Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NBC News: Senate no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    What you just described is not "collusion".
    If it were, everyone who looked at the wiki leaks emails would also be guilty of collusion.
    Once they were in wiki's hands, they were in the public domain and trump had the same right to see the emails as I do or putin.
    The fact that putin or I saw those emails is not proof of "collusion" (conspiracy).

    If you are going to hold on to the belief that trump did something illegal with the russians you are going to have to come up with something illegal and explain how he did it "with the russians".
    Your scenario accuses trump of doing something perfectly legal and fails to tell us what was illegal or how it was done "with the russians".
    . Did I say it was illegal Go back and re read what I said.. But it is collusion none the less and more than likely a high crime.

    You always argueing the fine points of law and I have consistently said it may not be a crime but it an impeachable offense.

    Or is it your argument someone who works for a foreign intel agency can be the president.

    Comment


    • #17
      Well, to be honest, the Starr investigation dragged on for something like 4 years and all we got out of that was a dirty blue dress, a lie about a blow job and new place for old men to stick cigars. How much money went down the tubes investigating that? What came of it? Not much. Yeah Clinton got impeached by the House but he remained in office.

      If Trump "colluded" with the Russians I would want to know about it and for him to step down. I'm good with Pence being POTUS. By God the social liberals would soil themselves running back into the closet seeing him coming.

      Has Trump lied? Yes. Bottom line to me, I still "trust" him more than Hillary. If the Democrats nominate her to run against him I will vote for him again. I trust the media about as much I trust the politicians. Actually, I think I trust them less as they like to keep the drama stoked because it helps sales and gets more clicks.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by craven View Post

        . Did I say it was illegal Go back and re read what I said.. But it is collusion none the less and more than likely a high crime.

        You always argueing the fine points of law and I have consistently said it may not be a crime but it an impeachable offense.

        Or is it your argument someone who works for a foreign intel agency can be the president.

        You said he "colluded" and he is guilty.
        You have now denied saying his act was illegal. If it isn't illegal what is the point?
        Thankfully, we do not charge people for engaging in legal acts.

        If it isn't illegal, I have to wonder how it is a "high crime".
        If Trump is "working for a foreign agency", then it would stand to reason there would be some evidence of that, but what you have claimed is proof of his crime, is not.

        It was legal for trump to win the election.
        It was legal for trump to comment on the emails that hillary allowed to be stolen (note trump had nothing to do with that theft)
        Once the emails were made public, it was legal for trump to use them in any way he saw fit.

        I am not arguing the fine points of law, I am rebutting the unsupported arguments that he has committed a crime.

        You say he is guilty of collusion (among other things). The actual crime would be conspiracy and the scenario you presented makes reference to zero illegal or even unethical acts.
        (other than Hillary's)

        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post

          How many years, how many millions, how many FBI Swat Raids to intimidate are needed before the Dems and their Fake News allies will realize that there was nothing to be found other then hearsay?
          Seems there may be a form of collusion and possible illegal actions after all ....

          New Emails Confirm FBI Tried To Work Deal With State Dept To Minimize Hillary Email Scandal
          ...
          Over two years after the fact, newly released FBI emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request confirm that James Comey's FBI attempted to work out a quid pro quo deal with the Obama State Department to help minimize the Hillary Clinton private email server scandal just weeks before the 2016 election.

          Fox News's Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne first reported on the alleged deal back on October 15, 2016, but full confirmation did not come until this week when the government transparency watchdog group Judicial Watch released FBI communication related to the deal.

          "FBI interview summaries and notes, provided late Friday to the House Government Oversight and Intelligence Committees, contain allegations of a 'quid pro quo' between a senior State Department executive and FBI agents during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, two congressional sources told Fox News," Herridge and Browne reported in 2016. "This is a flashing red light of potential criminality," Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah) told Fox News at the time. "In return for altering the classification, the possibility of additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas was discussed," he said.

          On Monday, Fox News' Gregg Re reported that over two years later, the allegation that the FBI and State Department floated a "quid pro quo" deal has now been confirmed, and it originated with the FBI:
          ...
          https://www.dailywire.com/news/43399...aign=position1

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Nebfer View Post
            Well per a new article from NBC the Senate Investigation of Trump's collusion with Russia seems to be wrapping up after finding no direct links of colluding.
            Note This investigation is a bipartisan group, so even the Democrats agree here. Though they say it wont be all good news for trump, though they also stated that Trump did not make any pacts of collusion with Russia.
            https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...mpaign-n970536

            Of course it's a main stream news site so it's no surprise that their going to take a more negative slant to this, after all the "MSN" has been consistently over 90% negative in their coverage about the president.

            and a Tim pool vid on this
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK4-rEH8-I4
            Some EXCERPTS from that NBC link ...
            Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia

            "We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.
            ....
            WASHINGTON — After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.

            But investigators disagree along party lines when it comes to the implications of a pattern of contacts they have documented between Trump associates and Russians — contacts that occurred before, during and after Russian intelligence operatives were seeking to help Donald Trump by leaking hacked Democratic emails and attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton, on social media.

            "If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in an interview with CBS News last week.

            Burr was careful to note that more facts may yet be uncovered, but he also made clear that the investigation was nearing an end.

            "We know we're getting to the bottom of the barrel because there're not new questions that we're searching for answers to," Burr said.

            On Tuesday, Burr doubled down, telling NBC News, "There is no factual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia."
            ...
            https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...mpaign-n970536

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Massena View Post

              If that were true, why are there indictments, trials and prison sentences? An Mueller has not been investigating two years yet. There was information posted a few months ago that the money spent on this investigation equaled the money spent on Trump's trips to his resorts and to golf.
              Thing is those "indictments, trials and prison sentences" have nothing to do with collusion or co-operating with the Russians, but are the sort of campaign improprieties and violations we could likely also find in the Hillary Clinton campaign were it subject to a similar kangaroo court, er, "investigation".

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                Thing is those "indictments, trials and prison sentences" have nothing to do with collusion or co-operating with the Russians, but are the sort of campaign improprieties and violations we could likely also find in the Hillary Clinton campaign were it subject to a similar kangaroo court, er, "investigation".
                That just isn't true. Flynn was fired and then indicted because of lying about contact with the Russians. It has been shown that the GRU was involved with interfering in the US election. Papadopulous was indicted and imprisoned because of lying about the Russians and it has been shown that Manafort had colluded with the Russians.

                Perhaps you should also look at this which is posted on another thread. The question is if Trump et al are not guilty, why are they lying and why are the stories changing? Answer that truthfully and you might actually begin to understand what is going on. Or, you can continue to find excuses for Trump and his thugs to the detriment of the country.

                https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019...ssia-then-now/
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Massena View Post

                  That just isn't true. Flynn was fired and then indicted because of lying about contact with the Russians. It has been shown that the GRU was involved with interfering in the US election. Papadopulous was indicted and imprisoned because of lying about the Russians and it has been shown that Manafort had colluded with the Russians.

                  Perhaps you should also look at this which is posted on another thread. The question is if Trump et al are not guilty, why are they lying and why are the stories changing? Answer that truthfully and you might actually begin to understand what is going on. Or, you can continue to find excuses for Trump and his thugs to the detriment of the country.

                  https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019...ssia-then-now/


                  Flynn was convicted of lying to the FBI. Not for having contact with the Russians


                  The fact that Flynn was neither charged, nor convicted of anything to do with the actual contact with the Russians should establish that those acts were completely legal.
                  His conviction really doesn't help those arguing trump was guilty of "collusion".

                  Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                  Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The question is, what was he lying about?
                    We are not now that strength which in old days
                    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                      Thing is those "indictments, trials and prison sentences" have nothing to do with collusion or co-operating with the Russians, but are the sort of campaign improprieties and violations we could likely also find in the Hillary Clinton campaign were it subject to a similar kangaroo court, er, "investigation".
                      Do you remember the days when Americans were innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

                      Its sad that things fall by the wayside.
                      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Massena View Post
                        The question is, what was he lying about?


                        As I recall, he lied about meeting them.
                        He was charged for that lie.

                        He was not charged for anything related to the actual contact.
                        His only "crime" took place during the conversation with the FBI agents. Not before.
                        And specifically not for meeting with russians
                        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                          As I recall, he lied about meeting them.
                          He was charged for that lie.

                          He was not charged for anything related to the actual contact.
                          His only "crime" took place during the conversation with the FBI agents. Not before.
                          And specifically not for meeting with russians
                          Why meet with Russians in the first place as they are a stated adversary of the United States? The FBI should have been called, not meeting with the Russians.
                          We are not now that strength which in old days
                          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Massena View Post

                            Why meet with Russians in the first place as they are a stated adversary of the United States? The FBI should have been called, not meeting with the Russians.


                            Why haven't they charged him with anything to do with the actual meeting with the russians?

                            Because it was perfectly legal.
                            It is legal to meet with russians.
                            It is perfectly acceptable to meet and talk to russians.

                            It only becomes a problem if there is an illegal agreement with the russians.
                            The fact that he was never charged with anything regarding an illegal agreement or even for meeting the russians is solid proof the FBI took no issue with it.
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Massena View Post

                              Why meet with Russians in the first place as they are a stated adversary of the United States? The FBI should have been called, not meeting with the Russians.
                              EXCERPTS;
                              ...
                              President Obama found his private moment of political candor caught by a live microphone on Monday as he told President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia that he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate on the delicate issue of missile defense after the November election, which Mr. Obama apparently feels confident he will win.

                              Mr. Obama’s Republican adversaries seized on the comment, which followed a meeting between Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev in Seoul, South Korea, where both had struggled to find common ground amid strong objections in Russia to the American plans for a missile defense system based in Europe.
                              ...
                              “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” Mr. Obama could be heard saying to Mr. Medvedev, according a reporter from ABC News, who was traveling with the president.

                              “Yeah, I understand,” the departing Russian president said. “I understand your message about space. Space for you ... .”

                              Mr. Obama then elaborated in a portion of the exchange picked up by the cameras: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

                              “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Mr. Medvedev said, referring to Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, who just won an election to succeed Mr. Medvedev.
                              ...
                              https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/u...exibility.html

                              If anyone is looking for a POTUS "colluding" with and making questionable deals with, currying the favor of Putin/Russia, or acting like Putin's puppet, we have clear and specific evidence in the above. Toss in that Uranium One deal and there's icing on the cake.


                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X