Barr and Durham

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Brennan among those who went on tv and said there was evidence of collusion? And, denied it under oath?

I don’t know, do you want to provide some links instead of just speculating?

Still no evidence of collusion.

The Senate GOP Intelligence Committee report outlines specifics of collusion. You may want to read it.

You wish there were but there isn't.

“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the acting chairman of the Senate panel, said in a statement.

Read the report. Rubio is flat out lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Brennan among those who went on tv and said there was evidence of collusion? And, denied it under oath?

I don’t know, do you want to provide some links instead of just speculating?

Still no evidence of collusion.

The Senate GOP Intelligence Committee report outlines specifics of collusion. You may want to read it.

You wish there were but there isn't.

“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the acting chairman of the Senate panel, said in a statement.

Read the report. Rubio is flat out lying.

How is it that the Senate committee found collusion but Mueller did not? Can you point something specific?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Brennan among those who went on tv and said there was evidence of collusion? And, denied it under oath?

I don’t know, do you want to provide some links instead of just speculating?

Still no evidence of collusion.

The Senate GOP Intelligence Committee report outlines specifics of collusion. You may want to read it.

You wish there were but there isn't.

“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the acting chairman of the Senate panel, said in a statement.

From the report:

While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump's electoral prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases, created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following ther release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort.

--

Roger Stone drafted pro-Russia tweets for Trump in July 2016, as he was teasing more WikiLeaks dumps. "Many of the draft tweets ... mentioned a new peace deal with Putin, such as "I want a new detente with Russia under Putin."

--

How about the GOP members of the intel committee who knew about the use of Russia help, and the attempted use of foreign help again from Ukraine and yet still voted against removal.

Marco Rubio
Richard Burr
James Risch
Susan Collins
Roy Blunt
Tom Cotton
John Cornyn
Ben Sasse

Traitorous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Brennan among those who went on tv and said there was evidence of collusion? And, denied it under oath?

I don’t know, do you want to provide some links instead of just speculating?

Still no evidence of collusion.

The Senate GOP Intelligence Committee report outlines specifics of collusion. You may want to read it.

You wish there were but there isn't.

“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the acting chairman of the Senate panel, said in a statement.

From the report:

While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump's electoral prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases, created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following ther release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort.

--

Roger Stone drafted pro-Russia tweets for Trump in July 2016, as he was teasing more WikiLeaks dumps. "Many of the draft tweets ... mentioned a new peace deal with Putin, such as "I want a new detente with Russia under Putin."

--

How about the GOP members of the intel committee who knew about the use of Russia help, and the attempted use of foreign help again from Ukraine and yet still voted against removal.

Marco Rubio
Richard Burr
James Risch
Susan Collins
Roy Blunt
Tom Cotton
John Cornyn
Ben Sasse

Traitorous.

Still waiting for evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russian government. Mueller didn’t find any. No one who testified to Schiff saw any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Brennan among those who went on tv and said there was evidence of collusion? And, denied it under oath?

I don’t know, do you want to provide some links instead of just speculating?

Still no evidence of collusion.

The Senate GOP Intelligence Committee report outlines specifics of collusion. You may want to read it.

You wish there were but there isn't.

“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the acting chairman of the Senate panel, said in a statement.

From the report:

While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump's electoral prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases, created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following ther release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort.

--

Roger Stone drafted pro-Russia tweets for Trump in July 2016, as he was teasing more WikiLeaks dumps. "Many of the draft tweets ... mentioned a new peace deal with Putin, such as "I want a new detente with Russia under Putin."

--

How about the GOP members of the intel committee who knew about the use of Russia help, and the attempted use of foreign help again from Ukraine and yet still voted against removal.

Marco Rubio
Richard Burr
James Risch
Susan Collins
Roy Blunt
Tom Cotton
John Cornyn
Ben Sasse

Traitorous.

Still waiting for evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russian government. Mueller didn’t find any. No one who testified to Schiff saw any.

Not what Mueller said. He said he could not prove it to the level needed in a court of law, but that was mostly due to the obstruction, lying, pleading the Fifth and destruction of evidence. He also said, if he could exonerate the president, he would. He didn't so...

And beyond that, read the Senate report that is quoted above. The Conspiracy against the US is outlined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Brennan among those who went on tv and said there was evidence of collusion? And, denied it under oath?

I don’t know, do you want to provide some links instead of just speculating?

Still no evidence of collusion.

The Senate GOP Intelligence Committee report outlines specifics of collusion. You may want to read it.

You wish there were but there isn't.

“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the acting chairman of the Senate panel, said in a statement.

From the report:

While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump's electoral prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases, created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following ther release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort.

--

Roger Stone drafted pro-Russia tweets for Trump in July 2016, as he was teasing more WikiLeaks dumps. "Many of the draft tweets ... mentioned a new peace deal with Putin, such as "I want a new detente with Russia under Putin."

--

How about the GOP members of the intel committee who knew about the use of Russia help, and the attempted use of foreign help again from Ukraine and yet still voted against removal.

Marco Rubio
Richard Burr
James Risch
Susan Collins
Roy Blunt
Tom Cotton
John Cornyn
Ben Sasse

Traitorous.

Still waiting for evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russian government. Mueller didn’t find any. No one who testified to Schiff saw any.

Not what Mueller said. He said he could not prove it to the level needed in a court of law, but that was mostly due to the obstruction, lying, pleading the Fifth and destruction of evidence. He also said, if he could exonerate the president, he would. He didn't so...

And beyond that, read the Senate report that is quoted above. The Conspiracy against the US is outlined.

Just one example of one instance?

[Anonymous]

No, read the report, it is outlined in detail. You claiming it isn't so because you haven't read it doesn't make it the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, read the report, it is outlined in detail. You claiming it isn't so because you haven't read it doesn't make it the case.

Your claiming that it does, without one example recognized as legal collusion by an official US Government doesn't make it so. Your interpretation of the report doesn't make it so either.

[Anonymous]

This entire discussion:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Brennan among those who went on tv and said there was evidence of collusion? And, denied it under oath?

I don’t know, do you want to provide some links instead of just speculating?

Still no evidence of collusion.

The Senate GOP Intelligence Committee report outlines specifics of collusion. You may want to read it.

You wish there were but there isn't.

“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the acting chairman of the Senate panel, said in a statement.

From the report:

While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump's electoral prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases, created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following ther release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort.

--

Roger Stone drafted pro-Russia tweets for Trump in July 2016, as he was teasing more WikiLeaks dumps. "Many of the draft tweets ... mentioned a new peace deal with Putin, such as "I want a new detente with Russia under Putin."

--

How about the GOP members of the intel committee who knew about the use of Russia help, and the attempted use of foreign help again from Ukraine and yet still voted against removal.

Marco Rubio
Richard Burr
James Risch
Susan Collins
Roy Blunt
Tom Cotton
John Cornyn
Ben Sasse

Traitorous.

Still waiting for evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russian government. Mueller didn’t find any. No one who testified to Schiff saw any.

Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, literally handed sensitive GOP polling data to Konstatine Klimnik, a member of the Russian GRU (Government). That information was used by Cambridge Analytica to influence and microtarget on social media, and by Wikileaks a known Russian GRU operation.

It is in the report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, read the report, it is outlined in detail. You claiming it isn't so because you haven't read it doesn't make it the case.

Your claiming that it does, without one example recognized as legal collusion by an official US Government doesn't make it so. Your interpretation of the report doesn't make it so either.

Uh there is no "legal collusion" by any US legal code. It is a colloquial term to cover Conspiracy, Aiding and Abetting, Fraud and a number of other crimes outlined in both the Mueller Report and the Senate Report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, read the report, it is outlined in detail. You claiming it isn't so because you haven't read it doesn't make it the case.

Your claiming that it does, without one example recognized as legal collusion by an official US Government doesn't make it so. Your interpretation of the report doesn't make it so either.

Uh there is no "legal collusion" by any US legal code. It is a colloquial term to cover Conspiracy, Aiding and Abetting, Fraud and a number of other crimes outlined in both the Mueller Report and the Senate Report.

+1. This issue has been covered so many times, if anyone doesn't understand it by now, they're not informed enough to take seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, read the report, it is outlined in detail. You claiming it isn't so because you haven't read it doesn't make it the case.

Your claiming that it does, without one example recognized as legal collusion by an official US Government doesn't make it so. Your interpretation of the report doesn't make it so either.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/opinion/trump-russia-2016-report.html

It isn't just my opinion. It is fact. Read the report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't Brennan among those who went on tv and said there was evidence of collusion? And, denied it under oath?

I don’t know, do you want to provide some links instead of just speculating?

Still no evidence of collusion.

The Senate GOP Intelligence Committee report outlines specifics of collusion. You may want to read it.

You wish there were but there isn't.

“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the acting chairman of the Senate panel, said in a statement.

From the report:

While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump's electoral prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases, created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following ther release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort.

--

Roger Stone drafted pro-Russia tweets for Trump in July 2016, as he was teasing more WikiLeaks dumps. "Many of the draft tweets ... mentioned a new peace deal with Putin, such as "I want a new detente with Russia under Putin."

--

How about the GOP members of the intel committee who knew about the use of Russia help, and the attempted use of foreign help again from Ukraine and yet still voted against removal.

Marco Rubio
Richard Burr
James Risch
Susan Collins
Roy Blunt
Tom Cotton
John Cornyn
Ben Sasse

Traitorous.

Still waiting for evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russian government. Mueller didn’t find any. No one who testified to Schiff saw any.

Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, literally handed sensitive GOP polling data to Konstatine Klimnik, a member of the Russian GRU (Government). That information was used by Cambridge Analytica to influence and microtarget on social media, and by Wikileaks a known Russian GRU operation.

It is in the report.

Wikileaks is not the Russian government. Show me the sentence in the report, one that isn’t filled with weasel words like “likely know” and “significant indications”. You’re making the assertion, not I. You back it up.

[Anonymous]

Mike Pompeo disagrees with your assessment.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cia-wikileaks-idUSKBN17F2L8