SVT MXZ XRS Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 11 minutes ago, Highmark said: Give me the definition of "No Evidence." No evidence Evidence 11 minutes ago, Skidooski said: Some of you simply could not accept the election results so why would you accept this or even your next big let down that's coming? Nailed it! 👍🏼 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 It's all over the news this morning. ABC, NBC, CBS, etc... It's all the same story. NO COLLUSION. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Not in the manner you people think it did. Look at the stuff Mueller prosecuted or sent on for prosecution by another dept. He was picking at things with a fine toothed comb. If there was even remote evidence something illegal took place he would have filed charges. He would have filed charges if he thought he could get a conviction. Like he did with so many of Trump's operatives. At some point you have to be pragmatic. Nothing less than a video of Trump saying, If you give me the whitehouse, I'll give you Crimea and leave Syria to you and Assad, would have convinced Trumpsters. Hell a recording of him admitting to sexual assault while he was married didn't sway the same people that wanted Clinton out of office for getting a hummer from an adult. Those people claimed Christian values and ignored everything about Trump. They even blamed Hillary for what Bill did but didn't blame Trump for his own actions. So knowing that, how much evidence would they have needed to take down Trump without causing a civil war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Skidooski Posted March 25, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: He would have filed charges if he thought he could get a conviction. Like he did with so many of Trump's operatives. At some point you have to be pragmatic. Nothing less than a video of Trump saying, If you give me the whitehouse, I'll give you Crimea and leave Syria to you and Assad, would have convinced Trumpsters. Hell a recording of him admitting to sexual assault while he was married didn't sway the same people that wanted Clinton out of office for getting a hummer from an adult. Those people claimed Christian values and ignored everything about Trump. They even blamed Hillary for what Bill did but didn't blame Trump for his own actions. So knowing that, how much evidence would they have needed to take down Trump without causing a civil war? How's your boy JT doing? Still in a free fall? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 25, 2019 Author Share Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) based on what we know about the trump tower meeting (e-mails to prove it) and what we know about the muller report not exonerating trump on obstruction, i'm open to reading other opinions. we have sold proof a russian lawyer reached out to trump jr and arranged a meeting with them to obtain hillary dirt. trump and others accepted. we have solid proof that trump and trump jr lied about this meeting and made up some BS about adoptions. we have solid proof trump did some things that could be considered obstruction, and he was not exonerated on it. so please, lets hear some other logical explanations.. Edited March 25, 2019 by Snoslinger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 25, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 25, 2019 6 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: He would have filed charges if he thought he could get a conviction. Like he did with so many of Trump's operatives. At some point you have to be pragmatic. Nothing less than a video of Trump saying, If you give me the whitehouse, I'll give you Crimea and leave Syria to you and Assad, would have convinced Trumpsters. Hell a recording of him admitting to sexual assault while he was married didn't sway the same people that wanted Clinton out of office for getting a hummer from an adult. Those people claimed Christian values and ignored everything about Trump. They even blamed Hillary for what Bill did but didn't blame Trump for his own actions. So knowing that, how much evidence would they have needed to take down Trump without causing a civil war? "No evidence of collusion." He didn't say not enough to indict. He didn't say no intent. Until you comprehend what that means you'll just be another slinger. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 7 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: He would have filed charges if he thought he could get a conviction. Like he did with so many of Trump's operatives. At some point you have to be pragmatic. Nothing less than a video of Trump saying, If you give me the whitehouse, I'll give you Crimea and leave Syria to you and Assad, would have convinced Trumpsters. Hell a recording of him admitting to sexual assault while he was married didn't sway the same people that wanted Clinton out of office for getting a hummer from an adult. Those people claimed Christian values and ignored everything about Trump. They even blamed Hillary for what Bill did but didn't blame Trump for his own actions. So knowing that, how much evidence would they have needed to take down Trump without causing a civil war? Stop your fucking whining as you twist and turn your own stupid narratives. This is why I find Highmark fun. He can debate rationally with people I’ve already decided just need their head lumped up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 25, 2019 Author Share Posted March 25, 2019 8 minutes ago, Anler said: It's all over the news this morning. ABC, NBC, CBS, etc... It's all the same story. NO COLLUSION. using the legal sense of the word, that appears to be the case. that does not mean the trump admin did not work with people representing russian interests. it means not enough evidence was found to meet the legal requirements. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Skidooski said: How's your boy JT doing? Still in a free fall? I hope he is. But be careful. Dumbass Dave will be on to tell you this thread isn't about Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 25, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: based on what we know about the trump tower meeting (e-mails to prove it) and what we know about the muller report not exonerating trump on collusion, i'm open to reading other opinions. we have sold proof a russian lawyer reached out to trump jr and arranged a meeting with them to obtain hillary dirt. trump and others accepted. we have solid proof that trump and trump jr lied about this meeting and made up some BS about adoptions. we have solid proof trump did some things that could be considered obstruction, and he was not exonerated on it. so please, lets hear some other logical explanations.. Your comprehension skills are excellent. What proof? Edited March 25, 2019 by Highmark 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: based on what we know about the trump tower meeting (e-mails to prove it) and what we know about the muller report not exonerating trump on collusion, i'm open to reading other opinions. we have sold proof a russian lawyer reached out to trump jr and arranged a meeting with them to obtain hillary dirt. trump and others accepted. we have solid proof that trump and trump jr lied about this meeting and made up some BS about adoptions. we have solid proof trump did some things that could be considered obstruction, and he was not exonerated on it. so please, lets hear some other logical explanations.. Are you saying there should be another special counsel to redo this whole thing? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 25, 2019 Author Share Posted March 25, 2019 Just now, Highmark said: "No evidence of collusion." He didn't say not enough to indict. He didn't say no intent. Until you comprehend what that means you'll just be another slinger. give me your explanation of what you think happened at trump tower, based on the e-mails between jr and others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 25, 2019 Author Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Your comprehension skills are excellent. see me edit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Skidooski Posted March 25, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, revkevsdi said: I hope he is. But be careful. Dumbass Dave will be on to tell you this thread isn't about Canada. Sounds like you just sent out an invite...cograts rat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 25, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Snoslinger said: see me edit See mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Snoslinger said: using the legal sense of the word, that appears to be the case. that does not mean the trump admin did not work with people representing russian interests. it means not enough evidence was found to meet the legal requirements. And that’s a win for people who cheered locker her up about Hillary and Thought Keeneth Starr did a great job. This circus would have been more fun is Trump lived up to his promise and appeared under oath to answer some questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Snoslinger said: Mueller could not prove that members of the trump admin knowingly colluded, in the legal sense of the word, with russian government, in the legal sense of the word. So ogliarchs, lawyers, etc are technically not the russian gov. This is why putin used them to do the dirty work. Also why nothing illegal about the trump tower meeting. Trump was not sure about the ability to get away with all this, so his actions could be viewed as obstruction. That is why mueller did not exonerate him on the obstruction charge, regardless of how many times trunp will say it. Summary - russia did meddle in the election, the trump admin did help with it. It appears it did not meet the illegal criteria however. this is akin to the ok Simpson trial. Anyone with a clue knew he did it, but it couldn’t be proven, legally I told you years ago this was going to be your excuse. Mentioned it several times. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: give me your explanation of what you think happened at trump tower, based on the e-mails between jr and others. But muh trump tower! I know more than Mueller! I watched CNN and go on du you can’t beat that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 25, 2019 Author Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Zambroski said: Are you saying there should be another special counsel to redo this whole thing? not at all, unless something else comes up. i'm saying it's a very, very good possibility that the trumps got away with something. it does not bolster your side's argument that there's no way trump or his admin worked with russia to help him win the election. that did happen, just not the illegal version of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 25, 2019 Author Share Posted March 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, Highmark said: See mine. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 25, 2019 Author Share Posted March 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dump said: But muh trump tower! I know more than Mueller! I watched CNN and go on du you can’t beat that! no, i read the trump tower memos..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 Just now, Snoslinger said: no, i read the trump tower memos..... Which clearly show no collusion lmao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 25, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 25, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Highmark said: Your comprehension skills are excellent. What proof? 5 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: ? What proof is there the Trump and Jr. lied about the meeting? He voluntarily turned over all his emails. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/31/trump-jr-s-phone-call-after-trump-tower-meeting-wasnt-his-father/2738887002/ https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/senate-investigators-blocked-phone-calls-not-father-trump/index.html Edited March 25, 2019 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: not at all, unless something else comes up. i'm saying it's a very, very good possibility that the trumps got away with something. it does not bolster your side's argument that there's no way trump or his admin worked with russia to help him win the election. that did happen, just not the illegal version of it. So, after all the Trump, dump, lump bashing, now he’s a worldwide political espionage mastermind that was able to outmaneuver Mueller and his hand selected team of Clinton supporters who were given an astonishing level of unlimited scope, while backed by DC finances and resources, and were bound and determined to take him down? I never thought he was stupid but this smart? I don’t think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted March 25, 2019 Author Share Posted March 25, 2019 4 minutes ago, Dump said: Which clearly show no collusion lmao in the legal sense of the word, apparently that is correct. it does show that trump jr and some people representing the russian government (in those exact words) met to share dirt on hillary though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.