Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russian leadership favored presidential candidate Trump over Clinton, and that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"Not so. Every federal investigation includes matters that arise in the course of the investigation. Ken Star's investigation of 1994, was charged to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of federal criminal law, excluding misdemeanors.What I'm saying there is no real evidence that Rosenstein or Mueller was biased against Trump when the investigation started. However, as the investigation continues and the Trump's people are found guilty of felonies, make deals with the prosecution spilling their guts and Trump admits to election law violations, and continues to impede the investigation, it has to be hard to remain objective.A republican conservative, Mueller picked by Rob Rosenstein, a republican appointed by both Bush and Trump would want to pick Anti-Trump investigators. Now that is nuts.
So what you're saying is that there are no anti-trumpers in the Republican party? There are no anti-trumper conservatives? Good to know. View attachment 211607
When Trump won the nomination, many people were saying Trump would bring down the Republican party. I didn't believe it then but I certainly do now because the party is stuck with Trump, they can't dump him and they can't support him. They are screwed.
Not biased? In any other special investigation, there was a charge to look for. With this investigation, they gave Mueller a blank check and told him to find anything against Trump. They used the Russian collusion thing as an excuse, but how many of these so-called charges had anything to do with Russian collusion?
So now Mueller is trying to charge these people with anything and everything he can to try to get them to say something or make up something about Trump. ethi It doesn't have to be true mind you, only enough to give the Democrat party extension (the media) somng to splatter all over the television and news sites.
Any law enforcement investigation be it local or federal is obliged to investigate serious crimes within it's jurisdiction and refer those outside it's jurisdiction to the proper authorities. Would a local investigation of breaking and entering ignore a murder or other serious crime? Of course not.
Giving immunity or plea bargains in exchange for evidence is not only legal but is common in all investigation. Without it the DEA would never score large drug busts and major federal investigation would get nowhere.
It's a pretty safe bet that neither Cohen, nor Allen Weisselberg, CFO of the Trump Organization, nor David Pecker, publisher of the Enquirer, asked for Immunity or a plea deal in exchange for evidence without careful consideration of evidence against them. If Mueller had not discovered sufficient evidence, they would not be asking for immunity. Furthermore, it the evidence they offered proved to be false, their immunity would be revoked and the charges they would face would likely be a lot more serve than their other crimes called for.
Rosenstein letter appointing Mueller special counsel
Text of Order Appointing Starr
Really? So what evidence was there of Russian collusion? There was none, and yet we have this full blown investigation going on. So what other cases were there ever where an investigation was started with no evidence?
Great presidents are great leaders. Trump has no desire to lead anyone. He simple wants to destroy his enemies which have turned out to be anyone that disagrees with him or criticizes him. Trump is a one man show.Donald Trump might go down in history as the greatest president of all time
Still (im)patiently waiting. The op posted this with breathless anticipation early in the month and it hasn't happened. Perhaps he was full of shit?
A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russian leadership favored presidential candidate Trump over Clinton, and that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"Not so. Every federal investigation includes matters that arise in the course of the investigation. Ken Star's investigation of 1994, was charged to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of federal criminal law, excluding misdemeanors.What I'm saying there is no real evidence that Rosenstein or Mueller was biased against Trump when the investigation started. However, as the investigation continues and the Trump's people are found guilty of felonies, make deals with the prosecution spilling their guts and Trump admits to election law violations, and continues to impede the investigation, it has to be hard to remain objective.So what you're saying is that there are no anti-trumpers in the Republican party? There are no anti-trumper conservatives? Good to know. View attachment 211607
When Trump won the nomination, many people were saying Trump would bring down the Republican party. I didn't believe it then but I certainly do now because the party is stuck with Trump, they can't dump him and they can't support him. They are screwed.
Not biased? In any other special investigation, there was a charge to look for. With this investigation, they gave Mueller a blank check and told him to find anything against Trump. They used the Russian collusion thing as an excuse, but how many of these so-called charges had anything to do with Russian collusion?
So now Mueller is trying to charge these people with anything and everything he can to try to get them to say something or make up something about Trump. ethi It doesn't have to be true mind you, only enough to give the Democrat party extension (the media) somng to splatter all over the television and news sites.
Any law enforcement investigation be it local or federal is obliged to investigate serious crimes within it's jurisdiction and refer those outside it's jurisdiction to the proper authorities. Would a local investigation of breaking and entering ignore a murder or other serious crime? Of course not.
Giving immunity or plea bargains in exchange for evidence is not only legal but is common in all investigation. Without it the DEA would never score large drug busts and major federal investigation would get nowhere.
It's a pretty safe bet that neither Cohen, nor Allen Weisselberg, CFO of the Trump Organization, nor David Pecker, publisher of the Enquirer, asked for Immunity or a plea deal in exchange for evidence without careful consideration of evidence against them. If Mueller had not discovered sufficient evidence, they would not be asking for immunity. Furthermore, it the evidence they offered proved to be false, their immunity would be revoked and the charges they would face would likely be a lot more serve than their other crimes called for.
Rosenstein letter appointing Mueller special counsel
Text of Order Appointing Starr
Really? So what evidence was there of Russian collusion? There was none, and yet we have this full blown investigation going on. So what other cases were there ever where an investigation was started with no evidence?
On October 7, 2016, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated that the U.S. Intelligence Community was confident that the Russian Government directed recent hacking of emails with the intention of interfering with the U.S. election process. According to the ODNI's report on January 6, 2017, the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) had hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and forwarded their contents to WikiLeaks.
Individuals associated with the Donald Trump campaign were included in the Mueller assignment letter for two reasons:
- Russian hacking and inference was meant to favor the Trump campaign.
- Donald Trump's efforts to stop and discredit the Comey investigation which eventually led to the Comey firing was certainly evidence enough to warrant looking into any Trump connection with Russia. This was reinforced by the Trump tweets, his request that NSA director speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion and finally his reaction to the Mueller hiring as special council.
Where all other presidents have welcomed special council investigations and vowed to cooperate, Trump immediately declared the conclusion of the investigation was predetermined and essentially pointless and labeled it a witch hunt.
Trump brought this on himself. He was warned by republicans in congress not to interfere with the investigation and remain cooperative.
You wanted an outsider in Washington, a businessman with no political experience who would thumb his noise at the Washington insiders, clean out the swamp, and attack, attack, attack. Well, you got one and I think you can see pretty clearly how this is going to turn out.
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia
I understood quite well and gave you plenty of evidence to investigate Trump and associates but I will summarize. Keep in mind this is circumstantial evidence which is reason to investigate but not to indict.A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russian leadership favored presidential candidate Trump over Clinton, and that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"Not so. Every federal investigation includes matters that arise in the course of the investigation. Ken Star's investigation of 1994, was charged to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of federal criminal law, excluding misdemeanors.What I'm saying there is no real evidence that Rosenstein or Mueller was biased against Trump when the investigation started. However, as the investigation continues and the Trump's people are found guilty of felonies, make deals with the prosecution spilling their guts and Trump admits to election law violations, and continues to impede the investigation, it has to be hard to remain objective.
When Trump won the nomination, many people were saying Trump would bring down the Republican party. I didn't believe it then but I certainly do now because the party is stuck with Trump, they can't dump him and they can't support him. They are screwed.
Not biased? In any other special investigation, there was a charge to look for. With this investigation, they gave Mueller a blank check and told him to find anything against Trump. They used the Russian collusion thing as an excuse, but how many of these so-called charges had anything to do with Russian collusion?
So now Mueller is trying to charge these people with anything and everything he can to try to get them to say something or make up something about Trump. ethi It doesn't have to be true mind you, only enough to give the Democrat party extension (the media) somng to splatter all over the television and news sites.
Any law enforcement investigation be it local or federal is obliged to investigate serious crimes within it's jurisdiction and refer those outside it's jurisdiction to the proper authorities. Would a local investigation of breaking and entering ignore a murder or other serious crime? Of course not.
Giving immunity or plea bargains in exchange for evidence is not only legal but is common in all investigation. Without it the DEA would never score large drug busts and major federal investigation would get nowhere.
It's a pretty safe bet that neither Cohen, nor Allen Weisselberg, CFO of the Trump Organization, nor David Pecker, publisher of the Enquirer, asked for Immunity or a plea deal in exchange for evidence without careful consideration of evidence against them. If Mueller had not discovered sufficient evidence, they would not be asking for immunity. Furthermore, it the evidence they offered proved to be false, their immunity would be revoked and the charges they would face would likely be a lot more serve than their other crimes called for.
Rosenstein letter appointing Mueller special counsel
Text of Order Appointing Starr
Really? So what evidence was there of Russian collusion? There was none, and yet we have this full blown investigation going on. So what other cases were there ever where an investigation was started with no evidence?
On October 7, 2016, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated the at the U.S. Intelligence Community was confident that the Russian Government directed recent hacking of emails with the intention of interfering with the U.S. election process. According to the ODNI's report on January 6, 2017, the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) had hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and forwarded their contents to WikiLeaks.
Individuals associated with the Donald Trump campaign were included in the Mueller assignment letter for two reasons:
- Russian hacking and inference was meant to favor the Trump campaign.
- Donald Trump's efforts to stop and discredit the Comey investigation which eventually led to the Comey firing was certainly evidence enough to warrant looking into any Trump connection with Russia. This was reinforced by the Trump tweets, his request that NSA director speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion and finally his reaction to the Mueller hiring as special council.
Where all other presidents have welcomed special council investigations and vowed to cooperate, Trump immediately declared the conclusion of the investigation was predetermined and essentially pointless and labeled it a witch hunt.
Trump brought this on himself. He was warned by republicans in congress not to interfere with the investigation and remain cooperative.
You wanted an outsider in Washington, a businessman with no political experience who would thumb his noise at the Washington insiders, clean out the swamp, and attack, attack, attack. Well, you got one and I think you can see pretty clearly how this is going to turn out.
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia
Perhaps you didn't understand my question, so one more time: what evidence was there that Trump colluded with Russia to bring on this investigation?
I understood quite well and gave you plenty of evidence to investigate Trump and associates but I will summarize. Keep in mind this is circumstantial evidence which is reason to investigate but not to indict.A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russian leadership favored presidential candidate Trump over Clinton, and that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"Not so. Every federal investigation includes matters that arise in the course of the investigation. Ken Star's investigation of 1994, was charged to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of federal criminal law, excluding misdemeanors.Not biased? In any other special investigation, there was a charge to look for. With this investigation, they gave Mueller a blank check and told him to find anything against Trump. They used the Russian collusion thing as an excuse, but how many of these so-called charges had anything to do with Russian collusion?
So now Mueller is trying to charge these people with anything and everything he can to try to get them to say something or make up something about Trump. ethi It doesn't have to be true mind you, only enough to give the Democrat party extension (the media) somng to splatter all over the television and news sites.
Any law enforcement investigation be it local or federal is obliged to investigate serious crimes within it's jurisdiction and refer those outside it's jurisdiction to the proper authorities. Would a local investigation of breaking and entering ignore a murder or other serious crime? Of course not.
Giving immunity or plea bargains in exchange for evidence is not only legal but is common in all investigation. Without it the DEA would never score large drug busts and major federal investigation would get nowhere.
It's a pretty safe bet that neither Cohen, nor Allen Weisselberg, CFO of the Trump Organization, nor David Pecker, publisher of the Enquirer, asked for Immunity or a plea deal in exchange for evidence without careful consideration of evidence against them. If Mueller had not discovered sufficient evidence, they would not be asking for immunity. Furthermore, it the evidence they offered proved to be false, their immunity would be revoked and the charges they would face would likely be a lot more serve than their other crimes called for.
Rosenstein letter appointing Mueller special counsel
Text of Order Appointing Starr
Really? So what evidence was there of Russian collusion? There was none, and yet we have this full blown investigation going on. So what other cases were there ever where an investigation was started with no evidence?
On October 7, 2016, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated the at the U.S. Intelligence Community was confident that the Russian Government directed recent hacking of emails with the intention of interfering with the U.S. election process. According to the ODNI's report on January 6, 2017, the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) had hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and forwarded their contents to WikiLeaks.
Individuals associated with the Donald Trump campaign were included in the Mueller assignment letter for two reasons:
- Russian hacking and inference was meant to favor the Trump campaign.
- Donald Trump's efforts to stop and discredit the Comey investigation which eventually led to the Comey firing was certainly evidence enough to warrant looking into any Trump connection with Russia. This was reinforced by the Trump tweets, his request that NSA director speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion and finally his reaction to the Mueller hiring as special council.
Where all other presidents have welcomed special council investigations and vowed to cooperate, Trump immediately declared the conclusion of the investigation was predetermined and essentially pointless and labeled it a witch hunt.
Trump brought this on himself. He was warned by republicans in congress not to interfere with the investigation and remain cooperative.
You wanted an outsider in Washington, a businessman with no political experience who would thumb his noise at the Washington insiders, clean out the swamp, and attack, attack, attack. Well, you got one and I think you can see pretty clearly how this is going to turn out.
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia
Perhaps you didn't understand my question, so one more time: what evidence was there that Trump colluded with Russia to bring on this investigation?
First, joint statements by the entire security community and DHS and ODNI that Russia interfered in the election in ways that favored Trump and hurt Clinton. Second, evidence that members of the Trump campaign had contacts with Russian officials. Then, the president asked Comey to stop the investigation and when he didn't, he fired him. Lastly upon learning that Mueller would be appointed, Trump did everything he could to discredit the investigation even before it got started.
Keep in mind that no specific evidence is required to appoint a special council, only suspected wrongdoing that would create a conflict of interest for the JD to investigate.
In this case there was plenty of evidence of Russian tampering in the election in ways that benefited Trump. There was also evidence of suspicious actions on the part of the president and his associates.
I understood quite well and gave you plenty of evidence to investigate Trump and associates but I will summarize. Keep in mind this is circumstantial evidence which is reason to investigate but not to indict.A January 2017 assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) stated that Russian leadership favored presidential candidate Trump over Clinton, and that Russian president Vladimir Putin personally ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Clinton's chances and "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"Not so. Every federal investigation includes matters that arise in the course of the investigation. Ken Star's investigation of 1994, was charged to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of federal criminal law, excluding misdemeanors.
Any law enforcement investigation be it local or federal is obliged to investigate serious crimes within it's jurisdiction and refer those outside it's jurisdiction to the proper authorities. Would a local investigation of breaking and entering ignore a murder or other serious crime? Of course not.
Giving immunity or plea bargains in exchange for evidence is not only legal but is common in all investigation. Without it the DEA would never score large drug busts and major federal investigation would get nowhere.
It's a pretty safe bet that neither Cohen, nor Allen Weisselberg, CFO of the Trump Organization, nor David Pecker, publisher of the Enquirer, asked for Immunity or a plea deal in exchange for evidence without careful consideration of evidence against them. If Mueller had not discovered sufficient evidence, they would not be asking for immunity. Furthermore, it the evidence they offered proved to be false, their immunity would be revoked and the charges they would face would likely be a lot more serve than their other crimes called for.
Rosenstein letter appointing Mueller special counsel
Text of Order Appointing Starr
Really? So what evidence was there of Russian collusion? There was none, and yet we have this full blown investigation going on. So what other cases were there ever where an investigation was started with no evidence?
On October 7, 2016, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) jointly stated the at the U.S. Intelligence Community was confident that the Russian Government directed recent hacking of emails with the intention of interfering with the U.S. election process. According to the ODNI's report on January 6, 2017, the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) had hacked the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and forwarded their contents to WikiLeaks.
Individuals associated with the Donald Trump campaign were included in the Mueller assignment letter for two reasons:
- Russian hacking and inference was meant to favor the Trump campaign.
- Donald Trump's efforts to stop and discredit the Comey investigation which eventually led to the Comey firing was certainly evidence enough to warrant looking into any Trump connection with Russia. This was reinforced by the Trump tweets, his request that NSA director speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion and finally his reaction to the Mueller hiring as special council.
Where all other presidents have welcomed special council investigations and vowed to cooperate, Trump immediately declared the conclusion of the investigation was predetermined and essentially pointless and labeled it a witch hunt.
Trump brought this on himself. He was warned by republicans in congress not to interfere with the investigation and remain cooperative.
You wanted an outsider in Washington, a businessman with no political experience who would thumb his noise at the Washington insiders, clean out the swamp, and attack, attack, attack. Well, you got one and I think you can see pretty clearly how this is going to turn out.
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections - Wikipedia
Perhaps you didn't understand my question, so one more time: what evidence was there that Trump colluded with Russia to bring on this investigation?
First, joint statements by the entire security community and DHS and ODNI that Russia interfered in the election in ways that favored Trump and hurt Clinton. Second, evidence that members of the Trump campaign had contacts with Russian officials. Then, the president asked Comey to stop the investigation and when he didn't, he fired him. Lastly upon learning that Mueller would be appointed, Trump did everything he could to discredit the investigation even before it got started.
Keep in mind that no specific evidence is required to appoint a special council, only suspected wrongdoing that would create a conflict of interest for the JD to investigate.
In this case there was plenty of evidence of Russian tampering in the election in ways that benefited Trump. There was also evidence of suspicious actions on the part of the president and his associates.
First off, the investigation was well on it's way before he fired Comey. Secondly, just because some thought that Russia favored Trump over Hillary is no reason to investigate Trump. Zero evidence that Trump had anything to do with it even if it was true.
So people in Russia tried to F-up the elections. If they did favor Trump, it was only because he was the underdog. I'm sure that Russia hacked Hillary's server since even a high school geek could have, so they had a much better ability to blackmail her.
The real collusion (with evidence) is that Hillary and the DNC tried to hack the election with help from Russia, yet no investigation on that. Why?
Did some of Trump's people deal with Russia in the past? Perhaps, but nothing to do with Trump.
In other words, there is not one shred of evidence that Trump had anything to do with Russia and the elections. There is not even circumstantial evidence of that. And that's why it's a problem for us.
With the things he is saying to a base that is full of several conspiracy nutjobs, Trump is going to get a journalist killed, and then what? He is going to be sued for everything he owns, and he should be found guilty for it. MSNBC reporter Katy Tur reported this week how someone wrote her saying she should be raped and killed, followed by MAGA. We've already seen what Trump's supporters are capable of when one who believed Alex Jones Pizzagate shot up Comet Ping-Pong Pizza. It is the JOB of the news to hold the government and its official responsible for what they say and do. When Trump blatantly lies every couple of minutes, it is the media's job to point it out. The founders of the U.S. put the freedom of the press into the very first Amendment of the Constitution for a reason, it is fundamentally imperative to having a true democracy.
James Madison very clearly stated this when he wrote:
"A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
A couple from Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Constitution:
"I am ... for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents."
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe."
So self-proclaimed Constitutional Conservatives, why are you not defending the Constitution and the forethought of those who took part in creating it? Why are you still backing Trump who obviously isn't respecting the glue that put this country together? And before you say the press is lying and not reporting the truth, please educate yourself, as the Founders knew there would always be press that would explore the fringe of truth. They said that ALL press must still be protected by the Constitution, because once you start taking away the freedom of the press from some you feel is being untruthful, it becomes subjective and the freedom of press as a whole will suddenly be at risk.
Russians interfering in the election in a way that benefits Trump.
Trump people meeting with Russians.
Trump trying to shut down the Comey investigation of Russian interference.
Trump quoting Russian propaganda about Clinton
Trump praising Putin in 2016.
You ask what does it have to do with collusion?Russians interfering in the election in a way that benefits Trump.
So what does that have to do with Trump or collusion?
Trump people meeting with Russians.
Nobody in this country is banned for meeting Russian people. Believe it or not, it's legal. And if they met with Russians, where was any evidence it had anything to do with the election?
Trump trying to shut down the Comey investigation of Russian interference.
No, he never tried to do that. He fired Comey because it's something he should have done the day he entered the White House. It's an out and out lie.
Trump quoting Russian propaganda about Clinton
So? You call that evidence? Quoting Russians? If you repeat something, that warrants an all out special investigation?
Trump praising Putin in 2016.
So what? WTF does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
So far you have not posted one thing......ONE thing that there was the slightest evidence of wrongdoing by Trump. And the fact of the matter is the only dealings between the nominees and Russia is Hillary and the DNC indirectly PAID RUSSIA for things about Trump to use against him.
You ask what does it have to do with collusion?Russians interfering in the election in a way that benefits Trump.
So what does that have to do with Trump or collusion?
Trump people meeting with Russians.
Nobody in this country is banned for meeting Russian people. Believe it or not, it's legal. And if they met with Russians, where was any evidence it had anything to do with the election?
Trump trying to shut down the Comey investigation of Russian interference.
No, he never tried to do that. He fired Comey because it's something he should have done the day he entered the White House. It's an out and out lie.
Trump quoting Russian propaganda about Clinton
So? You call that evidence? Quoting Russians? If you repeat something, that warrants an all out special investigation?
Trump praising Putin in 2016.
So what? WTF does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
So far you have not posted one thing......ONE thing that there was the slightest evidence of wrongdoing by Trump. And the fact of the matter is the only dealings between the nominees and Russia is Hillary and the DNC indirectly PAID RUSSIA for things about Trump to use against him.
All of the statements you are questioning are circumstantial evidence. They prove nothing but they create suspicion which is the basis of all investigations. If we have proof, then we don't need an investigation.
And that's what Nixon and Clinton said. As I said investigations are based on suspicions. The wife is murdered, the husband stands to get millions from insurance, and the husband has no alibi and thus we have an investigation targeting the husband. Russian hacking benefited the Trump campaign. Trump's people meet with the Russian. Trump pressures Comey to stop the investigation and then fires him and thus we have an investigation targeting Trump.You ask what does it have to do with collusion?Russians interfering in the election in a way that benefits Trump.
So what does that have to do with Trump or collusion?
Trump people meeting with Russians.
Nobody in this country is banned for meeting Russian people. Believe it or not, it's legal. And if they met with Russians, where was any evidence it had anything to do with the election?
Trump trying to shut down the Comey investigation of Russian interference.
No, he never tried to do that. He fired Comey because it's something he should have done the day he entered the White House. It's an out and out lie.
Trump quoting Russian propaganda about Clinton
So? You call that evidence? Quoting Russians? If you repeat something, that warrants an all out special investigation?
Trump praising Putin in 2016.
So what? WTF does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
So far you have not posted one thing......ONE thing that there was the slightest evidence of wrongdoing by Trump. And the fact of the matter is the only dealings between the nominees and Russia is Hillary and the DNC indirectly PAID RUSSIA for things about Trump to use against him.
All of the statements you are questioning are circumstantial evidence. They prove nothing but they create suspicion which is the basis of all investigations. If we have proof, then we don't need an investigation.
Are you serious? Okay:
Trump praising Putin. That's what you call circumstantial?
Trump quoting Russian propaganda. Repeating something somebody else said is circumstantial?
Russia interfering in a way that favors Trump. How dos that point to anything Trump did?
Trump people meeting with Russians. There is no law against that unless it had something to do with the elections. Not circumstantial in the least bit.
It's all phony, and nobody was ever investigated before with such ridiculous suspicions. It's called paranoia, and the anti-trumpers calling this circumstantial has any non-partisan lawyer laughing their ass off.
Definition of circumstantial evidence
: evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue.
Definition of CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Great presidents are great leaders. Trump has no desire to lead anyone. He simple wants to destroy his enemies which have turned out to be anyone that disagrees with him or criticizes him. Trump is a one man show.Donald Trump might go down in history as the greatest president of all time
Still (im)patiently waiting. The op posted this with breathless anticipation early in the month and it hasn't happened. Perhaps he was full of shit?
And that's what Nixon and Clinton said. As I said investigations are based on suspicions. The wife is murdered, the husband stands to get millions from insurance, and the husband has no alibi and thus we have an investigation targeting the husband. Russian hacking benefited the Trump campaign. Trump's people meet with the Russian. Trump pressures Comey to stop the investigation and then fires him and thus we have an investigation targeting Trump.You ask what does it have to do with collusion?Russians interfering in the election in a way that benefits Trump.
So what does that have to do with Trump or collusion?
Trump people meeting with Russians.
Nobody in this country is banned for meeting Russian people. Believe it or not, it's legal. And if they met with Russians, where was any evidence it had anything to do with the election?
Trump trying to shut down the Comey investigation of Russian interference.
No, he never tried to do that. He fired Comey because it's something he should have done the day he entered the White House. It's an out and out lie.
Trump quoting Russian propaganda about Clinton
So? You call that evidence? Quoting Russians? If you repeat something, that warrants an all out special investigation?
Trump praising Putin in 2016.
So what? WTF does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
So far you have not posted one thing......ONE thing that there was the slightest evidence of wrongdoing by Trump. And the fact of the matter is the only dealings between the nominees and Russia is Hillary and the DNC indirectly PAID RUSSIA for things about Trump to use against him.
All of the statements you are questioning are circumstantial evidence. They prove nothing but they create suspicion which is the basis of all investigations. If we have proof, then we don't need an investigation.
Are you serious? Okay:
Trump praising Putin. That's what you call circumstantial?
Trump quoting Russian propaganda. Repeating something somebody else said is circumstantial?
Russia interfering in a way that favors Trump. How dos that point to anything Trump did?
Trump people meeting with Russians. There is no law against that unless it had something to do with the elections. Not circumstantial in the least bit.
It's all phony, and nobody was ever investigated before with such ridiculous suspicions. It's called paranoia, and the anti-trumpers calling this circumstantial has any non-partisan lawyer laughing their ass off.
Definition of circumstantial evidence
: evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue.
Definition of CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
If Trump had done what every other president did when faced with an investigation, offer help and promise to cooperate, the investigation would have been probably over by now and Trump most likely would have been cleared. But no, Trump fights the Comey investigation which was just about Russian interference and ends up with a special council broad based grand jury investigation targeting him and his campaign looking at obstruction, election law violations and God knows what. Talk about stupid.
Trump's enemies are the American People.Great presidents are great leaders. Trump has no desire to lead anyone. He simple wants to destroy his enemies which have turned out to be anyone that disagrees with him or criticizes him. Trump is a one man show.Donald Trump might go down in history as the greatest president of all time
Still (im)patiently waiting. The op posted this with breathless anticipation early in the month and it hasn't happened. Perhaps he was full of shit?
His enemies are the enemies of the American people. We elected him to destroy them. And he is doing a fine job. The old bat you voted for lost and so your agenda doesn’t get implemented. The winning one does.
Trump's enemies are the American People.Great presidents are great leaders. Trump has no desire to lead anyone. He simple wants to destroy his enemies which have turned out to be anyone that disagrees with him or criticizes him. Trump is a one man show.Donald Trump might go down in history as the greatest president of all time
Still (im)patiently waiting. The op posted this with breathless anticipation early in the month and it hasn't happened. Perhaps he was full of shit?
His enemies are the enemies of the American people. We elected him to destroy them. And he is doing a fine job. The old bat you voted for lost and so your agenda doesn’t get implemented. The winning one does.
It would take the whole US nuclear arsenal to destroy everybody Trump hates.
The Trump Hit List (abbreviated)
Amazon
Microsoft
Boeing
Comcast
Delta
ESPN
General Motors
Lockheed Martin
Merck
NFL
Nordstrom
Toyota
NBC
CBS
ABC
PBS
CNN
MSNBC
NPR
New York Times
Washington Post
New York Stock Exchange
Federal Reserve
State of New York
State of California
France
China
Germany
FBI
IRS
All US intelligence Services
Dept of Education
Environmental Protection Agency
National Wildlife Fund
Also 400 to 500, Business Executives, Sports, and Entertainment Figures
37 million blacks in the US
1.8 billion Muslims.
At the rate the Trump hit list grows, it might be a safer bet just to list who isn't on it.
