Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
Are you sure that was over George and not his wife?
Runnin
Well-known member
The blackmail tape is still very plausible, imho. Whatever the lying idiot said and did in that hotel that would be embarrassing for him, you can rest assured that the Russians have it on tape. That's just SOP.
Runnin
Well-known member
Sorry for being able to keep it in my pants over an innocuous email between Donald Trump Jr. and this guy:
Your desperation reeks.
I'm not of the belief that there's nothing to the Russian angle, but when you guys continually trot out the same recycled conspiratorial, toothless bitter fluff it gets old.
This (the email) is a nothing burger and you know it. Or at least I hope you do.
This hasn't aged well.
In all fairness, you also fell for the gorilla channel ****.
I’ll give you a cookie if you can refute any single point in my post.
Hint: calling Trump a liar, thief, idiot, sexist, or racist, etc etc ad nauseam doesn’t count
Runnin
Well-known member
What's the gorilla channel?
Runnin
Well-known member
1. innocuous. 2. nothing burger. 3. toothless bitter fluff
The Trump Jr. email was damning enough that the President felt the need to draft a false statement. Of particular interest is that no one else on that plane, including his lawyers, advisors, etc. would do the dirty work of lying about the meeting. Only the President himself had enough gravitas, aka lack of morals, to blatantly lie that way. Of course, making Jr. sign his name to it negates any manhood points gained.
The false statement clearly shows they thought they were in a pickle. The meeting was straight up collusion, no other word for it.
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
to be fair Manafartov represents the campaign improper...beeg difference
57Brave
Well-known member
just like Segretti, Macgruder,Colson E Howard Hunt were campaign improper and Mitchell,Haldeman and Erlichman were campaign proper ?
oops
...................
Liddy, I forgot Liddy
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
well...I hadn't thought about that
57Brave
Well-known member
Despite ample public evidence of secret collaboration between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election and since, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) is repeatedly insisting that he’s seen no clear evidence of “collusion” in the chamber’s investigation.
“I’m not sure how to put it any clearer than I said it before,” Burr told reporters Wednesday. “We have no factual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”
In an NBC News report on Burr’s remarks, reporter Ken Dilanian characterized his conclusion as a claim that the committee has “uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.” But Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, argued that this was a misunderstanding of both the kind of evidence that is available and what kind of evidence is acceptable.
“Let’s talk about direct vs circumstantial evidence,” said Swalwell in a thread of tweets. “The law treats them the same. @SenatorBurr says there’s no “direct evidence of collusion” b/w Trump & Russians. Put aside the fact that @MarkWarner doesn’t agree w/ this. What matters is if there’s evidence of collusion.”
He continued: “What is circumstantial evidence? Suppose I’m trying to prove that my son Nelson ate some freshly baked brownies that we made together. When I turned away, all of the brownies were out. When I turned back, one was gone… I didn’t see Nelson eat a brownie — that would be direct evidence. But when I returned, he had crumbs on his shirt, and chocolate on his lips and fingers. That would be considered circumstantial evidence that Nelson ate a brownie.”
But as Swalwell explained, that’s still strong and credible evidence.
“It’s not direct, but that doesn’t matter. The law says it’s treated exactly the same way. So, @SenatorBurr, have you seen any circumstantial evidence of collusion?” he concluded.
On Twitter, reporter Natasha Bertrand cited an additional compelling instance of circumstantial evidence: “Chuck Rosenberg gave me another example: you wake up with snow on your front lawn. Do you have direct evidence that it snowed? No. But the circumstantial evidence is strong, and far more likely than someone driving up to your house and throwing snow on your lawn.”
“I’m not sure how to put it any clearer than I said it before,” Burr told reporters Wednesday. “We have no factual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”
In an NBC News report on Burr’s remarks, reporter Ken Dilanian characterized his conclusion as a claim that the committee has “uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.” But Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, argued that this was a misunderstanding of both the kind of evidence that is available and what kind of evidence is acceptable.
“Let’s talk about direct vs circumstantial evidence,” said Swalwell in a thread of tweets. “The law treats them the same. @SenatorBurr says there’s no “direct evidence of collusion” b/w Trump & Russians. Put aside the fact that @MarkWarner doesn’t agree w/ this. What matters is if there’s evidence of collusion.”
He continued: “What is circumstantial evidence? Suppose I’m trying to prove that my son Nelson ate some freshly baked brownies that we made together. When I turned away, all of the brownies were out. When I turned back, one was gone… I didn’t see Nelson eat a brownie — that would be direct evidence. But when I returned, he had crumbs on his shirt, and chocolate on his lips and fingers. That would be considered circumstantial evidence that Nelson ate a brownie.”
But as Swalwell explained, that’s still strong and credible evidence.
“It’s not direct, but that doesn’t matter. The law says it’s treated exactly the same way. So, @SenatorBurr, have you seen any circumstantial evidence of collusion?” he concluded.
On Twitter, reporter Natasha Bertrand cited an additional compelling instance of circumstantial evidence: “Chuck Rosenberg gave me another example: you wake up with snow on your front lawn. Do you have direct evidence that it snowed? No. But the circumstantial evidence is strong, and far more likely than someone driving up to your house and throwing snow on your lawn.”
sturg33
I
Lol moving a goalpost?
I've said from day one there is no.evidence on Trump's treason or.collusion or whatever you want to call it. 2 years later you guys wake up everyday hoping "TODAYS THE DAY!!!'
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
there might not be evidence of collusion but there is plenty of evidence that crimes were comitted to cover up something. If you choose to believe that the people around Trump are so stupid that they keep committing crimes to cover up nothing then so be it. The saying "the coverup is worse than the crime" has been around Waahington for a long time.
Trump is going to prison after he leaves office unless he dies. I will make any bet you want based on that. And to be clear, a pardon that spares him prison counts the same aa going to prison because the point is that he is a crook and will be convicted.
Trump is going to prison after he leaves office unless he dies. I will make any bet you want based on that. And to be clear, a pardon that spares him prison counts the same aa going to prison because the point is that he is a crook and will be convicted.
You lost me at ‘gravitas aka lack of morals’, which also makes me curious what your interpretation of collusion is.