Mueller report finds no evidence that Trump campaign colluded with Russia - U.S. Justice Department

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, Kasane said:

Monica Lewinsky is right. "if. <deleted>. only." The recently appointed AG should release the full report. No controversies then of what, if, when, why. Suppressing the report is unethical and immoral. The report belongs to the American public, not to AG.

He already said he was going to release it soon. He also said he'd appear to testify before a House committee regarding its contents.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, Kasane said:

Monica Lewinsky is right. "if. <deleted>. only." The recently appointed AG should release the full report. No controversies then of what, if, when, why. Suppressing the report is unethical and immoral. The report belongs to the American public, not to AG.

Actually the report belongs to whom the law it says it belongs to. Do you imagine the government actually tells the citizens everything?

[Kasane]

47 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

He already said he was going to release it soon. He also said he'd appear to testify before a House committee regarding its contents.

H is not a gatekeeper. He is the AG of America, not a stool of Prez. Testify after report release.

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, Kasane said:

H is not a gatekeeper. He is the AG of America, not a stool of Prez. Testify after report release.

I think that's the plan. That's why the House committee chairman didn't set a date yet.

[Hank Gunn]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually the report belongs to whom the law it says it belongs to. Do you imagine the government actually tells the citizens everything?

Further to your first point, after the Kenneth Starr investigation a Democratic controlled Congress passed a bill, eventually signed into law by a Democratic president, both limiting the scope of future “special investigations” and limiting the publication of the findings of those investigations. In short, the Mueller investigation and what gets released to the public from the AG, operates/operated under a very different remit than the Starr investigation. If there are any concerns about a lack transparency from AG Barr, the Democrats have only themselves to blame.

[elmrfudd]

18 hours ago, heybruce said:

So you're now clear we are discussing the dossier, not the Mueller investigation.  That's good.

 

My previous post did not debunk the dossier.  It showed that parts of the dossier were matched conclusions of the dossier that US intelligence agencies had arrived at independently.  Parts of the dossier have been questioned, but nobody has ever debunked the dossier.  If you disagree, show some proof that everything in the dossier was debunked 

 

There has been no verifiable evidence of the allegations in dossier. There hasn't been any verified evidence. No one has gone on record with verifiable evidence. You haven't shown any truly verifiable sources and then you ask for verifiable sources that it is all debunked. 

 

Astounding 

[xylophone]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. I think you can find plenty of liars, bigots, racists, cheats and crooks on both sides of the political divide. Surely no one is so naïve as to believe that only president Trump has those attributes?

There's liars, big liars, continual liars and trump who overlays all of those with his repeated lies upon lies..........I have watched a speech or three of his and the lies are so blatant and obvious as to be embarrassing, and the sad thing about that is that all of his cronies are standing and applauding him AND they know he's lying!!!

 

trump beats them all and I've yet to see anyone who tells many thousands (yes, documented) of lies, time and time again.

 

Surely gutter material rather than one who holds high office.  

[elmrfudd]

5 minutes ago, xylophone said:

There's liars, big liars, continual liars and trump who overlays all of those with his repeated lies upon lies..........I have watched a speech or three of his and the lies are so blatant and obvious as to be embarrassing, and the sad thing about that is that all of his cronies are standing and applauding him AND they know he's lying!!!

 

trump beats them all and I've yet to see anyone who tells many thousands (yes, documented) of lies, time and time again.

 

Surely gutter material rather than one who holds high office.  

Moral preening, nice. 

 

These so called "documented" lies are counted by... Let me guess, wapo or nyt? Those bastions of truth awarded pulitzers for pushing a lie for almost 3 years. 

 

Amazing they don't count anyone else isn't it? 

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You keep referring to Trump being a "birther". However, he can't have been a very loud one as I never heard him connected with that till it was promoted on TVF.

I do agree that it was "nonsense" and surely it is not worth the trouble of repeating over and over as though it proved anything?

I can sympathize with your ignorance about Trump lies.  Trump deals with his many lies by burying them under many more lies.  I can provide other links if you like, but here's a start.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html

[Chomper Higgot]

You can fool some of the people some of the time.... 

 

But most want to see for themselves. 

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/muellers-report-should-be-made-public-most-americans-say?utm_source=Devices&utm_medium=Notification&utm_campaign=Push+Notification&utm_content=2019329-new-poll

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you serious? You want us to spend how much time researching your posts? That's not our job.

The quote function allows you to do what is necessary to provide the context of your posts.

I only ask people to read the post I replied to, which I always provide, in order to put my post in context.  Is that too much reading for you?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

Moral preening, nice. 

 

These so called "documented" lies are counted by... Let me guess, wapo or nyt? Those bastions of truth awarded pulitzers for pushing a lie for almost 3 years. 

 

Amazing they don't count anyone else isn't it? 

Where do you get you news?  What "bastions of truth" have disputed any of the documented lies?  Do you believe Trump had the largest inauguration crowd in history?  Do you believe millions of illegal votes for Hillary Clinton?  Do you believe Trump hires the best people? Do you believe a report that states that it in no way exonerates Trump has given him "completely exonerated"?  The list goes on and on.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, elmrfudd said:

 

There has been no verifiable evidence of the allegations in dossier. There hasn't been any verified evidence. No one has gone on record with verifiable evidence. You haven't shown any truly verifiable sources and then you ask for verifiable sources that it is all debunked. 

 

Astounding 

You want verified evidence, when the only verified evidence involves revealing classified? 

 

Ok, Fox news, Trump, and everyone else are wrong in stating Iran is developing nuclear weapons. There are claims there is classified information to the contrary, but it hasn't been published. Therefore, we should drop all sanctions against Iran.  After all, if evidence is classified, it doesn't exist.  Right?

 

Oh, by the way, Hillary Clinton never had classified on her email server.  You haven't seen the classified, have you?

[elmrfudd]

32 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I can sympathize with your ignorance about Trump lies.  Trump deals with his many lies by burying them under many more lies.  I can provide other links if you like, but here's a start.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html

it was actually started in Illinois, but parroted by Clinton Staffers

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304

 

I can provide other links, but here is a start

[elmrfudd]

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Where do you get you news?  What "bastions of truth" have disputed any of the documented lies?  Do you believe Trump had the largest inauguration crowd in history?  Do you believe millions of illegal votes for Hillary Clinton?  Do you believe Trump hires the best people? Do you believe a report that states that it in no way exonerates Trump has given him "completely exonerated"?  The list goes on and on.

Where I get the news wasn't the point, the bias and lies of the people doing the counting and being awarded a Pulitzer for it was, get the irony here?

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

it was actually started in Illinois, but parroted by Clinton Staffers

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304

 

I can provide other links, but here is a start

So?  Does that make it ok for Trump to grand stand on a lie?

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

Where I get the news wasn't the point, the bias and lies of the people doing the counting and being awarded a Pulitzer for it was, get the irony here?

When you state widely respected news organizations aren't credible, without offering any evidence, you destroy your own credibility.  You completely bury your credibility by not offering any sources for your skepticism of accepted facts.  Get the irony here?

[elmrfudd]

Just now, heybruce said:

When you state widely respected news organizations aren't credible, without offering any evidence, you destroy your own credibility.  You completely bury your credibility by not offering any sources for your skepticism of accepted facts.  Get the irony here?

Peddling a lie for 3 years is now credible? Having a clear bias in reporting is now credible? 

 

Maybe to liberals that have the same bias it is. 

[elmrfudd]

6 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So?  Does that make it ok for Trump to grand stand on a lie?

Is it OK when the Hillary campaign circulates it, or does it just apply to people that you don't like? 

[elmrfudd]

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You want verified evidence, when the only verified evidence involves revealing classified? 

 

Ok, Fox news, Trump, and everyone else are wrong in stating Iran is developing nuclear weapons. There are claims there is classified information to the contrary, but it hasn't been published. Therefore, we should drop all sanctions against Iran.  After all, if evidence is classified, it doesn't exist.  Right?

 

Oh, by the way, Hillary Clinton never had classified on her email server.  You haven't seen the classified, have you?

Wait, you state that some of the dossier has been verified, then say these verifications are "classified".... Which you haven't seen. But still think it is a fact but have never been able to provide any verifiable evidence. But still believe in the narrative. 

 

The Clinton remark is off topic and incorrect, but we'll just ignore it. 

[elmrfudd]

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

When you state widely respected news organizations aren't credible, without offering any evidence, you destroy your own credibility.  You completely bury your credibility by not offering any sources for your skepticism of accepted facts.  Get the irony here?

what "accepted" facts? that the dossier and collusion story was a lie?

or the awarding of a pulitzer for printing the lies?

 

get the irony here?

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

Moral preening, nice. 

 

These so called "documented" lies are counted by... Let me guess, wapo or nyt? Those bastions of truth awarded pulitzers for pushing a lie for almost 3 years. 

 

Amazing they don't count anyone else isn't it? 

That is so weak as to be almost unworthy of you.

 

The lies are out there for all to see, thousands of them and verifiable..........and why should "they" count anyone else's lies when at last count the orange clown was hogging the lie limelight with his?

 

Better to focus of this clown because there are going to be many more lies and he will keep drawing ridicule for them........go the covfefe clown!!

[elmrfudd]

11 minutes ago, xylophone said:

That is so weak as to be almost unworthy of you.

 

The lies are out there for all to see, thousands of them and verifiable..........and why should "they" count anyone else's lies when at last count the orange clown was hogging the lie limelight with his?

 

Better to focus of this clown because there are going to be many more lies and he will keep drawing ridicule for them........go the covfefe clown!!

pointing out the years of obvious bias and lies from the people doing the counting is weak? 

and ignoring others lies is irrelevant, in your opinion.

 

you seem to be quite emotionally invested in this.

 

[candide]

3 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

Moral preening, nice. 

 

These so called "documented" lies are counted by... Let me guess, wapo or nyt? Those bastions of truth awarded pulitzers for pushing a lie for almost 3 years. 

 

Amazing they don't count anyone else isn't it? 

Let's get out of general blah blah. In the link there is a list of lies by Trump. Now tell us which ones are not lies. And why, if you find some.

I know you will never answer this question.

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

[candide]

4 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

 

There has been no verifiable evidence of the allegations in dossier. There hasn't been any verified evidence. No one has gone on record with verifiable evidence. You haven't shown any truly verifiable sources and then you ask for verifiable sources that it is all debunked. 

 

Astounding 

Again. Blah blah. In the following list, there is an analysis of what has been proven true in the Steele dossiers. Now please tell us which part of it, which is considered to be true in the article, is actually not true.

You will also never answer this question, because you only serve general opinions without getting to facts.

https://www.businessinsider.com/steele-dossier-allegations-trump-russia-mueller-investigation-2019-1

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

Is it OK when the Hillary campaign circulates it, or does it just apply to people that you don't like? 

But but but Hillary!

[elmrfudd]

14 minutes ago, candide said:

Again. Blah blah. In the following list, there is an analysis of what has been proven true in the Steele dossiers. Now please tell us which part of it, which is considered to be true in the article, is actually not true.

You will also never answer this question, because you only serve general opinions without getting to facts.

https://www.businessinsider.com/steele-dossier-allegations-trump-russia-mueller-investigation-2019-1

Nothing in your reference shows verifiable proof of the dossier. "analysis" isn't verifiable fact. 

 

Wiki leaks allegations and Manafort? 

 

That is the best you can do? 

 

A real estate deal that never happens? 

 

That's it after years of investigations? 

 

Get verified evidence. Real actual evidence.  

 

Very weak 

 

[elmrfudd]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But but but Hillary!

Weak deflection 

[candide]

7 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

Nothing in your reference shows verifiable proof of the dossier. Wiki leaks allegations and Manafort? 

 

That is the best you can do? 

 

A real estate deal that never happens? 

 

That's it after years of investigations? 

 

Get verified evidence. Real actual evidence.  

 

Very weak 

 

Blah blah again. What exactly is not true about Wikipedia in this article? What is not true about Manafort in this article? What is not true about Trump's projects in Russia?

[elmrfudd]

28 minutes ago, candide said:

Let's get out of general blah blah. In the link there is a list of lies by Trump. Now tell us which ones are not lies. And why, if you find some.

I know you will never answer this question.

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

 

I will answer, now if we have to use another left biased site like politifact, are we comparing lies of all politicians

or just the one you are emotionally and irrationally upset about? or just presidents? just to know the standards here.

 

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/

 

when your choice of scorekeepers Wapo/NYT/ has a bias and can decide what to post, obvious;y there is

a disparity to feed the biased narrative. it has been going on for decades, just not as blatant.

 

 

 

https://bongino.com/yes-politifact-has-a-liberal-bias/

When it came to the worst possible ruling, “Pants on Fire,” Donald Trump accounted for half of those ratings. But even with Trump excluded, Politifact has a penchant for giving Republicans that rating which indicates they were caught in an outrageous bold faced lie, while when Democrats make false claims, Politifact will be able to find some semblance of truth within the claim so they only have to rate it “mostly false” or “half true.” During the 2012 election season, PolitiFact assigned Mitt Romney 19 “Pants on Fire” ratings, while ALL Democrats combined received 25 “Pants on Fire” ratings from 2007-2016.

Are we to believe that Romney was more of a liar during the 2012 campaign season than all Democrats over nearly a decade? That’s about as believable as the claim that Hillary Clinton was the second-most honest politician in America.

 

Among politicians, Republicans dominate the “untruthful” rankings, while Democrats are ranked by Politifact as the most truthful. Below are those results charted:

Democrats had an average rating of 1.8, which is between “Mostly True” and “Half True.” The average Republican rating was 2.6, which is between “Half-True” and “Mostly False.” We also checked Republicans without President-elect Donald Trump in the mix and found that 0.8 truth gap narrowed to 0.5. They ranked Hillary Clinton as the second-most honest politician (lol).

 

 

 

 

When it came to the worst possible ruling, “Pants on Fire,” Donald Trump accounted for half of those ratings. But even with Trump excluded, Politifact has a penchant for giving Republicans that rating which indicates they were caught in an outrageous bold faced lie, while when Democrats make false claims, Politifact will be able to find some semblance of truth within the claim so they only have to rate it “mostly false” or “half true.” During the 2012 election season, PolitiFact assigned Mitt Romney 19 “Pants on Fire” ratings, while ALL Democrats combined received 25 “Pants on Fire” ratings from 2007-2016.

Are we to believe that Romney was more of a liar during the 2012 campaign season than all Democrats over nearly a decade? That’s about as believable as the claim that Hillary Clinton was the second-most honest politician in America.

The most interesting part of Shapiro’s analysis came from when he looked into the word count of Politifact’s articles. In quoting Ronald Reagan, he notes that “when you’re explaining, you’re losing,” and Politifact does a lot of that to justify their biased ratings of Republicans. The shortest Politifact articles are for “true” and “mostly true” statements, because they can often be easily verified. It’s “half-true,” “mostly false” and “pants on fire” statements that receive the longest explanations, in part because debunking takes time, but more often because they’re torturing logic to justify a negative rating for a Republican who would otherwise get a less-harsh verdict, had they not been a Republican.

“Mostly false” is the most common rating given to Republicans besides Donald Trump. 

 

Biased score keeping to promote the narrative, with full support of the media.

 

carry on.