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

[elmrfudd]

16 minutes ago, candide said:

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?

 

There is no verifiable evidence of wikileaks, not wikipedia, releasing information at the request of anyone. they release

when they want to, always have. show the evidence that shows otherwise. real actual evidence.

 

where is the verfiable evidence to start a counter intelligence probe that attempted to plant people into an opposing

political candidate and surveillance of the opposition party?  Where is it?

we'll soon find out once the fisa details are out.

 

Why can a political party directed by the candidate, pay millions to foreign agents to gather unverified  "oppo research" and it is ignored by the liberal media and liberals?

 

what does a real estate deal that never happened have to do with anything? Is that really all you have?

 

please tell me this isn't the lame blather you are basing the phony russia hoax on.

 

but if it is all you have, then keep hanging on to that thread.

[Chomper Higgot]

All this talk of lies and mistruths, while there’s a claim in the title of this thread that might b true, might not be true.

 

Who knows either way? The evidence is being kept secret.

[spidermike007]

The one fact that seems to be ignored here is that just because the report did not find that he colluded, does not mean he did not collude. And we have not seen the report, only a highly partisan interpretation of the report. There are a hundred reasons why he may have decided to not charge Trump. Chief among them, the standing of the US, on the world stage and the financial markets. Mueller is a republican, and the US government is one big, corrupt machine, run by corporations. So, he ends up doing their bidding. Maybe? Did we really expect anything different? Does anyone really think that impeachment would not be a highly disruptive process?

[candide]

20 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

 

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.

 

 

There is no objective reason why lies should be equally distributed between parties and people.

If you don't like the source, choose another serious source and tell us which lies by Trump are not lies.

[elmrfudd]

12 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

The one fact that seems to be ignored here is that just because the report did not find that he colluded, does not mean he did not collude. And we have not seen the report, only a highly partisan interpretation of the report. There are a hundred reasons why he may have decided to not charge Trump. Chief among them, the standing of the US, on the world stage and the financial markets. Mueller is a republican, and the US government is one big, corrupt machine, run by corporations. So, he ends up doing their bidding. Maybe? Did we really expect anything different? Does anyone really think that impeachment would not be a highly disruptive process?

that is complete nonsense

[metisdead]

An off topic baiting post has been removed. 

[elmrfudd]

9 minutes ago, candide said:

There is no objective reason why lies should be equally distributed between parties and people.

If you don't like the source, choose another serious source and tell us which lies by Trump are not lies.

yes, there certainly is no objectivity or balance in the source

[candide]

10 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

 

There is no verifiable evidence of wikileaks, not wikipedia, releasing information at the request of anyone. they release

when they want to, always have. show the evidence that shows otherwise. real actual evidence.

 

where is the verfiable evidence to start a counter intelligence probe that attempted to plant people into an opposing

political candidate and surveillance of the opposition party?  Where is it?

we'll soon find out once the fisa details are out.

 

Why can a political party directed by the candidate, pay millions to foreign agents to gather unverified  "oppo research" and it is ignored by the liberal media and liberals?

 

what does a real estate deal that never happened have to do with anything? Is that really all you have?

 

please tell me this isn't the lame blather you are basing the phony russia hoax on.

 

but if it is all you have, then keep hanging on to that thread.

By definition, an investigation starts when there are clues, and the objective is to find evidences. 

About the (only) example you  cite: Wikileaks (not Wikipedia, damn autocorrect!). The article states that it is true that Guccifer 2.0 opened a channel of communication with "a person who was in regular contact with senior members" of the Trump campaign. It has been corroborated. The article also states that no direct implication of Trump has been corroborated. So there's nothing monohydrate in the analysis made in this source.

And of course, when someone try to draw you to consider facts, he is "emotionally involved". Nice try! ????

[elmrfudd]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

By definition, an investigation starts when there are clues, and the objective is to find evidences. 

About the (only) example you  cite: Wikileaks (not Wikipedia, damn autocorrect!). The article states that it is true that Guccifer 2.0 opened a channel of communication with "a person who was in regular contact with senior members" of the Trump campaign. It has been corroborated. The article also states that no direct implication of Trump has been corroborated. So there's nothing monohydrate in the analysis made in this source.

And of course, when someone try to draw you to consider facts, he is "emotionally involved". Nice try! ????

clues?

 

what is this a board game?

 

there is nothing in your statement that constitutes a verifiable fact.

 

analysis isn't fact, especially when driven by bias

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

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.

 

So the independent people doing the counting and other organisations and so on are all telling lies according to you!

 

This is what I've never been able to understand about the trump supporters, and that is how they will support this proven liar and a man of so much bravado but so little intelligence, and they will seem to support him till the end, and I couldn't understand why until I watched him tonight on the TV during his latest speech/rally and it suddenly came to me.

 

I remember as a child going to pantomimes and all of the kids would go there sometimes accompanied by adults, but mostly these pantomimes were for children and any adult who was weak minded, and they all had one thing in common, where the lead player on stage would stand up and say something along the lines of, "well we don't want that to happen now do we children". A big "no" would be the answer, prompted by the lead player and when the lead player suggested the children boo, and gave the signal, then they booed!!!

 

Just the same tonight when the orange clown (lead player) pointed out the "fake news people" at the back and a whole section of the crowd pointed to these people, just as the orange clown had done, and then some started the booing.

 

It is the chief clown leading the children and the weak minded in this pantomime and yet these poor weak minded people cannot see that they are being led by this poor excuse for a human being.

 

But again, to see a whole swathe of trump supporters being led along like they were children was indeed a sad sight.

 

No I'm not emotionally involved in this, because I'm not an American, however I do believe it's a sad indictment of what America has become, and as I said previously, I abhor liars, cheats, conmen, racists, misogynists and just about everything that trump is, not what he stands for particularly, because I have no political leanings, but to see this idiot in charge is beyond belief.

[elmrfudd]

4 minutes ago, xylophone said:

So the independent people doing the counting and other organisations and so on are all telling lies according to you!

 

This is what I've never been able to understand about the trump supporters, and that is how they will support this proven liar and a man of so much bravado but so little intelligence, and they will seem to support him till the end, and I couldn't understand why until I watched him tonight on the TV during his latest speech/rally and it suddenly came to me.

 

I remember as a child going to pantomimes and all of the kids would go there sometimes accompanied by adults, but mostly these pantomimes were for children and any adult who was weak minded, and they all had one thing in common, where the lead player on stage would stand up and say something along the lines of, "well we don't want that to happen now do we children". A big "no" would be the answer, prompted by the lead player and when the lead player suggested the children boo, and gave the signal, then they booed!!!

 

Just the same tonight when the orange clown (lead player) pointed out the "fake news people" at the back and a whole section of the crowd pointed to these people, just as the orange clown had done, and then some started the booing.

 

It is the chief clown leading the children and the weak minded in this pantomime and yet these poor weak minded people cannot see that they are being led by this poor excuse for a human being.

 

But again, to see a whole swathe of trump supporters being led along like they were children was indeed a sad sight.

 

No I'm not emotionally involved in this, because I'm not an American, however I do believe it's a sad indictment of what America has become, and as I said previously, I abhor liars, cheats, conmen, racists, misogynists and just about everything that trump is, not what he stands for particularly, because I have no political leanings, but to see this idiot in charge is beyond belief.

"independent"????

 

what makes them that?

 

but as long as you can keep up the outrage to suit your opinion, go for it?

 

so please keep pretending those who disagree with you are weak minded and maintain the

pseudo intellectual posturing.

[candide]

16 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

clues?

 

what is this a board game?

 

there is nothing in your statement that constitutes a verifiable fact.

 

analysis isn't fact, especially when driven by bias

Again, the linked article (there are several like this one. I avoided cnn for obvious reasons, you can choose another one if you like) analyses the main information in the Steele dossier and analyses how it is corroborated or not with what has been confirmed later by official investigations and in courts. That was intended to outline that parts of the report have been corroborated, others not, and none debunked.

Which observations in this article about what is corroborated do you think is not true?

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

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. 

I'd challenge you to provide specific examples of these lies, but you've clearly demonstrated you can't be trusted on simple facts.

6 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? 

From your link:

 

" Despite what Trump says, the 2008 Clinton campaign and the candidate herself never trafficked in the rumors. "   https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304

 

You either lied, or didn't take the trouble to read the title of your source.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

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. 

The verification came from intelligence sources who had seen the dossier who were deemed reliable.  The Clinton comment was to illustrate the absurdity of your view that you won't believe anything involving classified material if you haven't seen the classified material.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

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?

Once again, portions of the dossier have been validated by other intelligence sources.  There was a legitimate investigation into Russian election interference that looked into possible collusion with the Trump campaign.  These are facts, not lies.

[elmrfudd]

6 hours ago, candide said:

Again, the linked article (there are several like this one. I avoided cnn for obvious reasons, you can choose another one if you like) analyses the main information in the Steele dossier and analyses how it is corroborated or not with what has been confirmed later by official investigations and in courts. That was intended to outline that parts of the report have been corroborated, others not, and none debunked.

Which observations in this article about what is corroborated do you think is not true?

Confirmed later? By precisely who? By what verifiable evidence? 

 

Verifiable means a clear detail that allows an allegation to be be backed up by a witness on record and irrefutable evidence that proves they are truthful. 

 

Analysis does not do that, but it does make assumptions. 

[JimmyJ]

MSNBC and NBC = DNC (Democratic National Committee)

 

Managing Editor of MSNBC/NBC politics acts on behalf of the DNC:

 

Glenn Greenwald -

"This is stunning. Yes, some Fox hosts are often arms of the Trump WH, but this proves - not that it should surprise snyone - that NBC/MSNBC = DNC. Equals. MSDNC. NBC = DNC News. Read this:"

 

[Clicking on a blank spot on the Yashar Ali box - especially the top or bottom portions -  will expand it to all of his tweets explaining in full the story]

 

 

And MSNBC has acted for the last few years on behalf of the DNC to push the RussiaGate hoax 24/7 as an excuse for Empress Pantsuit losing the election.

 

A "news" organization trying to intimidate a reporter on behalf of a political party.

 

This is State Television.

`

[elmrfudd]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

Once again, portions of the dossier have been validated by other intelligence sources.  There was a legitimate investigation into Russian election interference that looked into possible collusion with the Trump campaign.  These are facts, not lies.

Let's ignore for a moment that the dossier was paid for by an opposing candidate and circulated into the state department by the candidate. 

Let's pretend that the same biased fbi said, on record, that there's no there there. Let's ignore these facts like the media does for just a moment. 

 

Precisely which portions have irrefutable, verified proof of truth? What "source" 

 

And precisely what evidence is there to prove the investigation "legitimate"? 

[elmrfudd]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

The verification came from intelligence sources who had seen the dossier who were deemed reliable.  The Clinton comment was to illustrate the absurdity of your view that you won't believe anything involving classified material if you haven't seen the classified material.

who are the sources? names, dates, precise details that show irrefutable proof of validity.

[elmrfudd]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

Once again, portions of the dossier have been validated by other intelligence sources.  There was a legitimate investigation into Russian election interference that looked into possible collusion with the Trump campaign.  These are facts, not lies.

here we are again with "sources"

[wayned]

Barr just announced that the redacted report will be released to congress and the public by mid April.  Barr's summary of the 300+ pages included 74 quoted words from the Mueller report.  I suspect that the redacted report will have at least 86! If Barr got cr4eative he sound change the color of the redaction from black to red and then they would have 300+ red (GOP) pages!

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

Let's ignore for a moment that the dossier was paid for by an opposing candidate and circulated into the state department by the candidate. 

Let's pretend that the same biased fbi said, on record, that there's no there there. Let's ignore these facts like the media does for just a moment. 

 

Precisely which portions have irrefutable, verified proof of truth? What "source" 

 

And precisely what evidence is there to prove the investigation "legitimate"? 

 

3 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

who are the sources? names, dates, precise details that show irrefutable proof of validity.

 

3 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

here we are again with "sources"

It's very clear that you won't accept the word of inside sources when you can't personally review the classified information.  I'm curious, does that apply to intelligence reports that stated that Iran had a covert nuclear program?  Do you want the US to drop all sanctions in place to curb Iran's nuclear program in the absence of unclassified proof?

 

Trump himself said opposition research is legal.  Paying a highly respected agent of a close US ally to conduct opposition research is legal.  Attempting to get something of value, dirt on Hillary Clinton, from a hostile foreign government, as Don Jr did, is illegal.

 

I won't dispute there was, and probably still is, bias in the FBI.  Comey probably did more to ensure the Trump victory than Russia by reopening the FBI investigation of Clinton days before the election.  He did this because there were agents in the FBI hostile to Clinton who he feared would leak the information if he didn't release it.   https://townhall.com/columnists/edklein/2016/11/02/why-comey-reopened-the-hillary-investigation-n2240690

 

Trump made the investigation legitimate.  He had a history of dealings with Russia, we now know he was negotiating a major real estate deal with Russia, he had the Republican platform regarding Ukraine changed in a manner highly favorable to Russia.  He refused to acknowledge Russian interference in the election.  And he has never said anything negative about Putin.

 

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.  If Trump acts like a Russian stooge and talks like a Russian stooge, Trump is probably a Russian stooge and it would be treasonously irresponsible to not investigate.

 

I was never sure if Trump was a willful accomplice in helping Putin undermine the US, or simply Putin's useful idiot.  Now that the Mueller report is out, we know the answer.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

who are the sources? names, dates, precise details that show irrefutable proof of validity.

At last you are getting it.

 

We need to see the Mueller report and the supporting evidence.

 

Less of this ‘I have a letter from my mum’ nonsense.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours 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

Please don't refer to that nonsense on my behalf. I have zero interest in it and Obama is no more on the political scene.

You and others continually refer to his lies as being somehow meaningful, but give us a break. He's just become a politician and politicians tell porkies all the time. I'd be surprised if he didn't lie, as I expect politicians to do so.

I only care about results and so far he's doing his best to keep his campaign promises. If he hasn't succeeded in all, that's because the Dems and his enemies in the GOP have been able to stop or delay him.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

At last you are getting it.

 

We need to see the Mueller report and the supporting evidence.

 

Less of this ‘I have a letter from my mum’ nonsense.

Al Jazira reported today that the Mueller report will be published in mid April, so perhaps we can have a bit less of the obsession with seeing it.

Not that it's going to have anything to do away with Trump.

[thaibeachlovers]

42 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Trump is probably a Russian stooge and it would be treasonously irresponsible to not investigate.

Investigation done and dusted- no there there. Game over.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

here we are again with "sources"

It's almost as though they think if they keep referring to secondary issues it will make a difference to the report.

I guess having had 2 years of telling us the report will get rid of Trump, now that it's cleared him, we'll have 6 more years of but, but, but.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

Once again, portions of the dossier have been validated by other intelligence sources.  There was a legitimate investigation into Russian election interference that looked into possible collusion with the Trump campaign.  These are facts, not lies.

If an investigation is going to spend 2 years and millions of $, it should be based on more than "possible".

[Chomper Higgot]

22 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Investigation done and dusted- no there there. Game over.

Where did you hear the investigation was over?

 

There is still at least one Grand Jury still in session. 

 

 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-27/mueller-grand-jury-is-continuing-robustly-prosecutor-says

[johnmcc6]

Anyone who actually believed that Trump and some prostitutes peed in Obamas bed need mental health care. Only scum trump haters could dream up something so ridiculous. The fact it led to the Mueller investigation and all the nut job accusations from the media and the left loons proves the lying left to be unfit to govern America,  The U S A is going gang busters at the moment in spite of all the tossers who hate him. Trump is making fools of his enemies . He is winning and the loons on the left can't stand it. Let them waste another two years in a futile attempt to get rid of him instead of trying to come up with any meaningful policies. So far all the left can do is hate. They are all but guaranteeing a Trump victory in 2020.