David Weiss' Botched Investigation

[TexasTiger 13,130]

28 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

And all that amounted to...just this side of nothing...

It’s a question of what’s true. You made a false statement.

[DKW 86 7,481]

31 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

It’s a question of what’s true. You made a false statement.

Most of America and lil ole me would disagree.

[TexasTiger 13,130]

On 8/30/2023 at 4:21 PM, DKW 86 said:

And as Mueller Report says: They found no proof of close ties. 

I just proved you wrong. But keep being a useful idiot to Trump.

[homersapien 11,511]

9 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And all that amounted to...just this side of nothing...

And why was that exactly?

[homersapien 11,511]

8 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Most of America and lil ole me would disagree.

That's because "most of America" -  and you - are either ignorant of - or ignoring - the facts.

[DKW 86 7,481]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

And why was that exactly?

Facts and stuff….

[homersapien 11,511]

1 minute ago, DKW 86 said:

Facts and stuff….

  BS. 

The facts were reported earlier in this thread. As Mueller's report indicated, Trump's campaign had significant ties to Putin/Russia.  Trump also solicited Russia's help in the election.  And Trump received significant help from Russia. 

(Mueller didn't indict Trump for the criminal charge of "collusion" only legally, he would have to had direct evidence for Russia (Putin) and Trump coordinating and planning for their assistance, as if Monfort likely didn't do that ).

Regardless, unless you think that a US candidate for POTUS seeking and receiving campaign assistance from foreign countries - much less ones that are enemies - is acceptable, it should be impeachable. 

But there aren't enough Republicans in Congress to impeach Trump for ANY reason.  They care more about retaining power than they do for our country.  Unfortunately, that's a fact also. 

So unless that's the fact you are referring to, your response is BS.

[DKW 86 7,481]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

  BS. 

The facts were reported earlier in this thread. As Mueller's report indicated, Trump's campaign had significant ties to Putin/Russia.  Trump also solicited Russia's help in the election.  And Trump received significant help from Russia. 

(Mueller didn't indict Trump for the criminal charge of "collusion" only legally, he would have to had direct evidence for Russia (Putin) and Trump coordinating and planning for their assistance, as if Monfort likely didn't do that ).

Regardless, unless you think that a US candidate for POTUS seeking and receiving campaign assistance from foreign countries - much less ones that are enemies - is acceptable, it should be impeachable. 

But there aren't enough Republicans in Congress to impeach Trump for ANY reason.  They care more about retaining power than they do for our country.  Unfortunately, that's a fact also. 

So unless that's the fact you are referring to, your response is BS.

You see facts dont need qualifiers like "likely" "probably" etc.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/28/national-archives-admits-it-has-5400-biden-pseudonym-emails/

National Archives has 5,400 Biden emails in which he uses fake names to dish government info to Hunter, others as VP

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

On 8/31/2023 at 10:56 AM, TexasTiger said:

Like the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who released his findings in April 2019, the Senate report did not conclude that the Trump campaign engaged in a coordinated conspiracy with the Russian government — a fact that Republicans seized on to argue that there was “no collusion.”

But the report showed extensive evidence of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and people tied to the Kremlin — including a longstanding associate of the onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, whom the report identified as a “Russian intelligence officer.”

The Senate report was the first time the government has identified Mr. Kilimnik as an intelligence officer — Mr. Mueller’s report had labeled him as someone with ties to Russian intelligence. Most of the details about his intelligence background were blacked out in the Senate report.

Mazzetti, Mark (4 November 2020) [18 August 2020]. "G.O.P.-Led Senate Panel Details Ties Between 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia". The New York Times. Retrieved 22 May 2021.

In the RealClearInvestigations article, court documents show that Mueller told Manafort's attorney's that "there are no materials responsive" to his request of producing material evidencing communications between Manafort and Russian intelligence officials. Mueller produced no evidence that Kilimnik was a Russian intelligence official so how can the Senate know more than Mueller's team did?

Here's the 2018 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Hearing in the Manafort case:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5001611-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-for-Hearing-04.html

 

[TexasTiger 13,130]

9 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

In the RealClearInvestigations article, court documents show that Mueller told Manafort's attorney's that "there are no materials responsive" to his request of producing material evidencing communications between Manafort and Russian intelligence officials. Mueller produced no evidence that Kilimnik was a Russian intelligence official so how can the Senate know more than Mueller's team did?

Here's the 2018 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Hearing in the Manafort case:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5001611-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-for-Hearing-04.html

 

Security clearances that access info. Mueller may have had it, too, but couldn’t release it.

[AU9377 5,136]

14 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

In the RealClearInvestigations article, court documents show that Mueller told Manafort's attorney's that "there are no materials responsive" to his request of producing material evidencing communications between Manafort and Russian intelligence officials. Mueller produced no evidence that Kilimnik was a Russian intelligence official so how can the Senate know more than Mueller's team did?

Here's the 2018 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Hearing in the Manafort case:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5001611-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-for-Hearing-04.html

 

Isn't the point simply that there were enough connections that nobody could be surprised that they would warrant a closer look?  After all, Manafort pleaded guilty and was found guilty of enough shady behavior to make him a more than questionable choice to lead someone's campaign to be President.

[icanthearyou 4,464]

18 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

You see facts dont need qualifiers

Right,,, they need to move the goalposts.  Facts need to play "what about".

 

[icanthearyou 4,464]

15 hours ago, Auburnfan91 said:

In the RealClearInvestigations article, court documents show that Mueller told Manafort's attorney's that "there are no materials responsive" to his request of producing material evidencing communications between Manafort and Russian intelligence officials. Mueller produced no evidence that Kilimnik was a Russian intelligence official so how can the Senate know more than Mueller's team did?

Here's the 2018 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Hearing in the Manafort case:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5001611-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-for-Hearing-04.html

 

Merely a coincidence that Kilimnik fled to Russia after he was indicted.

I suppose you also believe that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that interfered in the 2016 election?

Idiotic.

[DKW 86 7,481]

21 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Right,,, they need to move the goalposts.  Facts need to play "what about".

 

On this forum they do. Whataboutism is part and parcel of almost every thread here some days.

Edited September 2, 2023 by DKW 86

[I_M4_AU 8,054]

On 8/27/2023 at 8:59 PM, LPTiger said:

The truth always comes out in the end.   Unfortunately the end sometimes is too late and after elections have been held.  See Ex. 1 Biden laptop is a fake, it is Russian disinformation.

The left doesn’t even want to ask the right questions or are even curious about what has been presented.

 

It's so funny to see Bump demanding that questions are bad, refusing to be curious about corruption, and panicking like this when someone just asks him to look into obvious red flags How? How does he live with himself like this? Isn't it humiliating?

ETA:  this is about the text Hunter wrote to his daughter about paying half his salary to *pop*.  Since you don’t see tweets.

Edited September 2, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[LPTiger 5,202]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The left doesn’t even want to ask the right questions or are even curious about what has been presented.

 

It's so funny to see Bump demanding that questions are bad, refusing to be curious about corruption, and panicking like this when someone just asks him to look into obvious red flags How? How does he live with himself like this? Isn't it humiliating?

ETA:  this is about the text Hunter wrote to his daughter about paying half his salary to *pop*.  Since you don’t see tweets.

If you keep asking hard questions, I'm just going to get up and walk out....

[AU9377 5,136]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The left doesn’t even want to ask the right questions or are even curious about what has been presented.

 

It's so funny to see Bump demanding that questions are bad, refusing to be curious about corruption, and panicking like this when someone just asks him to look into obvious red flags How? How does he live with himself like this? Isn't it humiliating?

ETA:  this is about the text Hunter wrote to his daughter about paying half his salary to *pop*.  Since you don’t see tweets.

Who are these people?

[I_M4_AU 8,054]

15 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Who are these people?

Follow

Philip Bump

@pbump

Washington Post national columnist. Author of The Aftermath, NYT editor’s pick. Write How To Read This Chart newsletter.

Dwornman is a podcaster.

The point being the left wing media are just not curious about anything involving Joe.