not in your favor next time. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

1 minute ago, The Observer said:

Just remember, right now we have Russia doing everything to help Trump win. 

Trump is the only one cleared of collusion with the Russians.  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,880]

Just now, TimmySmith said:

Trump is the only one cleared of collusion with the Russians.  

You can't even make this stuff up anymore. 

does anyone forget where the steel Dossier came from that the Democrats commissioned?

Who are the Russians helping again?

[The Observer 641]

2 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

Trump is the only one cleared of collusion with the Russians.  

"Collusion couldn't be proved. If I was confident the president committed no crimes, I would have stated so"

-Mueller

OJ wasn't found guilty either.  hth

[drobeski 3,061]

1 hour ago, The Observer said:

June 12th, 2019.  That was the day that a sitting president announced he would accept help from a hostile power to stay in office.  The day Donald J Trump admitted he is a traitor. On camera.

What was the date Obama GAVE help to a hostile power ? Referring to Iran. 

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,880]

Just now, The Observer said:

"Collusion couldn't be proved. If I was confident the president committed no crimes, I would have stated so"

Mueller

OJ wasn't found guilty either.  hth

I know you long for the days of Stalinist Russia, but in this country prosecutors don't prove innocence. They prove guilt. And when they can't prove guilt then you are assumed innocent.

Maybe you should Read the US Constitution and other books explaining the law every now and then instead of the communist manifesto.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,992]

34 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I know you long for the days of Stalinist Russia, but in this country prosecutors don't prove innocence. They prove guilt. And when they can't prove guilt then you are assumed innocent.

Maybe you should Read the US Constitution and other books explaining the law every now and then instead of the communist manifesto.

No kidding. I explained this to him the other day. Thick. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

59 minutes ago, The Observer said:

"Collusion couldn't be proved. If I was confident the president committed no crimes, I would have stated so"

-Mueller

OJ wasn't found guilty either.  hth

OJ went a trial.  Trump hasn't even been accused.   You do know the difference, right?  Many on your side don't. Judging from your OJ comment, I put you in the latter. hth

 

 

 

[The Observer 641]

8 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

OJ went a trial.  Trump hasn't even been accused.   You do know the difference, right?  Many on your side don't. Judging from your OJ comment, I put you in the latter. hth

 

 

 

Cool.  Take away the OJ part and just read Mueller's:

"Collusion couldn't be proved. If I was confident the president committed no crimes, I would have stated so"

-Mueller

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,880]

2 minutes ago, The Observer said:

Cool.  Take away the OJ part and just read Mueller's:

"Collusion couldn't be proved. If I was confident the president committed no crimes, I would have stated so"

-Mueller

Again, prosecutors DON'T prove innocence.  They prove guilt.  At this point you're just a sheep, spitting out daily talking points.

Sorry if the truth offends you, but it must be said.  I'm here if you need help navigating out of all of those lies you've been brainwashed to believe.

[Mr. Hand 482]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Again, prosecutors DON'T prove innocence.  They prove guilt.  At this point you're just a sheep, spitting out daily talking points.

Sorry if the truth offends you, but it must be said.  I'm here if you need help navigating out of all of those lies you've been brainwashed to believe.

[The Observer 641]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Again, prosecutors DON'T prove innocence.  They prove guilt.  At this point you're just a sheep, spitting out daily talking points.

Sorry if the truth offends you, but it must be said.  I'm here if you need help navigating out of all of those lies you've been brainwashed to believe.

"If I was confident the president committed no crimes, I would have stated so"

In case you hadn't heard, he went in knowing he didn't have the option of indicting Trump.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Just now, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Again, prosecutors DON'T prove innocence.  They prove guilt.  At this point you're just sheep, spitting out daily talking points.

He lost.  Everyone knows it.  

After everything is said and done, there is isn't a person alive who truly knows what Mueller's job actually was.   We all thought we knew.  But we didn't.

 

[drobeski 3,061]

1 minute ago, TimmySmith said:

He lost.  Everyone knows it.  

After everything is said and done, there is isn't a person alive who truly knows what Mueller's job actually was.   We all thought we knew.  But we didn't.

 

His job was the be the insurance policy...turns out he couldt pay out in the end.

They knew what his job was...and it wasn't to find or prove collusion ..it was to try and sink trump any way they could. 

[Cdub100 3,850]

13 minutes ago, The Observer said:

"If I was confident the president committed no crimes, I would have stated so"

In case you hadn't heard, he went in knowing he didn't have the option of indicting Trump.

In case you haven't heard...

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,”  - The Mueller Report

[TimmySmith 2,782]

31 minutes ago, drobeski said:

His job was the be the insurance policy...turns out he couldt pay out in the end.

They knew what his job was...and it wasn't to find or prove collusion ..it was to try and sink trump any way they could. 

I don't disagree, but when he failed, what exactly was his job in the first place?  The end was supposed to justify the means.  When it didn't, no one even knows what the means was. 

[drobeski 3,061]

12 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

I don't disagree, but when he failed, what exactly was his job in the first place?  The end was supposed to justify the means.  When it didn't, no one even knows what the means was. 

Hopefully land an obstruction charge, and if that failed, go out and try to damage politically as much as possible with the hope of influencing the election.  The original purpose was to influence the mid terms, which they succeeded...but the real ultimate goal is to somehow handcuff the president and prevent him from shining light on the real serious treasonous crimes of the Obama administration.  

She wasn't supposed to lose...

[The Observer 641]

34 minutes ago, drobeski said:

Hopefully land an obstruction charge, and if that failed, go out and try to damage politically as much as possible with the hope of influencing the election.  The original purpose was to influence the mid terms, which they succeeded...but the real ultimate goal is to somehow handcuff the president and prevent him from shining light on the real serious treasonous crimes of the Obama administration.  

She wasn't supposed to lose...

Be honest, were you able to keep a straight face when you typed that?

[drobeski 3,061]

2 minutes ago, The Observer said:

Be honest, were you able to keep a straight face when you typed 

So you agree ....no obstruction 

 

[The Observer 641]

Just now, drobeski said:

So you agree ....no obstruction 

 

"If I thought he wasn't guilty of any crimes, I would have said so" -Robert Mueller

[drobeski 3,061]

Just now, The Observer said:

"If I thought he wasn't guilty of any crimes, I would have said so" -Robert Mueller

yes my post addressed that political hack maneuver.  

like I've stated time and time again...those Democrats know how dumb their base is.

[The Observer 641]

Just now, drobeski said:

yes my post addressed that political hack maneuver.  

like I've stated time and time again...those Democrats know how dumb their base is.

You're the idiot saying no obstruction. When ten different instances of obstruction were listed in the report and over 1000 prosecutors said that Trump would have been arrested if he wasn't President.   Oh, there's certainly dumb at play here. 

[drobeski 3,061]

Just now, The Observer said:

You're the idiot saying no obstruction. When ten different instances of obstruction were listed in the report and over 1000 prosecutors said that Trump would have been arrested if he wasn't President.   Oh, there's certainly dumb at play here. 

Wow 10 charges of obstruction...I'll need a link to that. 

[The Observer 641]

Just now, drobeski said:

Wow 10 charges of obstruction...I'll need a link to that. 

Instances.  Not charges.  Learn to read.

Part 2 of the report. Google it.

[tanatastic 2,062]

I don’t believe Russians had anything to do with the election. I also don’t think Barry and Hilary are some super secret criminal cabal of murder and Dr Evil grand schemes lol. People have wild imaginations, in real life things are way more dull and unexciting than the conspiracies cook up. Trump won because he represented a change of attitude and direction the country wanted.

[drobeski 3,061]

1 minute ago, The Observer said:

Instances.  Not charges.  Learn to read.

Part 2 of the report. Google it.

And instances mean what ? 

[drobeski 3,061]

On 6/13/2019 at 11:16 AM, The Observer said:

June 12th, 2019.  That was the day that a sitting president announced he would accept help from a hostile power to stay in office.  The day Donald J Trump admitted he is a traitor. On 

https://files.catbox.moe/0lny7j.png

[Baker Boy 1,691]

So Hillary paid foreigners to dig up dirt on Trump and spread lies about him, why is that OK

[TimmySmith 2,782]

3 minutes ago, Baker Boy said:

So Hillary paid foreigners to dig up dirt on Trump and spread lies about him, why is that OK

Payments to Russians for dirt on Trump has been carefully avoided to this point. They didn't give Steele the info out of the kindness of their hearts. If people ever demand details about this, Steele won't be alive for another 5 minutes.

[drobeski 3,061]

DOJ Admits FBI Never Saw Crowdstrike Report on DNC Russian Hacking Claim…

Posted by sundance

The foundation for the Russian election interference narrative is built on the claim of Russians hacking the servers of the Democrat National Committee (DNC), and subsequently releasing damaging emails that showed the DNC worked to help Hillary Clinton and eliminate Bernie Sanders.

Despite the Russian ‘hacking’ claim the DOJ previously admitted the DNC would not let FBI investigators review the DNC server.  Instead the DNC provided the FBI with analysis of a technical review done through a cyber-security contract with Crowdstrike.

The narrative around the DNC hack claim was always sketchy; many people believe the DNC email data was downloaded onto a flash drive and leaked.  In a court filing (full pdf below) the scale of sketchy has increased exponentially.

Suspecting they could prove the Russian hacking claim was false, lawyers representing Roger Stone requested the full Crowdstrike report on the DNC hack.  When the DOJ responded to the Stone motion they made a rather significant admission.  Not only did the FBI not review the DNC server, the FBI/DOJ never even saw the Crowdstrike report.

Yes, that is correct.  The FBI and DOJ were only allowed to see a “draft” report prepared by Crowdstrike, and that report was redacted… and that redacted draft is the “last version of the report produced”; meaning, there are no unredacted & final versions.

 

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!

 

This means the FBI and DOJ, and all of the downstream claims by the intelligence apparatus; including the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, all the way to the Weissmann/Mueller report and the continued claims therein; were based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S. government and the U.S. Department of Justice taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party….. despite their inability to examine the server and/or actually see an unredacted technical forensic report from the investigating contractor.

The entire apparatus of the U.S. government just took their word for it…

…and used the claim therein as an official position….

…which led to a subsequent government claim, in court, of absolute certainty that Russia hacked the DNC.

Think about that for a few minutes.

The full intelligence apparatus of the United States government is relying on a report they have never even been allowed to see or confirm; that was created by a paid contractor for a political victim that would not allow the FBI to investigate their claim.

The DNC server issue is foundation, and cornerstone, of the U.S. government’s position on “Russia hacking” and the election interference narrative; and that narrative is based on zero factual evidence to affirm the U.S. government’s position.

…”the government does not need to prove at the defendant’s trial that the Russians hacked the DNC”… (pg 3)

 

 

Ridiculous.

You couldn’t make this nonsense up if you tried…

Here’s the full filing

[Cdub100 3,850]

Shocking

[5-Points 3,408]

On 6/13/2019 at 10:53 AM, The Observer said:

"If I was confident the president committed no crimes, I would have stated so"

In case you hadn't heard, he went in knowing he didn't have the option of indicting Trump.

He could very well have issued a sealed indictment if he had found evidence of a crime. Which could then be unsealed and charges filed after Trump completes his term(s)

He didn't find the evidence to support issuing an indictment, sealed or not. 

[drobeski 3,061]

3 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

Shocking

CNN is all over it

[The Observer 641]

Not Russia-related, but didn't want to start a new thread.

Not liking the results he was seeing from Rasmussen, CNN, Gallup, etc., Trump's administration hired its own pollsters to conduct polls to see how Trump is stacking up against Biden and some other candidates in various states.  As anyone with a brain could have predicted, the polls came back showing the same results. That Trump was losing many of the battleground states that won him the electoral votes in 2016.

Instead of making the decision to make adjustments and expand to simply playing to his base, Trump decided to fire the pollsters.

I wonder if there's a single person left in the White House who is allowed to give Trump advice or question his moves. It sure doesn't seem it.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

[drobeski 3,061]

 

[drobeski 3,061]

 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,992]

The one poll had Trump behind Biden by 10 points in Florida. Anyone with a clue knows that's impossible. Behind in the mid-west? Sure. Behind 10 in Florida? No. This feels like a rope a dope situation. Trump wants Biden. An old white guy who's dirty, creepy and stupid. And a draft dodger too. Perfect tomato can. 

[Meglamaniac 385]

49 minutes ago, The Observer said:

Not Russia-related, but didn't want to start a new thread.

Not liking the results he was seeing from Rasmussen, CNN, Gallup, etc., Trump's administration hired its own pollsters to conduct polls to see how Trump is stacking up against Biden and some other candidates in various states.  As anyone with a brain could have predicted, the polls came back showing the same results. That Trump was losing many of the battleground states that won him the electoral votes in 2016.

Instead of making the decision to make adjustments and expand to simply playing to his base, Trump decided to fire the pollsters.

I wonder if there's a single person left in the White House who is allowed to give Trump advice or question his moves. It sure doesn't seem it.

A. Neither you or I have any idea if steps have been taken to improve the poll results.

B. The results had nothing to do with the firings, the leakage of internal information to a media source had everything to do with the firings.

 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The one poll had Trump behind Biden by 10 points in Florida. Anyone with a clue knows that's impossible. Behind in the mid-west? Sure. Behind 10 in Florida? No. This feels like a rope a dope situation. Trump wants Biden. An old white guy who's dirty, creepy and stupid. And a draft dodger too. Perfect tomato can. 

All these pollsters work the same.  They failed in 2016 and they will fail now because no one is going to tell them the truth.  And if the info gets leaked out, then they are more incompetent than just getting bad info.