Do you agree that anyone saying "Russia hoax" isn't worth listening to?

[goaded]

"Mueller's team... uncovered multiple contacts between the campaign and Russia showing that the latter perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and "worked to secure that outcome"."

The report also listed multiple obstructions of the investigation, and there were subsequent pardons and commutations for people willing to lie for Trump.

Despite clearly being started as an attempt to put blame on the Democrats, Durham's opening statement to Congress included: “our report should not be read to suggest that Russian election interference was not a significant threat. It was. Nor should it be read to suggest that the investigative authorities at issue no longer serve important law enforcement and national security interests. They do."

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/durham-testimony.pdf

He also testified that “Our object, our aim, was not to dispute Director Mueller. I have the greatest regard, the highest regard for Director Mueller. He is a patriot.”.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/john-durham-report-hearing-testimony-trump-rcna90392

As to the documents case...

Hur reported: ""Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation..."

However:

"[A]fter being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Special_Counsel_Robert_K._Hur_Biden_Report_February_2024.pdf

Updates

+1 y

Sorry I didn't make this a poll. Simple agree/disagree answers would be appreciated.

[NaultD]

The missing link in the muller report was "why does putin need don as president?" That didn't have a full connection at the time of the report.

The answer came from the Russian invasion. We all know don wants to dismantle so all the pieces now fall into place.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OsvWg2FBnts

Why would he ask Russia directly under any other context? Best case don is smart enough to cover any direct communication. Worst case all the people around him know how to manipulate him and pull strings like he's a fucking puppet.

[OddBeMe]

True. But when all your staff goes to prison in a Russian inference investigation…it’s like the mafia. The Don (pun intended) was protected. Not innocent.

[OddBeMe]

True and Trump was too dumb to make many decisions himself. But the trial now is releasing interesting documents showing Russian oligarchs have been using him to launder money

[NYCQuestions1976]

A list Putin's invasions and annexations in the 21st century:

August 2008: Georgia invasion (Bush administration).

February 2012: Crimea annexed (Obama administration).

February 2022: Ukraine invasion (Biden administration).

Did you notice that there's an administration missing on this invasion/annexation list? I did.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 quick Q…. Crimea is in Ukraine, yes?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Quick answer: Crimea, which was part of Ukraine, was annexed by Putin and the Diet Soviet Union in February 2014 (I accidentally originally posted 2012), during the Obama administration.

www.history.co.uk/.../putin-s-gamble-russia-s-2014-invasion-of-crimea

www.nytimes.com/.../ukraine.html

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 And was still fighting there and Donbas during Trump’s admin. So not seeing your point.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe It's pretty self-explanatory. There's a difference between infighting between Ukraine loyalists and pro-Diet Soviet Union separatists in Ukraine (Donbas), and full-scale invasions and/or annexations by the Diet Soviet Union (Georgia, 2008; Crimea, 2014; Ukraine, 2022).

[NaultD]

@NYCQuestions1976 the don gap was intentional for putin investment into the don. Waiting for the don to dismantle nato. He was all talk during his term but never follow through. If I remember it was a back seat reelection promise. Reelection didn't happen then the Russian invasion that was globally rejected.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 It was Russian soldiers not “infighting”. Dumbass.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe So 0% of Ukrainians in Donbas were pro-Diet Soviet Union separatists, even though the majority of the people living in Donbas are Russian? All of the fighters in that region were all soldiers sent from Moscow? Okay sure. Supply the link that describes and documents the "invasion" into Ukraine (or any other sovereign nations) and/or any territorial annexation by the Diet Soviet Union that transpired between 1/20/2017 and 1/20/2021.

@naultd The "back seat reelection promise" your remembering is the "more flexibility" moment that Obama had with Medvedev in March 2012 that was caught on a live microphone ahead of the 2012 election:

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE82P0JI/

[NaultD]

@NYCQuestions1976 never gave a single fuck about politics until the don said "on both sides on both sides" with charlesville. So nothing obama ever registered in my brain honestly.

https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg?si=JKhDoNxS3B5veGku

https://youtu.be/Mwmr2QMLuWY?si=d4uri9RD0fKG8L7U

[NYCQuestions1976]

That line was taken completely out of context by the mainstream media. Here's liberal comic and Trump critic Michael Rapaport admitting that he lambasted Trump over the media's coverage of that line:

www.hollywoodintoto.com/.../

twitter.com/Ground_app/status/1757621662298591647

https://youtu.be/6b8StTGxSEE?si=shIR3BmqYhQfW6gF

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 back to Ukraine, sure some partisans may have helped. But “crypto” Russian soldiers have been in Ukraine, shooting down airplanes and executing civilians since 2014. 2021 was just an open invasion.

[NaultD]

@NYCQuestions1976 the crying nazi was very much in context and share those vids for a reason.

Round up to the beginning of my opening statement. don is either a mastermind evil villain that can hide everything or he's too stupid that actually evil people play him like a fiddle to do more evil. regardless I still hate the don with every fiber of my being.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe Some partisan help? A lot of partisan help, and very few actual soldiers from Moscow between the Crimea annexation in 2014 and the actual invasion in 2022. Much more help than the pro-Ukrainian resistance in that area of Ukraine. The entire eastern third of Ukraine is heavily pro-Diet Soviet Union. It's the only reason the very immediate beginning of the invasion in 2022 and the annexation of Crimea in 2014 were successful, and why they've been bogged down ever since.

[NaultD]

@NYCQuestions1976 so why wasn't Crimea good enough?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@naultd You're entitled to your opinion, but what actual "evil"? Bombastic narcissistic asshole? Absolutely I agree. However, it's still going to be either "cognitive bastard" or "stammering yammering buffoon" in November, and I've got to go with jerk over dummy.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@naultd You've got to ask the Diet Soviet Union and Putin that question, but I'm pretty sure the the main reasons are that Moscow doesn't want Ukraine joining the European Union (Union Of European Socialist Republics), and there are a great deal of Russians living in eastern Ukraine who are pro-Diet Soviet Union.

[NaultD]

@NYCQuestions1976 fuck the old Soviet union they are long dead and buried. Ukraine wants independence and is fighting for it. The entire globe supports them and is helping them. Russia is currently eating a dick and fighting for what?

Rounding back up to the muller report. Russia is evil and wants to war monger. Pull strings in the usa election in 2016 just day before and swing an election to the don who has business dealing with Russia money laundromat bank. My first video Russia if you're listening.

Don want to dismantle nato but don't have the means to do it one election cycle then loses the election. So Russia invades Ukraine as a complete military embarrassment. That is still going on today. Don actively want to be reelected and is wanting to dismantle nato. We can't let that happen.

[NYCQuestions1976]

"Diet Soviet Union" and "Union Of European Socialist Republics" are just my humorous terms for Russia and the European Union, respectively.

Trump doesn't want to dismantle NATO. He wants the other member nations to chip in more for their portion of the NATO defense bills. The United States is paying far more of the bill than we should be.

[NaultD]

@NYCQuestions1976 those countries Don't pay into nato or a fee to usa. It's their own defense military.

You are only as strong as your weakest point. These countries are vulnerable being the weakest link and potentially the ground war that is deadly for the local people. We don't want them vulnerable. That's why we want them to invest a minimum gdp amount.

Usa isn't losing a dime that we didn't invest in nato.

[NaultD]

Don believe there is a fee and expense and wants to dismantle nato. Take it from the top again and go through all the talking points again.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 Trump strangely has the same agenda as Putin. Destroy nato, create American isolationism and cancel the Russian sanctions that are destroying their economy.

We do have bases all over the world. It provides jobs for young Americans who can’t find work otherwise…but also keeps our allies from arming themselves like 1914.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@naultd @OddBeMe Again, Trump doesn't want to destroy the NATO alliance. He wants them to pay more of the defense bill, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is the kind of nonsense that far-left liberals and socialists spread in an attempt to devalue the United States.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 There is. Anything that makes these countries ask “Why are we paying America instead of having our own army?” Duh.

[NaultD]

@NYCQuestions1976 they Don't pay into nato or into usa. Usa dosen't spend an extra dime from anyone not paying.

They are just intended to pay for their own country to their own defense budget a gdp percentage.

No one anywhere is paying for anyone else. End of discussion.

Trump wants America to believe we are paying for an unjustified bill that dosen't exist. This only benefits putin hence the entire muller report.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@OddBeMe So Canada, France, and the United Kingdom have no military? Come on now.

@naultd The bill does exist, and the more the United States pays, the more our tax dollars are being used. Don't fall for liberal propaganda.

[NaultD]

@NYCQuestions1976 at any rate usa gains nothing bending the knee to putin. He is the definition of a bond villain and we can't ignore putin likes the don as whatever you want to call it.

[OddBeMe]

@NYCQuestions1976 they were our allies. But no, they don’t have a global army.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@naultd I hate Putin and the Diet Soviet Union. However Basement Biden isn't the answer. So we'll agree to disagree.

@OddBeMe You don't need to be a country with a "global" military to defend yourself, or use lack of one as an excuse not to pay your appropriate amount of NATO defense bills.

[Still-alive]

Yeah that and anytime i hear the name 'soros' i immediately know what type of person im talking to lol

[goaded]

That's another good one.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Socialism makes your head soft. You wasted 8 years of your life believing collusion bullshit engineered by Hillary Clinton and her campaign cronies, which I find extraordinarily hilarious. You need to let it go and move on. Get a hobby or therapy or both.

[goaded]

Yeah, I've heard that bullshit from you several times.

"multiple contacts between the campaign and Russia showing that the latter perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and "worked to secure that outcome"."

[NYCQuestions1976]

It's 100% true. Socialism makes your head soft. Let the trial begin.

Exhibit A: @goaded

I rest my case.

[goaded]

Good. Go away, you loser.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Good news! I found an audience that might believe your nonsensical lunacy:

https://youtu.be/fJABDGm-MC0?si=8TE2rBdF8cJEzVf7

[OddBeMe]

Yes…but the evidence is so obvious and so many people went to jail that maybe we could convince someone.

[goaded]

There's so much evidence it can't possibly be true!

[OddBeMe]

And they’ll look ridiculous. It’s weird but it gets me hard.

[Slingblade1126]

How many people went to jail for “conspiring” with Russia?

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Not nearly as many who were convicted of obstructing justice.

[Slingblade1126]

Obstruction of justice isn’t conspiring with a foreign country.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 It probably is, when they're obstructing an investigation into conspiring with a foreign country.

[Slingblade1126]

Um, no, it isn’t. They were found guilty of obstructing an investigation. They would have to prove how they obstructed it. Obviously it was just a processing obstruction and not a obstruction of knowledge of conspiracy with a foreign country.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 How is that "obvious"? The investigation was into conspiracy with a foreign country.

[Slingblade1126]

Because the prosecution team would have to show and prove what crime they obstructed! If I’m accused of murder and I’m asked to provide all my guns but happen to forget to give them one, technically, that’s obstruction but it doesn’t prove I’m a murderer. It’s a processing or procedural obstruction.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 They're listed in detail in the report.

[Slingblade1126]

They listed what could be considered as obstruction but Mueller, himself, said he never calculated whether it is or not.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Really? Give me a link. Because I don't believe you.

[Slingblade1126]

Oh, NO! Bullshit! It’s in the congressional hearings transcript. You’re making the argument he (Mueller) said he obstructed justice! You show me when Mueller said that. It’s not my argument.

[goaded]

Really? Give me a link. Because I don't believe you.

[Slingblade1126]

Lol.., You’re going against your own rules! I’ll give you a transcript, because I don’t know how to link. Once I’m done, you are welcome to leave a link when Mueller said Trump Obstructed.

[Slingblade1126]

Rep. Ken Buck (Colorado): Was there sufficient evidence to convict Trump or anyone else with obstruction of justice?

Mueller: We did not make that calculation.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 So you think Mueller's inability to say Trump, as sitting president, could be charged with obstruction means Trump didn't commit obstruction.

Next line: ""You believe that he committed — you could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?" Buck continued.

"Yes," Mueller answered."

www.nbcnews.com/.../did-mueller-mean-trump-could-be-indicted-when-he-leaves-n1033901
time.com/.../

He should have been charged with that on Jan 21 2021.

[Slingblade1126]

Why wasn’t he? You said Mueller found him guilty of obstruction, right? Or at least prosecutable. Mueller never said that! What don’t you get?

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 I understand it all, you're the one hiding behind a DoJ rule about sitting presidents not being charged.

"In considering an obstruction case, former federal prosecutors say several of Trump’s actions stand out, including allegedly asking FBI Director Jim Comey for “loyalty” during a private dinner; allegedly telling him in the Oval Office that he hoped he could let an investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn go; firing Comey; telling NBC News and the Russian ambassador that he fired him over the Russia investigation; allegedly pressuring then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions over his recusal from the investigation; allegedly dictating a misleading statement from his son, Donald Trump Jr., to the New York Times about a 2016 meeting with Russians in Trump Tower; alleged conversations between his lawyer and lawyers for Flynn and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort about pardons; alleged conversations between lawyers about a pardon for former personal attorney Michael Cohen; and many of Trump’s tweets praising or threatening various witnesses in Mueller’s investigation."
time.com/.../

[Slingblade1126]

I understand it all, too! All you have to do, is give me a link, showing Mueller saying Trump is guilty of obstruction? Or even prosecutable for it! You can’t, can you?

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 No, because he wasn't allowed to say it outright. What he could say, I quoted, and what he couldn't, I quoted actual experts.

""You believe that he committed — you could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?" Buck continued.

"Yes," Mueller answered."
They should have, but they hoped Trump would crawl off into a hole after his violent attack on the Capitol, like any sane person would have.

[goaded]

cdn.vox-cdn.com/.../...19_04_18_at_11.24.38_AM.png

[Slingblade1126]

Can you please give me the law that says, Mueller, couldn’t say Trump was prosecutable for obstruction. Oh, of course you can’t! Because it doesn’t exist!

[OddBeMe]

@Slingblade1126 Nearly a dozen close associates went to jail for crimes involving Russia. “Collusion” isn’t a crime. We’re colluding in response on this Q right now. But these MF’s were traitors:
https://youtu.be/0oYbELj6KUU?si=Gf54X4cs71byqkkD

[Slingblade1126]

@OddBeMe Thank you for contributing absolutely nothing to our discussion,

[OddBeMe]

@Slingblade1126 Thank you for being on my reply. But if you bothered with the video you’d see how many people were convicted becuase of Meuller. Just becuase the DOJ stopped just short of indicting a SITTING president doesn’t mean he wasn’t guilty. As we’re seeing now.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Disgustingly using Mueller's honour against him, you're hiding behind the fact that it was a DoJ rule and not a law that stopped Mueller from charging Trump with obstruction.

[Slingblade1126]

You two are pathetic! It’s been what? Seven fucking years? It’s not gonna change, sorry! Mueller didn’t find Trump prosecutable back then and it’s not gonna happen this time around! Jesus Christ, give up!

[OddBeMe]

@Slingblade1126 and he’s on trial for it now shitheel.

[Slingblade1126]

On trial for what? Russian Conspiracy? Get the fuck out of here!

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 There's a difference between not finding "Trump prosecutable back then" and Trump not having obstructed justice. Trump has since been indicted for obstructing justice in the documents case (cue you crying "but he hasn't been convicted" - that's just because the judge is slow-walking the case).

[Slingblade1126]

Seems you’re changing the subject? I figured you’d do that. Last thing I asked, was for you to show me when Mueller said Trump obstructed justice. You have yet to do that.

[OddBeMe]

@Slingblade1126 Your lack of knowledge is disturbing
www.pbs.org/.../mueller-i-did-not-clear-trump-of-obstruction-of-justice

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 You're even wrong about what you said, now. Not to mention the fact that I clearly answered both your last two questions that incorrectly implied that just because Trump wasn't indicted, that meant he didn't obstruct justice.

[Slingblade1126]

You two are just dumb! Plain and simple. I never said Mueller cleared Trump of obstruction, did I? I said he NEVER made the calculation as to whether he did or not! Not clearing someone of a crime doesn’t mean they committed it, right? Neither one of you can provide me with a quote from Mueller saying Trump obstructed justice, can you?

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Those texts I've been posting? They are all from the Mueller report and examples of potential obstruction of justice, if someone were to make the calculation. Other legal experts have said that they would count. We all know that the only reason Mueller didn't make the calculation is because he was following DoJ rules; like the rules Comer and Hur ignored.

[Slingblade1126]

Yeah, so that means Mueller never said Trump obstructed justice, correct? You just said it! I don’t give a flying fuck if you found Trump guilty of it or you supposed legal experts did, Mueller never said he obstructed. Evidence of obstruction is just that, it’s evidence.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 It's not like you're not well aware of WHY Mueller just documented Trump's obstruction of justice, and never explicitly accused him of it. He was sticking to the rules.

There were ten instances, in that one report. And Trump has since been indicted for obstruction of justice in the federal documents case (along with conspiracy, willfully retaining national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act, and making false statements).

Hardly exoneration, is it?

[Slingblade1126]

It’s not a prosecutor’s job to “exonerate” someone of a crime. Their job is to gather evidence and determine if there is enough to prosecute. That was irresponsible language by Mueller. I do realize you are admitting that Mueller NEVER said Trump obstructed justice. That’s all I’m saying.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 That's not all you're disingenuously trying to imply, though, is it?

You're trying to imply that Mueller didn't directly accuse Trump of obstruction because there wasn't obstruction (there was, ten times over), rather than because he wasn't allowed to by the rules he was playing by.

Mueller was also misinformed that someone else would be following the financial links of the Trump campaign, nobody did.

[Slingblade1126]

You’re like my wife! Jesus Christ, all I said is Mueller said he never calculated whether Trump obstructed or not. You asked me to provide proof, which I did, now you’re saying I said he didn’t obstruct justice? Lol You don’t even know what you’re arguing about anymore! You just have to get the last word in, whether you look foolish or not.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 No, you're misrepresenting what I said. I said you were trying to imply Trump didn’t obstruct justice. There's no other reasonable explanation for harping on about it like you have.

[Slingblade1126]

You’re insane! I’m not harping on anything. I’m not implying anything. That’s on you!

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Right. 40+ messages about obstruction because your initial implication was that nobody going to jail for “conspiring” with Russia means nobody conspired with Russia. Same rhetorical trick, different crime.

[Slingblade1126]

Wow! You are actually crazy. Like I said before, in an effort to be right about something, you want to change the argument. It was simple, you said Mueller didn’t say he never calculated the evidence for obstruction, I proved you wrong and now you no longer know what you’re even arguing about.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 At least I don't lie about what's been said in this conversation. I never said "Mueller didn’t say he never calculated the evidence for obstruction", I said I didn't believe you. I happened to be wrong.

What I'm right about is how you imply that some failure in the justice system means the crimes we've all seen evidence of didn't happen.

Russia interfered with the 2016 election. The Trump campaign had many interactions with Russia. Trump's obstruction of the investigation was documented ten different times. The facts that nobody was charged with conspiring with Russia and that Trump didn't get indicted for obstruction doesn't mean the investigation wasn't obstructed (other people were convicted of it, by the way) or that Russia didn't interfere.

[Slingblade1126]

OMG! You didn’t say Mueller never said he didn’t calculate obstruction of justice? Okay but you just said you didn’t believe me when I said he did! You’re something else!

[OddBeMe]

@goaded See it’s fun!

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Do you want me to explain the difference between being wrong, like I was, and lying, which is what you've done several times?

[Slingblade1126]

Wow! Let’s make this easy. First tell how I lied?

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 I never said "Mueller didn’t say he never calculated the evidence for obstruction", I said I didn't believe you.

[Slingblade1126]

Lol…if that’s what you consider me “lying”, I guess I’ll accept it. I actually thought it was something important! At least you admitted you were wrong, I definitely respect that.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 How about "Obviously it was just a processing obstruction and not a obstruction of knowledge of conspiracy with a foreign country."?

[Slingblade1126]

Was any American or anyone affiliated with Trump found guilty of conspiring with a foreign country?

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 No, because the investigation was obstructed, duh.

[Slingblade1126]

By who? Lmao

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 By Trump. In ten different ways, as set out in the report, and by the people convicted of obstructing the investigation, like Stone.

[Slingblade1126]

You’re back to your original argument! That was EVIDENCE against Trump! That wasn’t a charge, that wasn’t a conviction. How did Stone prevent the government from charging Trump with “conspiracy”? I actually can’t believe you’re still arguing this after seven years! Lol

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 I'm still pointing out the truth. If people lie to the authorities, they're obstructing justice. People were convicted of obstructing justice for Trump, and Trump pardoned or commuted their convictions.

[Slingblade1126]

Roger Stone was never convicted of obstruction of justice, by the way. No one was convicted for conspiring with Russia and that is important to note! I’m not arguing people didn’t lie to authorities to protect themselves or even Trump, but NONE were convicted or even charged with lying to cover up a crime of conspiring with Russia. Do you agree?

[Slingblade1126]

I retract my statement, you DID call me a liar! It just wasn’t on this particular thread.

Me: Trump was found not to be involved (Russian conspiracy) and Mueller never said said whether he obstructed or not. He said, “we never made that calculation”.

YOU: That’s what people in reality call a “lie”.

[OddBeMe]

@Slingblade1126 conspiring with Russia isn’t a crime. Being their lapdog without registering as a foreign agent is. Or passing intel and campaign stuff to them is.

[Slingblade1126]

You get dumber every day! Conspiring with a foreign country is a crime. Jesus Christ.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 A distinction without a difference: "five counts of false statements, and one count each of obstruction of proceedings and witness tampering."

"After a week-long trial and two days of deliberations, the jury convicted Stone on all counts – obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering – on November 15, 2019"

[goaded]

Yes, "Trump was found not to be involved (Russian conspiracy)" is a lie.

There's a difference between insufficient evidence to prove a conspiracy (especially in the presence of false statements and obstruction) and being found not to have done anything.

"Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report

There's a whole separate article about links between the campaign and Russian intelligence. en.wikipedia.org/.../Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials_and_spies

[Slingblade1126]

You’re saying he did conspire with Russia but only a little? That’s not how it works. You’re really making yourself look foolish in a pathetic attempt to be right. Again, no one, at any time, were found to have obstructed justice by lying or misleading authorities in an attempt to cover up a conspiracy between Trump and Russia! Quit making shit up!

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 No, I'm saying he certainly colluded, probably conspired, possibly indirectly, with Russia, but they couldn't prove it because of all the obstruction. At the very least, he accepted aid from a foreign government to win the election (and McConnell was complicit in that). You probably think OJ was completely innocent, too.

Two things that are absolutely not true are that "Trump was found not to be involved", or that "no one, at any time, were found to have obstructed justice by lying or misleading authorities" during the Mueller investigation.

The whole point of obstruction is to avoid crimes coming to light.

[Slingblade1126]

You should get a job at CNN. I never said Trump was found not to be involved with Russia, did I? Mueller’s report speaks for itself. I said he wasn’t found to have conspired with Russia. I couldn’t have made that more clear and it’s also the truth. You keep saying Mueller couldn’t say Trump obstructed justice, that simply put, isn’t true. Nothing stopped him from saying it. You also keep implying Trump would somehow have been charged with conspiracy if people didn’t obstruct justice, that also isn’t true! Mueller’s report was complete, as well as his investigation. Even what was detailed as evidence against Trump for “obstruction” didn’t imply he was covering up his guilt for conspiracy. Then you keep talking about him not being innocent? You mentioned O. J as an example lol? That’s not how our justice system works. Total exoneration only happens in rare cases: DNA evidence, video evidence, a confession of the guilty party……. You are either found to be unprosecutable, due to lack of evidence or a jury finds you “not guilty”! They don’t find you “innocent” or a little “guilty”. You’re clueless.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 You must work for Pravda. No, you just keep implying Trump was found not to be involved with Russia by making a big deal about him not being convicted. DoJ rules stopped Mueller from saying Trump obstructed justice at the time. You know that.

[Slingblade1126]

NO, they didn’t! You show me where the rules say he couldn’t say he found enough evidence for prosecution? He just can’t prosecute a sitting president. He said he didn’t make the calculation because he didn’t want to inhibit Trump’s presidency. Or something to that affect. He definitely could have said he found that he obstructed. I have said over and over again, Trump and his team were found not to have CONSPIRED with Russia and as far as I can tell, you’re telling me he was?

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Those are the rules Mueller said he was working to. I suppose you know better than him. He said he couldn't say Trump was indictable because that would be essentially the same as indicting him, a sitting president.

How about you admit to the contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia before we go any further? If you're ONLY saying Trump and his team were found not to have CONSPIRED with Russia, that should be easy, right? (That article covers dozens of printed pages.)
www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-russia-government-contact-timeline-2018-7

[Slingblade1126]

Jesus Christ! Number one, No where in the OLC memo did it say Mueller could not come to a conclusion as to whether Trump obstructed or not! He (Mueller) took it upon himself to interpret it that way. All it said, is he can’t bring charges. Number two, I never said Trump didn’t have contact with Russia! Lol The report said contacts were made. Flynn even got charged for lying about it. What you don’t seem to understand, is that isn’t illegal and in no way is evidence of conspiracy! What don’t you get?

[goaded]

@slingblade1126 "I never said Trump didn’t have contact with Russia" I know, but this is the first time you've admitted it, afaics.

You have repeatedly implied that not being convicted means that there was no collusion, let alone conspiracy, and that not saying Trump should be indicted is the same as there being no grounds to indict him for obstruction. Mueller explained his reasoning for doing that; you may disagree, but that's absolutely the reason he didn't say it.

You might think that people obstruct investigations into themselves for purely innocent reasons, I don't.

[Slingblade1126]

Why would I admit to something I was never asked? You never asked me if I thought Trump colluded with Russia! Did you? You just kept saying it, like that means he’s guilty of conspiring with Russia, and I kept saying that I know Trump wasn’t found not to be involved! But as usual, in your desperate attempt to be right, you said I never admitted it? Laughable!! You need to read this entire thread! I know Mueller’s reasoning for not coming to a conclusion for obstruction, that’s not even the issue! The issue I have is you saying he COULDN’T say it, for legal reasons and that isn’t true. Nothing in the OLC memo prevented him from reaching that conclusion. You need to stop putting words in my mouth! You keep saying I’m implying Trump didn’t obstruct justice, because Mueller didn’t charge/convict him for it. All I ever said is Mueller never made a decision on it. You have serious comprehension problems.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Let's see how you started off in this conversation: " How many people went to jail for “conspiring” with Russia? "."

If you "kept saying that I know Trump wasn’t found not to be involved", quote yourself.

Because I can quote you: "Trump was found not to be involved (Russian conspiracy)".

Next lie: "[me, goaded was] saying [Mueller] COULDN’T say it, for legal reasons".

I said he was following DoJ guidelines the way he understood them. I never said it was the law. You're the one saying he was interpreting them wrong, but Mueller listed ten instances of Trump obstructing the investigation as president (and one other).

You dismiss the fact that there's no point in obstructing an investigation if there's no crime to be found and that the obstruction is a crime, even if there is no crime to be found (see Martha Stewart).

[Slingblade1126]

Trump was found not to have conspired with Russia. Am I wrong? You have yet to show where I denied he had contacts with Russia! Just yesterday, I said Mueller’s report speaks for itself. You really are grasping at straws to save face. Also, look at the beginning of our conversation! You said Mueller “wasn’t allowed to say it” per DOJ rules and I’m using his “inability” to say it against him. Then, I asked you to show me the law that said he wasn’t allowed to say it and only then did you realize, there isn’t one! That Mueller took it upon himself not to weigh in.

[Slingblade1126]

As for obstructing to cover up a crime, which you keep alluding to, Trump was found not to have conspired with Russia! What do you not understand? If he did obstruct, it was not found he was covering up a crime of conspiracy. Like I pointed out, there are several ways to obstruct that have nothing to do with the underlying crime. You’re clueless.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Yes, you're wrong.

This is what you're doing, over and over:

1. take something true I say, then pretend I was saying something else that you can argue against or demand that I back up what I never said (straw man), or

2. make some bullshit assertion that isn't backed up by facts or logic.

1. Straw men:
I never said there was a law stopping Mueller from saying Trump obstructed the investigation.

I never said you denied there were contacts between Trump's campaign and Russia. I said you'd never previously admitted the many contacts with Russia.

2. Bullshit:
Not being indicted for conspiracy by an investigation, especially one with many cases of obstruction and false statements does not mean "Trump was found not to have conspired with Russia".

Obstruction of an investigation is intended to hide a crime, or a criminal's part in it, that's the whole point. "If he did obstruct, it was not found he was covering up a crime of conspiracy." is thus bullshit.

[Slingblade1126]

I misspoke, you didn’t say there was a “law” preventing Mueller from saying he couldn’t reach a decision on whether Trump obstructed or not, you said there was a DOJ ruling. Fact: there isn’t! For the fifth fucking time, Mueller made the decision not to weigh in, it wasn’t because of a ruling that said he couldn’t.

You said I never “admitted” to any contacts between Trump and Russia. You never fucking asked! Lol Jesus Christ!

Robert Mueller said he did not find sufficient evidence that Trump conspired with Russia! That means he did find Trump to have been involved with conspiring with Russia. Again, what don’t you understand?

There is NO evidence that anyone obstructed justice to cover up Trump conspiring with Russia. Again, the case is closed. If you can show me or tell me how someone kept Trump from being charged with conspiring with Russia, I’m all ears and eyes.

You really need to stop! You’re beating a dead horse and looking foolish doing it!

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 You might like to re-read that nonsense, you accidentally told the truth somewhere in the middle there.

Mueller was in a much better position to determine what he should do than you are (it wasn't a law, and it wasn't a ruling, it was a DoJ rule).

I happen to agree that he should have simply said that the ten instances of obstruction by the president warranted indictment, but he chose not to because he is honourable, unlike, say, Comer, Durham, and Hur.

You're pretending that he didn't say the obstruction was criminal because there was no case to make, although he explicitly said that they did not find Trump didn't commit crimes.

[Slingblade1126]

I don’t care what decision Mueller made or his reasoning behind, the fact is, no where does it say he couldn’t say it! You’re the one that kept saying he wasn’t allowed to. I’m not pretending anything! At no time did I say or even insinuate Trump didn’t commit obstruction! I simply said Mueller didn’t make that calculation. If you think he did, fine.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 "The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions," the memo stated.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1QF1D2/

You really think saying "There is NO evidence that anyone obstructed justice to cover up Trump conspiring with Russia" isn't insinuating "Trump didn’t commit obstruction"?

That was the whole point of the investigation, to find out if Trump conspired with Russia. Obstructing it is obviously covering up Trump's interactions with Russia.

[Slingblade1126]

Again, your problem with simple comprehension is showing itself. What don’t you understand about it? You claim Mueller couldn’t prove Trump conspired with Russia because of obstruction, right? I simply pointed out there is no evidence of your claim. Mueller, himself, said his investigation into conspiracy was not interfered with or impeded. You seem to think obstruction can only mean the underlying crime was prevented from being prosecuted or coming to light. There are several ways you can be charged with obstruction that has nothing to do with the underlying crime. Do you understand?

[Slingblade1126]

I should make it clear. The prosecution of the underlying crime.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 "Mueller, himself, said his investigation into conspiracy was not interfered with or impeded" Are you kidding? He said Trump's attempts were unsuccessful, that doesn't include all the obstruction and false statements on his behalf.

"Under oath, Mueller said:

The Russians had led a campaign to swing the 2016 election in Trump’s favor and committed crimes to achieve that goal

The Trump campaign was receptive to help from the Russians

Donald Trump Jr said he would “love” to receive dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government

As a candidate, Trump publicly urged the Russians to hack Clinton’s emails

Trump pursued a lucrative Trump Tower project in Moscow during the campaign

Multiple top Trump campaign and administration officials were convicted of lying to investigators about their contacts with Russians"

[goaded]

Rep. Buck: "Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

Buck: "You believe that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

[goaded]

The words of a totally innocent man: ""Oh my God. This is terrible," the report quotes Trump as saying. "This is the end of my presidency. I’m f-----.""

It should have been.

[Slingblade1126]

You are fucking crazy! Without a doubt! Everything you just listed is in Mueller’s report, which means it’s public knowledge, and was not evidence of conspiring with Russia! What don’t you get? Fuck! Mueller said his investigation wasn’t interfered with, maybe not those exact words, but he never said Trump or anyone else obstructed HIS investigation!!! How do I know? Because he reached a CONCLUSION! You need to argue with reasoning and common sense and not emotion! Just answer one question! Are you saying Mueller would never have come to his conclusion if Trump hadn’t obstructed justice? I’m still not sure what you’re even arguing! It sounds like you’re saying Trump DID conspire with Russia but yet, Mueller said he DIDN’T! Lol

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 I notice you've dropped the "no where does it say he couldn’t say it" nonsense, since I quoted the DoJ memo.

Mueller got people convicted for obstructing his investigation, making false statements, and witness tampering; what are you talking about "he never said Trump or anyone else obstructed HIS investigation"?

[Slingblade1126]

For the fifth time, show me where the memo said he couldn’t reach a conclusion on obstruction? It said he COULDN’T CHARGE him!!! Mueller interpreted as he can’t make a calculation, not the memo. I’ve already said, I don’t care that he didn’t make a decision or his reasoning behind not making one! You even said you wish he would have just said it! Lol…Mueller said, his investigation of conspiracy was NOT interfered with! No one was found to have covered or obstructed HIS investigation. Tell me how they obstructed his investigation of Trump conspiring with Russia?

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 How, exactly, does that make a difference? "I don't think I should reach a conclusion" is not the same as "I couldn't reach a conclusion".

Mueller said his investigation of conspiracy was not SUCCESSFULLY interfered with! FTFY.

The ten instances of Trump as president obstructing the investigation are listed here www.vox.com/.../mueller-report-obstruction-of-justice-summary

[Slingblade1126]

Goddamn! Do we have to through this again? No one said he could not reach a decision! Tell me if I’m wrong? And now you’re back to your same boring list of POSSIBILITIES where Trump obstructed! Lol Let me put it to you in simple language. Mueller determined Trump didn’t conspire with Russia or anyone associated with him, right? In that case there is no underlying crime to cover up or obstruct! Do you UNDERSTAND? I’m not saying Trump did or didn’t obstruct! I’m saying if he did obstruct, it wasn’t to impede an investigation or cover up evidence of a crime that never occurred! And that matters when it comes to charging and sentencing! You said it yourself, Mueller said Trump could be charged the second he left the White House! Why wasn’t he? Because it’s REAL hard to convict someone of obstruction of a crime they were found not to have committed! I know! The only time you pursue a crime of obstruction under a scenario like this, is if threats of violence or actual violence takes place.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 I've told you you're wrong, so did he. I can't be bothered with this nonsense any more.

[Slingblade1126]

Again, we can end this real quick! Show me where the OLC memo said Mueller couldn’t reach a decision on obstruction. That’s all I’m asking. You keep saying I’m “wrong”, when I say it doesn’t say that, but you haven’t proven it!

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 So your defence of Trump isn't that he didn't do it, it's that Mueller, rather than just documenting all ten cases, should have ignored binding DoJ policy and publically accused him of it.

I actually agree with that, and think Trump should have been arrested on Jan 21, 2021 for those crimes.

"The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination," the memo stated.
The department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is "constitutionally immune" from indictment and criminal prosecution. It concluded that criminal charges against a president would "violate the constitutional separation of powers" delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U. S. government.
"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions," the memo stated.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1QF1D2/

[Slingblade1126]

Key word, “indictment”. Once again, you keep saying I said Trump didn’t do it, show me where I said that? You really are a special breed of stupid.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 So you've really been saying Trump might have conspired, collaborated, or colluded with Russia in the 2016 election all along?

[Slingblade1126]

That’s what you’re saying! Of course, you have absolutely nothing to back your claim up, other than you hate Trump, so he did it. What you think doesn’t mean shit! You need to realize that. You have put up a pathetic argument! I actually thought you were smarter than this.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 So you don't think there's a possibility that Trump conspired, collaborated, or colluded with Russia in the 2016 election at all? That would mean my inference that you think Trump didn’t do it was correct.

Make up your mind.

[Slingblade1126]

I think I made myself pretty clear, didn’t I? Mueller reached his decision on conspiracy. If you don’t agree with it, that isn’t my fucking problem. I’ve already said collusion with Russia was in Mueller’s report but that isn’t a crime and Mueller decided, on his own, to investigate obstruction but not give an opinion. I made it CLEAR, I don’t know if Trump did or didn’t obstruct. He was never charged with it after he left office. You may think he did but again, your opinion doesn’t mean shit! You think Trump obstructed justice, therefore, is guilty of conspiracy, right? Or something similar? You did say that earlier. I really don’t know what you think, because you don’t make any sense half the time.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 No, you've not made yourself clear at all, all you say is innuendo and misrepresentation. You want to focus on one tiny aspect of Russia's interference in the 2016 election to the exclusion of all else because you know the facts aren't on your side.

You're constantly misrepresenting the facts, like when you say I "may think" Trump obstructed the investigation, when it's the Mueller report itself that lists ten separate cases when it happened. Half the report is dedicated to how the investigation was obstructed.

You'd like to pretend that "he wasn't indicted for it" is the same as "he didn't do it". It's not.

It's a fact that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. It's a fact that the Trump campaign and Republican leadership at the very least welcomed that interference on his behalf. It's a fact that Manafort passed internal campaign documents to a Russian agent (both were indicted for obstruction), and it's a fact that that's just one of dozens of interactions between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Big picture: that alone should have disqualified him from office.

[Slingblade1126]

You are making the same tiresome arguments! Collusion isn’t a crime, what don’t you fucking get? Saying I don’t know if he committed obstruction IS NOT the same as saying he DIDN’T! What world are you living in? Mueller said his investigation into conspiracy WAS NOT interfered with. You’re clueless, face it!

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 OK, so "Collusion isn’t a crime". Are you saying Trump colluded with Russia, but it doesn't matter? Why not?

Yes, you keep claiming you "don't know" things, but that's a cop-out. I think you do know, but you're unwilling to admit it. It's like "I don't recall" is proof against perjury charges; but it's still a tell that you're lying.

And, again with the misrepresentation:
Mueller said his investigation into conspiracy was not SUCCESSFULLY interfered with BY TRUMP.

[Slingblade1126]

If you’re asking me if I lost sleep over Trump willing to get dirt on Clinton from Russian sources, no, I didn’t! Why? Because there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s not illegal. You’re just a left wing nut job that takes fake outrage to a new level. Clinton’s campaign actually paid to get Russia dirt on Trump! Dirt that turned out to be lies. I didn’t lose sleep over that either, did you? I’ll be waiting for you to give me a million excuses for Hilary. Funny thing is, her campaign actually committed an actual crime in their attempt to influence the election. I don’t know if Trump did or didn’t obstruct. What don’t you get? I

I wanna see an actual quote, with context, of Mueller saying anything other than his investigation into conspiracy wasn’t interfered with.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 "I wanna see" you give an honest reponse to a simple question.

I asked you: Are you saying Trump colluded with Russia, but it doesn't matter? Why not?

By the way, I know that Trump did obstruct, because of the ten occasions documented in the Mueller report. What makes you doubt every one of them?

[Slingblade1126]

You stupid fuck! I just answered your question! Jesus Christ! You are ridiculous! I’ve told you how many times Trump colluded with Russia? I even told why it didn’t bother me. You are dumb! Mueller said his investigation on conspiracy wasn’t interfered with. You said Mueller couldn’t find Trump conspired with Russia because the investigation was obstructed, correct? What makes me doubt them or not doubt obstruction, is an actual trial, dip shit! You know, with witnesses and attorneys that argue their case for or against!

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 I think that's the first time you've explicitly said "Trump colluded with Russia" in so many words.

It should bother you, far more than a political opponent paying for dirt that happens to come from Russia, because it was an enemy of the US interfering in a US election, while Clinton's was paid for, and never, as you claim, "turned out to be lies". Standard right-wing propaganda: if one part of something we don't like isn't true, none of it's true.

Yes, you keep claiming that unless something comes to trial, it didn't happen. That's not the way things work. Trump did all ten obstructions documented in the Mueller report, but his AG and DoJ chose not to prosecute.

[Slingblade1126]

You are insane, without a doubt, grossly mis and uninformed and suffer from dementia! How many fucking times did I say he colluded? We covered this a couple days ago, when you claimed I need to “admit” it! Even though you never fucking asked me what I thought, that’s how fucking arrogant you are.

Hillary’s campaign paying to dig up dirt from Russians should bother you as much as Trump’s campaign accepting it from Russians. I know it did me, which is hardly at all.

Name one piece of incriminating evidence that was verified from the Steele Dossier. And I want a fucking answer from you for once! I have answered all your moronic questions, some of them more than once! Are you related to OddBeMe? I actually think you might be as dumb, if not dumber than him.

[Slingblade1126]

Oh, I’m just supposed assume someone’s guilt without a trial? Dumb fuck, in this country it doesn’t work that way!

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 I said: "I think that's the first time you've explicitly said "Trump colluded with Russia" in so many words." Please, quote the first time you *explicitly* said that, rather than some word salad that could be interpreted many ways.

Just because there hasn't been a trial doesn't mean you get to ignore all the publically available evidence and declare there's no way to know. That's just ridiculous.

Political campaigns pay to find dirt on their opponents all the time, what's different with Trump was that he was gifted it by Russia, including what they illegally obtained in the US. Plus all the fake news designed to help him win.

[Slingblade1126]

Two days ago
You: How about you admit the contacts between Russia”.
Me: I never said Trump didn’t have contacts with Russia.
You: I know but this is the first time you admitted it.
You clearly said I “admitted it”. Also take note, you never did ask me a direct question on collision.

Yesterday
Me: I already said collusion was in Mueller’s report.
The only word salad is coming from you!

Is that how it works in Germany? You have a prosecutor write up a report of evidence of a crime, have no trial so the accused can defend themselves, then declare them guilty? I thought the right was a threat to democracy.

The only differences between Trump’s campaign wanting dirt and Hillary’s campaign wanting dirt, is Hillary actually paid for it and committed a crime in doing so!

I also noticed you never gave me any damning verified crimes Trump committed from the Steele Dossier. Quit while you’re behind!

[OddBeMe]

@Slingblade1126 Hillary didn’t pay for annything and we don’t know what Trump offered Putin in return. That’s simple.

[Slingblade1126]

Hillary’s campaign paid for it and then hid it, violating FEC rules. They actually committed a crime. Oh, I know, it didn’t come out of Hillary’s bank account, right? Is that gonna be your pathetic excuse? Remember, Trump’s campaign didn’t commit a crime.

[OddBeMe]

@Slingblade1126 paid for what? Every campaign investigates the other. But it wasn’t Hillary who hired Steele or whatever.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 You really think your "I never said Trump didn’t have contacts with Russia." is the same as saying "Trump colluded with Russia"?

I can say whatever the hell I like about Trump, I'm not on a jury, there's no requirement that I presume innocence, and there's a hell of a lot of convincing evidence that he's guilty of everything he's been indicted for and a lot that he wasn't.

You're free to claim he's innocent, but then you have to explain away the evidence.

For example, do you think Trump didn't take, retain, hide, and lie about government documents, just because his pet judge hasn't allowed the trial to start yet?

[Slingblade1126]

Two days ago, I explicitly said, “I already said, collusion is in Mueller’s report”. Plus, for the tenth time, you never directly asked me! Do you even know what that means? In a desperate attempt to look smart, you’re accusing me of evading a question you never fucking asked me!

I have repeatedly said you can think Trump conspired with Russia and obstructed justice, right? Don’t suddenly pretend I said you are wrong for having an opinion.

Now you’re telling me I have to prove his innocence, before anyone proved his guilt?

And now, typical of you, you’re changing the subject.

[Slingblade1126]

@OddBeMe Hillary Clinton’s campaign hired Fusion GPS to dig up Russian dirt. That’s what the FEC found, because they fined the DNC and Clinton’s campaign for not financially disclosing her attempt to do research on a political opponent to sway the outcome of an election. I’m glad you agree with me! Yes, campaigns do it all the time and it’s perfectly legal.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Yes, you said collusion was in Mueller's report, but I wasn't asking for Mueller's opinion (which you're happy to dismiss or at least distract from when it comes to Trump's obstruction), I was asking for yours.

Yet another straw man of yours: I never said you had "to prove his innocence", I said, if you claim Trump's innocent, you'd have to explain away all the evidence. Do you claim Trump is innocent? What of? Be specific.

And it's not changing the subject to bring up another example of a Trump trial that hasn't happened yet. There's even more evidence that he's guilty of those charges but, by your logic, he must be innocent because there hasn't been a trial yet.

Feel free to start making unambigous statements rather than distractions like "how many people were convicted", trying to imply that means something didn't happen.

You've said "Trump was found not to be involved" (although now you say he did collude with Russia), and "no one, at any time, were found to have obstructed justice by lying or misleading authorities" when multiple people were convicted; Stone, alone, was convicted of obstruction, making false statements, and witness tampering.

It's hardly surpising I don't trust anything you say, is it?

[Slingblade1126]

You are fucking insane! You never FUCKING asked me, directly, if I thought Trump colluded with Russia! You would make statements that weren’t a direct question! How many times are we going to go through this? I answered your question and you even said I “admitted” it. You are trying so hard to look intelligent, that you’re actually looking stupid.

How can I argue someone’s innocence, when I don’t even know what the evidence is? You’re getting one sided evidence, you do realize, right? A prosecutor doesn’t write a report with exculpatory evidence attached, they write a report with evidence of a crime! And, yes, you have repeatedly asked me to show how he didn’t do it (obstruction). That’s not being asked to prove his innocence? No one has to prove he DIDN’T do it.

I said Trump was found not to be involved in CONSPIRING with Russia! I also made that pretty fucking clear.

You’re trying to change the subject, because you have lost this argument, so you just wanna move on!

Have you found any incriminating verified evidence in the Steele Dossier yet? You said it being dismissed was right wing propaganda or something to that affect, so I figured you’d be throwing all kinds of shit that was verified. Lol

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 No, unlike you, I'm being honest and consistent.

You're claiming that admitting that there were contacts between Trump and Russia is the same as saying Trump colluded with Russia (and pretending I just had to directly ask). It's not.

Nor is not finding enough proof to charge him means "Trump was found not to be involved (Russian conspiracy)", it just means they didn't find enough proof to charge him, despite the obvious collusion.

You claim to be ignorant of the evidence against Trump, which beggars belief, considering how much of it has come out in the last five years. Somehow you can know what's in the Mueller report without knowing the evidence in the Mueller report? Bullshit.

Do you think that because a trial has not been concluded, Trump is innocent of everything he's accused of? How about the trials that have concluded and found he committed fraud and sexual assault?

[goaded]

By the way, those were two direct questions at the end, there:

"Do you think that because a trial has not been concluded, Trump is innocent of everything he's accused of? How about the trials that have concluded and found he committed fraud and sexual assault?"

[Slingblade1126]

What trial? You are nuts? Trump was never even accused of collusion, because “collusion” isn’t a crime. In fact, Mueller said he didn’t even investigate for collusion, because collusion isn’t a legal term. I’ll give you an example of a direct question, since you have no fucking clue what one is.

You: Do you think Trump colluded with Russia?
I would have said “yes”, Mueller’s report speaks for itself! Of course I have already said that! Goddamn!

Trying to end this argument, are you? We’re not talking about other trials! We’re talking about you, for some reason, beating the dead Russian horse and looking foolish doing it. You just want me to get bored and move on, because you can’t stand being wrong and in your eyes, getting the last word in automatically makes you right. I’ve dealt with you in the past.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 I'm talking about logic. And you didn't answer either of the two direct questions I actually asked you. I'm not surprised.

Here's another one: Does the fact that there was collusion mean that the Russia investigation was a hoax, or not?

[Slingblade1126]

You asked me if the report/hearing concluded Trump did nothing wrong, right? Well, actually I guess you said trial lol How the fuck is that directly asking me if Trump colluded with Russia? The fact still remains, COLLUSION isn’t a crime! So, technically, he didn’t do anything wrong. Can you comprehend any of this?

The second question I directly answered!
You: I’m saying Trump obstructed the investigation and it wasn’t a hoax….. what are you (me) saying?

Me: I’m saying the investigation should have taken place and Russian interference wasn’t a hoax.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 LMAO. No, that's not what I asked you, and you know it. You're off hitting a straw man, yet again.

Here are the three questions I've asked you in the last couple of hours. They are clear and independent. Try to concentrate!

1. Do you think that because a trial has not been concluded, Trump is innocent of everything he's accused of? (You know he's been indicted four times, right?)

2. How about the trials that have concluded and found he committed fraud and sexual assault?

3. Does the fact that there was collusion mean that the Russia investigation was a hoax, or not? (OK, you answered that one, at least.)

You did say "I’m saying the investigation should have taken place and Russian interference wasn’t a hoax.", 11 days ago, in a different opinion, but of course you followed up with "but Trump was found not to be involved", which is bullshit. Not being involved means having nothing whatsoever to do with something, not having large numbers of your employees and advisors being found up to their necks in Russian contacts.

[Slingblade1126]

Read the statement prior to that, dumb fuck! I was talking about “conspiracy”, wasn’t I? I don’t know if you have a drinking problem or what, but you just cannot follow along! It’s actually getting sickening having to make you look foolish over and over. we’re not talking about other indictments or trials. Stick with this! I know you want to change the subject, you always do when you look pathetic!

[Slingblade1126]

Actually, I said Trump was found not to be involved in Russian interference, which technically would fall into the category of “conspiracy”. Either way, you’re just dumb. Lol

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 You do love your insults, don't you? You think they cover up the fact that you still haven't answered the other two questions (and are lying about the one you sort-of did).

[Slingblade1126]

I have continuously answered you questions, about THIS specific topic, l don’t you’ve answered one of mine! And now you want to suddenly change the subject? Why?

[Slingblade1126]

Don’t THINK you’ve answered on of mine

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Bullshit, anyone can see I've answered many of your questions, but you're avoiding these two simple questions. I'll make it easier for you:

Is a person suspected of a crime innocent of that crime until they've been convicted in a court of law?

[Slingblade1126]

They should definitely be considered innocent.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 That's not what I asked. You're talking about what a jury should think; we'll never see all the evidence, but we can come to a conclusion.

[Slingblade1126]

I told you how many fucking times, you can reach any conclusion you want! I just told you that today.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 What I'm after is agreement on the facts, though. I don't understand why you would come to the conclusion that Trump had nothing to do with all the collusion between his campaign and Russia. You said he colluded with Russia, but that that's no big deal, it's apparently on the level of Clinton paying a British citizen to find out about Trump connections with Russia.

Russia, the Russian government, helped Trump win.

[exitseven]

Everybody already knows it was a hoax financed by Hillery. I guess when you have a losing hand its time to throw everything against the wall ahd hope at least something sticks.

[goaded]

No, sad, bitter people believe anything they're told by Trump no matter how obviously wrong. The problem is not finding something to charge Trump with, it's which crimes to go after first. That, and judges and justices who are willing to let him run out the clock.

[OddBeMe]

@exitseven Then why are Trump campaign people in jail for crimes with Russia?

[exitseven]

@OddBeMe Bidens justice department ws coming after them with the full weight of the government.
They were going to financially ruin them with fake trials and bury them with legal fees unless the pled guilty.

[exitseven]

It is will known that the Steele dossier was a fake yet hillery got a pass because she is aa democrat. They never seem to get charged with any crimes. Do you ever wonder why that is?

[OddBeMe]

Again…it was Mueller’s team. Under Trump’s Admin. Not Biden.

[OddBeMe]

Nothing was done because of the Steele dossier. They were convicted or took plea deals whilst Trump was in office, deciding whether to pardon them.

Because right now, it might be in their parole application to appear in court for Trump’s trial. Oops.

[exitseven]

@OddBeMe the Steele dossier is how they got the FISA court to approve warrant to investigate Carter Page. The whole thing turned out to be a hoax

[OddBeMe]

No it wasn’t. Carter was an idiot who went to Russia, then continued openly talking to Russian agents.

[exitseven]

@OddBeMe there was nothing that he did that was not in an official capacity. he was framed by Hillery.

[goaded]

@exitseven Official capacity? He wasn't in the government, he was working for the Trump campaign.

[OddBeMe]

How powerful is Hillary and the democrats? We can’t even get our voters to the polls…

You seem to think everything against your preferred candidate is a fcking conspiracy.

[strateguy632]

"don't listen" so desperate and pathetic!

actually ever since kavanau got dragged, any anti- republican claims are truly not worth anybody's time to hear.

[goaded]

Why not? You ignore actual facts. People claiming a "Russia hoax" are simply raising a red flag that they're not serious.

[CaptainObivous]

I don't not agree, it would prevent us from hearing from great anti-war voices like Clare Daly and other's.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/VLLS1KLFfL8

[jamesgoldman]

Let's just say Hillary won rather than trump

Ukraine would have been invaded 4 years earlier and Biden would be dribbling away in a nursing home instead of leading the 'free world'

[goaded]

There would be hundreds of thousands Americans still alive today; she'd have taken the pandemic seriously from the start. Trump would still be telling the same lies, just about the 2016 election.

[jamesgoldman]

She'd have had Trump killed and was it not the democrat in NY who caused a lot of COVID deaths there at least sending residents to nursing homes to die on mass

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You really are stupid, delusional, and practice revisionist history. Trump requested that travel from China be stopped in January 2020. Pelosi falsely accused him of being xenophobic immediately afterwards.

www.npr.org/.../trump-declares-coronavirus-a-public-health-emergency-and-restricts-travel-from-c

thehill.com/.../

pelosi.house.gov/.../pelosi-statement-on-president-trump-s-expanded-travel-ban

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 The virus had already been in the country for months by then. Trump also encouraged the development of the vaccines and undertook to buy a certain amount even while trials were still under way. I didn't say everything he did was wrong, but from blowing off the pandemic preparedness training from the Obama administration to refusing to wear a mask in public for months, he did a hell of a lot wrong, leading to death rates far higher than most comparable countries.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded End of February 2020:

www.nbcbayarea.com/.../

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 How many Chinese-looking people got attacked because Trump was blaming them for "the China virus"? Of course he's xenophobic.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[Slingblade1126]

Are we still beating this dead horse?

[goaded]

What, the people saying "hoax"? Yes, they are.

[Slingblade1126]

Four congressional hearings and investigations, a Mueller investigation, a Durham investigation and still, no Russian conspiracy. The only “hoax” going on are people like you that still believe there is a conspiracy.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Bingo.

[goaded]

@slingblade1126 Are you saying Russia didn't interfere with the 2016 election?

[Slingblade1126]

Never said that. Are you saying Trump was found guilty of conspiring with them?

[goaded]

So you admit Russia interfered with the 2016 election. So it's not a hoax.

[Slingblade1126]

Yes, they did interfere, who is saying it’s a hoax?

[Slingblade1126]

Are you saying Trump conspired with them?

[goaded]

I'm saying even an obstructed investigation found there was evidence that Russia interfered, that Trump allies lied about it, Trump obstructed the investigation, and that it wasn't a hoax. That's backed up by federal investigations. What are you saying?

[Slingblade1126]

I’m saying the investigations should have taken place. Russian interference wasn’t a hoax but Trump was found not to be involved and Mueller never said whether he obstructed or not. He said, “I never made that calculation”.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Bingo again.

[goaded]

@slingblade1126 That's what people in reality call "a lie".

It was certainly not found that Trump was not involved.

However, good that you admit that "Russian interference wasn’t a hoax". Remember that Mueller testified “The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.”? And “A number of people we interviewed in our investigation, it turns out, did lie.”?

[Slingblade1126]

Did Mueller say Trump “conspired” with Russia? Yes or no

Did Mueller say Trump obstructed justice into that investigation? Yes or no

[goaded]

So it's OK if Russia helped Trump win, as long as he didn't provably conspire with them?

www.vox.com/.../mueller-report-obstruction-of-justice-summary

[Slingblade1126]

Putin recently said he wants Biden to win! Lol

[NYCQuestions1976]

@slingblade1126 Of course he does. He's running wild in Ukraine.

August 2008: Georgia invasion (Bush administration).

February 2012: Crimea annexed (Obama administration).

February 2022: Ukraine invasion (Biden administration).

Did you notice that there's an administration missing on this invasion/annexation list? I did.

[goaded]

@slingblade1126 Putin would never lie to you, would he? Just like he told Trump he didn't interfere in 2016. How stupid are you?

[Slingblade1126]

Did Putin lie when he supposedly wanted Trump to win? Lol How stupid are you?

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 You do understand that some people say whatever helps them most, even if it's contradictory?

[Slingblade1126]

Apparently, it only counts for one side? If you want me to explain, I will.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Bingo thrice.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Edit: February 2014: Crimea annexed (Obama administration).

I originally posted 2012. My bad.

[laly520]

I dont listen to em or biden or any clown

[goaded]

"em"?

[laly520]

it means them

[goaded]

Two of them were Trump appointees.

[laly520]

even worse

[slatyb]

Yes, I do.