Mueller says Trump was not exonerated but Trump declares victory

[MAGA 2020]

On 7/25/2019 at 6:53 AM, Tug said:

I watched the whole thing to me it unfolded exactly as I expected director muller of few words was taciturn factual and honest the dems factual respectfull questioning the republicans trying to spin and launch conspiracy’s so as per muller it’s not a witch hunt can’t indict a sitting potus but game on after 2020 the russans did interfere in our election pretty much what we knew before and a big slap down for Donald’s pet ag

Let's see the only thing attempted by the Democrats over the last 2.5 years was a failed witch hunt. Democrats your batting a big fat ZERO. 

[Tug]

Maga2020 with all due respect your Donald got exposed for what he is don’t kid yourself the testimony wasent a (performance)it was testimony the facts understand what was said the dude is dirty it will be taken care of soon after 2020 when Donald can be indicted 

[chokrai]

13 minutes ago, Tug said:

Maga2020 with all due respect your Donald got exposed for what he is don’t kid yourself the testimony wasent a (performance)it was testimony the facts understand what was said the dude is dirty it will be taken care of soon after 2020 when Donald can be indicted 

Much bigger chance that Clinton will be indicted then Trump. 

[mogandave]

Maga2020 with all due respect your Donald got exposed for what he is don’t kid yourself the testimony wasent a (performance)it was testimony the facts understand what was said the dude is dirty it will be taken care of soon after 2020 when Donald can be indicted 

If the dems weren’t planning on impeaching home after Mueller’s testimony, what was the point of the hearings?

I’ve got US$1,000 says Trump is not convicted of obstruction of justice after the next election, and if he wins the next election I’ll go double or nothing.

Put your money where your mouth is.

[marcusarelus]

20 hours ago, candide said:

An opinion piece by  Kimberley A. Strassel.

In 2014, Strassel was awarded a $250,000 Bradley Prize from the conservative Bradley Foundation.

When you can't find anything to attack in the message attack the messenger.  That's the problem with this whole Russian thing.  The American people have not been told one thing that the Russians did to effect the election results.  I for one don't think Americans are that stupid.  They know something is fishy. 

[marcusarelus]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

If the dems weren’t planning on impeaching home after Mueller’s testimony, what was the point of the hearings?

I’ve got US$1,000 says Trump is not convicted of obstruction of justice after the next election, and if he wins the next election I’ll go double or nothing.

Put your money where your mouth is.

I would agree.  I think the point is to string out the innuendo long enough to try and pull the simple folks (0nes who can't think) vote. 

[candide]

9 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

When you can't find anything to attack in the message attack the messenger.  That's the problem with this whole Russian thing.  The American people have not been told one thing that the Russians did to effect the election results.  I for one don't think Americans are that stupid.  They know something is fishy. 

The most important point is that it is an opinion article and not a fact based article. By a known conservative author.

There is no reason to attack the message as it is only an opinion. She has no established facts on which to base her opinion and I also don't have facts to counter it.

[chokrai]

Time to get out the popcorn and enjoy the Barr report on the Mueller report. Going to be sweet.

[marcusarelus]

5 minutes ago, chokrai said:

Time to get out the popcorn and enjoy the Barr report on the Mueller report. Going to be sweet.

I'm betting they can't out the CIA.  Would take some real honest members of government and I think those all died off decades ago. 

[stevenl]

55 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

When you can't find anything to attack in the message attack the messenger.  That's the problem with this whole Russian thing.  The American people have not been told one thing that the Russians did to effect the election results.  I for one don't think Americans are that stupid.  They know something is fishy. 

They have been told what the Russians did, but most think they are immune to things like that. So yes, they are stupid.

 

Regarding victory or not, Trump would have declared victory anyway, even if the report would have clearly said he committed many crimes.

[Scott]

Nonsense, off-topic, baiting posts and replies removed.  

 

[Misty]

13 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

The American people have not been told one thing that the Russians did to effect the election results.

But of course they have.  The Mueller report Volume I is full of details.  I'm not sure if you are "an American person" but if you haven't read the full Mueller report, perhaps you would have time to educate yourself and read the Mueller report executive summary.  Here's a link to the summary: https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

 

And just some sample text (this is just the first portion, there's lots more detail of all the Russians did in Mueller's executive summary):

 

"The IRA (Russian government funded operation) later used social media accounts and interest groups to sow discord in the U.S. political system through what it termed "information warfare." The (Russian) campaign evolved from a generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the U.S. electoral system, to a targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Trump and disparaged candidate Clinton. The IRA's operation also included the purchase of political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities, as well as the staging of political rallies inside the United States. To organize those rallies, IRA employees posed as U.S. grassroots entities and persons and made contact with Trump supporters and Trump Campaign officials in the United States. ...

 

 

[Misty]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

 

"IRA (Russian government funded operation) employees posed as U.S. grassroots entities and persons ..." - Mueller report executive summary

 

This may help explain some of the ridiculously false statements being posted on this forum...

[rabas]

2 hours ago, Misty said:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

 

"IRA (Russian government funded operation) employees posed as U.S. grassroots entities and persons ..." - Mueller report executive summary

 

This may help explain some of the ridiculously false statements being posted on this forum...

You mean ridiculous like this passage?

 

"...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

 

At which point there was no "justice to obstruct".

 

[Misty]

14 minutes ago, rabas said:

You mean ridiculous like this passage?

 

"...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

 

At which point there was no "justice to obstruct".

 

Did not establish due to obstruction. 

[rabas]

18 minutes ago, Misty said:

33 minutes ago, rabas said:

You mean ridiculous like this passage?

 

"...the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

 

At which point there was no "justice to obstruct".

Did not establish due to obstruction. 

LOL, good one!  Factual unbiased reference?

[Misty]

13 minutes ago, rabas said:

LOL, good one!  Factual unbiased reference?

Well do you consider the Mueller report to be a "factual unbiased reference"?  Plenty of examples in the original report of lying, destruction of evidence, witnesses being told to lie, deletion of relevant communications - all these would be considered obstruction.  If the Mueller report is too long for you, the executive summary may be manageable. It's all there.

[Mavideol]

On 7/25/2019 at 5:45 AM, webfact said:

"This was a very big day for the Republican Party. And you could say this was a great day for me, but I don't even like to say that," the Republican president said

he must be speaking about something else, I listen to the testimony and couldn't find any good day for the RP or for DT on the contrary but by his standards it's a win, let's wait and see what he won

[BobBKK]

Just now, Mavideol said:

he must be speaking about something else, I listen to the testimony and couldn't find any good day for the RP or for DT on the contrary but by his standards it's a win, let's wait and see what he won

"it was Ronald Reagan"  oh, oh, oh was it... yea great day for the Dems  lol

[watcharacters]

On 7/25/2019 at 10:02 PM, chokrai said:

On 7/25/2019 at 9:59 PM, mogandave said:

 

Only to us. The lefties all sop that stuff up.

 

True. I guess I should have said it sounds stupid to anyone with a brain.

 

Nice rebuttal.

[mogandave]

Did not establish due to obstruction. 

 

Yes, which begs the question, why didn’t he (Mueller) say that?

 

Hilarious

[Misty]

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Yes, which begs the question, why didn’t he (Mueller) say that?

 

Hilarious

And he did.

[candide]

It seems the testimonial had little effect, in one way or the other.

 

"In the July 25 survey of 1,992 registered voters, 35 percent of registered voters said the president was exonerated by Mueller, compared with 41 percent who disagreed."

https://morningconsult.com/2019/07/26/41-of-voters-say-mueller-didnt-exonerate-trump-35-say-he-did/

 

[rabas]

31 minutes ago, candide said:

It seems the testimonial had little effect, in one way or the other.

 

"In the July 25 survey of 1,992 registered voters, 35 percent of registered voters said the president was exonerated by Mueller, compared with 41 percent who disagreed."

https://morningconsult.com/2019/07/26/41-of-voters-say-mueller-didnt-exonerate-trump-35-say-he-did/

 

But as we have learned from the investigation as a whole, "not-exonerated" is not "not-not-guilty", so we have 76% claiming not-not-"un-guilty". Which makes sense since one can only be guilty of a charge. Or maybe un-guilty of discharge.

[mogandave]

And he did.

I listened to it and I do not believe he did.

I wouldn’t call you a liar, because I’m guessing you’re just regurgitating something someone else said.

[marcusarelus]

6 hours ago, Misty said:

But of course they have.  The Mueller report Volume I is full of details.  I'm not sure if you are "an American person" but if you haven't read the full Mueller report, perhaps you would have time to educate yourself and read the Mueller report executive summary.  Here's a link to the summary: https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries

 

And just some sample text (this is just the first portion, there's lots more detail of all the Russians did in Mueller's executive summary):

 

"The IRA (Russian government funded operation) later used social media accounts and interest groups to sow discord in the U.S. political system through what it termed "information warfare." The (Russian) campaign evolved from a generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the U.S. electoral system, to a targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Trump and disparaged candidate Clinton. The IRA's operation also included the purchase of political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities, as well as the staging of political rallies inside the United States. To organize those rallies, IRA employees posed as U.S. grassroots entities and persons and made contact with Trump supporters and Trump Campaign officials in the United States. ...

 

Please point out where any of the things the Russians did effected the American election.  What they tried to do does not count.  Again, What did the Russians do that effected the American election?  That British company Cambridge Analytica did in conjunction with Facebook.  But what did the Russians do?  If a foreign government had given him cash like they did Podesta maybe you'd have a point.  

[mogandave]

Please point out where any of the things the Russians did effected the American election.  What they tried to do does not count.  Again, What did the Russians do that effected the American election?  That British company Cambridge Analytica did in conjunction with Facebook.  But what did the Russians do?  

Where? In every state Trump carried.

[marcusarelus]

29 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Where? In every state Trump carried.
 

 

My ex wife's second cousin, wonderful child but a slow learner, her special school in Pine Bluff Arkansas for a civics project wrote Instagram's in every state Trump carried about their political views.  Do you think she was responsible for Trump's win more that the Russians?  What criteria could we impose to find out?  Do you have access to any of this information?

 

My point is, there is no factual data to suggest the Russians effected the election.  They may have tried as did my wife's second cousin but there is no data to suggest either of them effected anything. 

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

My ex wife's second cousin, wonderful child but a slow learner, her special school in Pine Bluff Arkansas for a civics project wrote Instagram's in every state Trump carried about their political views.  Do you think she was responsible for Trump's win more that the Russians?  What criteria could we impose to find out?  Do you have access to any of this information?

 

My point is, there is no factual data to suggest the Russians effected the election.  They may have tried as did my wife's second cousin but there is no data to suggest either of them effected anything. 

ASs I said earlier, some are simply not smart enough to understand what transpired and how that was done.

[candide]

9 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

My ex wife's second cousin, wonderful child but a slow learner, her special school in Pine Bluff Arkansas for a civics project wrote Instagram's in every state Trump carried about their political views.  Do you think she was responsible for Trump's win more that the Russians?  What criteria could we impose to find out?  Do you have access to any of this information?

 

My point is, there is no factual data to suggest the Russians effected the election.  They may have tried as did my wife's second cousin but there is no data to suggest either of them effected anything. 

Was your wife's second cousin able to reach 126 million people?