Team Trump's Collusion Denials...

[MarcATL]

You will not get a straight answer from Trumpers because they have no answer. If they had the courage to face the truth, they would acknowledge they were conned and deceived by Trump. That would take character though and self-reflection. Way too much to ask for from the typical Trumper.

Agree, however, I would extend it to self-professed conservatives and/or Republicans in general. They're all cut from the same cloth. No personal responsibility whatsoever.

 

[MarcATL]

It’s so obvious but Mueller is still investigating so we can’t really know if he colluded or not. Make up your damn minds.

That's directed at Rudy, right?

#LOLGOP #TooFunny #CLASSIC

 

[jc456]

Rudy had a good debate with Cuomo on CNN last night. Cuomo threw all the dems' bullshit at Rudy, and Rudy shot them all down. It all depends on what Mueller can prove in his report. Based on the law, the "criminal" investigation should not have even started, because the deep state fucks did not find any evidence of wrongdoing for the FBI's "counter-intelligence" investigation. The entire mess was apparently FBI payback for firing Comey.

Do you even get what you are saying? You need EVIDENCE to start an INVESTIGATION??? Do you get that the purpose of an INVESTIGATION is to gather EVIDENCE? If I suspect a kid is being abused do I need evidence to tell the police about my suspicions, and does the police need evidence to look into it?

dude there is no hope for you.

 

[jc456]

Rudy had a good debate with Cuomo on CNN last night. Cuomo threw all the dems' bullshit at Rudy, and Rudy shot them all down. It all depends on what Mueller can prove in his report. Based on the law, the "criminal" investigation should not have even started, because the deep state fucks did not find any evidence of wrongdoing for the FBI's "counter-intelligence" investigation. The entire mess was apparently FBI payback for firing Comey.

Do you even get what you are saying? You need EVIDENCE to start an INVESTIGATION??? Do you get that the purpose of an INVESTIGATION is to gather EVIDENCE? If I suspect a kid is being abused do I need evidence to tell the police about my suspicions, and does the police need evidence to look into it?

This is a logic trap.

When someone is murdered the investigation starts TO get evidence.

no, that isn't what he said, he said you start investigating before the murder happens. get that crystal ball out baby, cause we need to go get evidence on something that hasn't happened. then we will tell you what we found and then give you the crime.

I'm not sure what school taught this line of investigative work, but somewhere someone did. cause here we are. no crime and an investigation of nothing.

 

[forkup]

Rudy had a good debate with Cuomo on CNN last night. Cuomo threw all the dems' bullshit at Rudy, and Rudy shot them all down. It all depends on what Mueller can prove in his report. Based on the law, the "criminal" investigation should not have even started, because the deep state fucks did not find any evidence of wrongdoing for the FBI's "counter-intelligence" investigation. The entire mess was apparently FBI payback for firing Comey.

Do you even get what you are saying? You need EVIDENCE to start an INVESTIGATION??? Do you get that the purpose of an INVESTIGATION is to gather EVIDENCE? If I suspect a kid is being abused do I need evidence to tell the police about my suspicions, and does the police need evidence to look into it?

Yes you need evidence to start an investigation, that is the LAW.

When the police ask you why you think the kid is being abused, what do you tell them? I don't have any evidence, but that guy just looks mean?

Maybe the kid is acting in a strange manner, being unusually withdrawn. Maybe it has bruises. Maybe I see it cringe inexplicably when the kid sees the father. Maybe all of the above. None of it is evidence but it is suspicious. In order for the FBI to start an investigation suspicion is sufficient. There is no such thing in the law that states that one has to have evidence before an investigation can take place. The only thing the law says is that just cause is required.Just Cause Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Just cause is not evidence. It is simply stated a "reason to suspect."

I'm outside my lane here, I'm just posting what Rudy Guiliani said on CNN. Rudy was an FBI prosecutor and knows the Law. Rudy said that the Mueller investigation did not have adequate legal justification because McCabe and Strzok said that they had no evidence.

Can I ask if you see the fault in reasoning that the defense attorney of someone being investigated has to tell the truth about what's transpiring in an investigation on his client? I'm not trying to flip here but do you see the logical fallacy here?

 

[forkup]

Rudy had a good debate with Cuomo on CNN last night. Cuomo threw all the dems' bullshit at Rudy, and Rudy shot them all down. It all depends on what Mueller can prove in his report. Based on the law, the "criminal" investigation should not have even started, because the deep state fucks did not find any evidence of wrongdoing for the FBI's "counter-intelligence" investigation. The entire mess was apparently FBI payback for firing Comey.

Do you even get what you are saying? You need EVIDENCE to start an INVESTIGATION??? Do you get that the purpose of an INVESTIGATION is to gather EVIDENCE? If I suspect a kid is being abused do I need evidence to tell the police about my suspicions, and does the police need evidence to look into it?

This is a logic trap.

When someone is murdered the investigation starts TO get evidence.

no, that isn't what he said, he said you start investigating before the murder happens. get that crystal ball out baby, cause we need to go get evidence on something that hasn't happened. then we will tell you what we found and then give you the crime.

I'm not sure what school taught this line of investigative work, but somewhere someone did. cause here we are. no crime and an investigation of nothing.

That's not what I said at all. I said that starting an investigation on the suspicion of a crime is perfectly normal. In the case of a murder a better way to put it would be that you can investigate who committed a murder before you have evidence that a particular person committed it. How else are you supposed to find out? Ouija board?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Collusion" is not a crime

What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime?

‘Legally it’s not enough for an associate of the president to work together with a Russian’
Renato Mariotti is a former federal prosecutor who handled many obstruction cases. He is now a partner at Thompson Coburn LLP.

Although “collusion” is a word that has been thrown around a lot lately, it doesn’t have any specific legal meaning. What matters legally is whether someone in the Trump campaign joined a conspiracy, aided and abetted a crime, or actively concealed a crime. None of these legal concepts is complicated. A conspiracy is just a legal term for an agreement to commit a crime. You aid and abet a crime if you know about criminal activity and actively try to make it succeed. There is also a crime called “misprision of felony” that means you know that a felony has been committed and you actively work to conceal the crime.

So legally it’s not enough for an associate of the president to work together with a Russian—the American would need to work with a Russian to commit a crime, to aid a Russian in committing a crime or to conceal a crime committed by a Russian. One crime that has been discussed at length in the media is the hacking of servers in the United States and subsequent release of emails via WikiLeaks. Anyone who aided in the hacking of those servers committed a crime.

This whole "collusion" thing is the longest tease in the history of blue balls.

If Trump committed a crime, people are really slow about disclosing what that crime might be.

Paying Stormy Daniel? Nope. It's not a crime for Trump to pay her. If Cohen did it for Trump, Cohen committed the crime.

Sharing polling data with Russians? I am still researching any crime that might relate, other than Manifort "lying" to prosecutors about it. (Why would anyone ever cooperate with federal prosecutors or the FBI again?)

Trump Campaign getting something of value from a foreign national by Don Jr. meeting with a Russian lawyer to get dirt on Hillary? Good fucking luck with that shit. Even if they do manage to prosecute and secure a conviction, that conviction is going in the trash immediately. The application of that law to those facts is so overly broad that ANYTHING could be considered "valuable" and a criminal act.

The Trump Organization getting a Hotel in Moscow? What's the crime? Emoluments? Is there even ONE case anyone can point to where that has been interpreted by the SCOTUS? What is the remedy? It simply says they "shall not" do it, without the consent of congress, which usually means, at best, Trump would be required to disgorge and return any Emolument received.

All this nonsense reeks of desperation.

I am sure our resident internet prosecutors are going to fill me in on other "crimes" Trump committed, so I will take them as they come, but this is why we think those of you praying for Mueller to "get Trump" are far off the deep end of wishful thinking.

 

[kyzr]

Rudy had a good debate with Cuomo on CNN last night. Cuomo threw all the dems' bullshit at Rudy, and Rudy shot them all down. It all depends on what Mueller can prove in his report. Based on the law, the "criminal" investigation should not have even started, because the deep state fucks did not find any evidence of wrongdoing for the FBI's "counter-intelligence" investigation. The entire mess was apparently FBI payback for firing Comey.

Do you even get what you are saying? You need EVIDENCE to start an INVESTIGATION??? Do you get that the purpose of an INVESTIGATION is to gather EVIDENCE? If I suspect a kid is being abused do I need evidence to tell the police about my suspicions, and does the police need evidence to look into it?

Yes you need evidence to start an investigation, that is the LAW.

When the police ask you why you think the kid is being abused, what do you tell them? I don't have any evidence, but that guy just looks mean?

Maybe the kid is acting in a strange manner, being unusually withdrawn. Maybe it has bruises. Maybe I see it cringe inexplicably when the kid sees the father. Maybe all of the above. None of it is evidence but it is suspicious. In order for the FBI to start an investigation suspicion is sufficient. There is no such thing in the law that states that one has to have evidence before an investigation can take place. The only thing the law says is that just cause is required.Just Cause Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Just cause is not evidence. It is simply stated a "reason to suspect."

I'm outside my lane here, I'm just posting what Rudy Guiliani said on CNN. Rudy was an FBI prosecutor and knows the Law. Rudy said that the Mueller investigation did not have adequate legal justification because McCabe and Strzok said that they had no evidence.

Can I ask if you see the fault in reasoning that the defense attorney of someone being investigated has to tell the truth about what's transpiring in an investigation on his client? I'm not trying to flip here but do you see the logical fallacy here?

Rudy said that he will respond to the Mueller report, so it looks like the dems will read it one way, and the GOP will read it another way. Rudy seems confident that the Mueller report will not implicate Trump, we'll see.

 

[jc456]

Rudy had a good debate with Cuomo on CNN last night. Cuomo threw all the dems' bullshit at Rudy, and Rudy shot them all down. It all depends on what Mueller can prove in his report. Based on the law, the "criminal" investigation should not have even started, because the deep state fucks did not find any evidence of wrongdoing for the FBI's "counter-intelligence" investigation. The entire mess was apparently FBI payback for firing Comey.

Do you even get what you are saying? You need EVIDENCE to start an INVESTIGATION??? Do you get that the purpose of an INVESTIGATION is to gather EVIDENCE? If I suspect a kid is being abused do I need evidence to tell the police about my suspicions, and does the police need evidence to look into it?

This is a logic trap.

When someone is murdered the investigation starts TO get evidence.

no, that isn't what he said, he said you start investigating before the murder happens. get that crystal ball out baby, cause we need to go get evidence on something that hasn't happened. then we will tell you what we found and then give you the crime.

I'm not sure what school taught this line of investigative work, but somewhere someone did. cause here we are. no crime and an investigation of nothing.

That's not what I said at all. I said that starting an investigation on the suspicion of a crime is perfectly normal. In the case of a murder a better way to put it would be that you can investigate who committed a murder before you have evidence that a particular person committed it.

yes, you can investigate who committed a murder before you have evidence, it happens everyday.

There is a crime, someone was killed. that means there is a person who did it if the dead person didn't commit suicide. But they are investigating the murder. that's all.

you are saying you have no crime and are just investigating someone cause it's fun!! that's what you're saying. Cause we've asked you for the crime, so far, there hasn't been one defined. I'm still waiting. I'm waiting on the FBI to tell me the crime. still we have no crime. Therefore, I can say with confidence what Mueller is conducting is a witch hunt.

 

[whitehall]

Trump was a freaking civilian and there was no law against "contact" with Russians. In case angry crazy lefties haven't noticed, we have a crew in the Space Station working alongside Russians and there are no technological secrets between the U.S. and Russia. Has the crazy angry left even considered how rich the Clinton Foundation became shortly after Obama/Hillary paved the way for Russia to obtain crucial uranium mining sites? Coincidentally the C.F. all but dried up after Hillary left the State Dept and could no longer sell influence. The dirty little secret is that Russia and the U.S. (CIA) have engaged in efforts to disrupt foreign elections with propaganda since Harry Truman was president but democrats and the MSM have gone one step further and have become stooges of foreign governments by trying to disrupt the orderly transition of government with propaganda designed to undermine the administration.

 

[g5000]

Here's how their story changed from the very beginning (of the campaign) to now...

1. No contact
2. Okay contacts, but not planned
3. Oay planned, but not via the campaign
4. Okay via the campaign, but not meaningful or useful
5. "Collusion" is not a crime
6. Well, you can't collude if you don't know Putin
7. Repeat 5
8. Okay, maybe someone colluded, but not Trump though

9. Who cares?

10. B-b-b-b-b-but Obama!

11. Look! MEXICANS!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Here's how their story changed from the very beginning (of the campaign) to now...

1. No contact
2. Okay contacts, but not planned
3. Oay planned, but not via the campaign
4. Okay via the campaign, but not meaningful or useful
5. "Collusion" is not a crime
6. Well, you can't collude if you don't know Putin
7. Repeat 5
8. Okay, maybe someone colluded, but not Trump though

Are you Trumpees and Trumpettes starting to get it yet, or are you still holding on to the lies?

It's not going to end well folks. It's simply not. Going. To. End. Well.

It is divisive posts like these that cause Americans to hate fellow Americans. Trump won. Let it go. Geez.

 

[bendog]

I really don't see why Munchkin pulled the sanctions on Trump's sugardaddy Oligarch.

I see how it was costing the EU money, but that shouldn't have been a concern.

 

[basquebromance]

there's just so much...its all woven into a web of Putin undermining our government into Trump's boot licking of whatever Putin wants

 

[Toronado3800]

Rudy had a good debate with Cuomo on CNN last night. Cuomo threw all the dems' bullshit at Rudy, and Rudy shot them all down. It all depends on what Mueller can prove in his report. Based on the law, the "criminal" investigation should not have even started, because the deep state fucks did not find any evidence of wrongdoing for the FBI's "counter-intelligence" investigation. The entire mess was apparently FBI payback for firing Comey.

Do you even get what you are saying? You need EVIDENCE to start an INVESTIGATION??? Do you get that the purpose of an INVESTIGATION is to gather EVIDENCE? If I suspect a kid is being abused do I need evidence to tell the police about my suspicions, and does the police need evidence to look into it?

This is a logic trap.

When someone is murdered the investigation starts TO get evidence.

no, that isn't what he said, he said you start investigating before the murder happens. get that crystal ball out baby, cause we need to go get evidence on something that hasn't happened. then we will tell you what we found and then give you the crime.

I'm not sure what school taught this line of investigative work, but somewhere someone did. cause here we are. no crime and an investigation of nothing.

So the investigation into Trump started before Trump's crime.....

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Here's how their story changed from the very beginning (of the campaign) to now...

1. No contact
2. Okay contacts, but not planned
3. Oay planned, but not via the campaign
4. Okay via the campaign, but not meaningful or useful
5. "Collusion" is not a crime
6. Well, you can't collude if you don't know Putin
7. Repeat 5
8. Okay, maybe someone colluded, but not Trump though

Are you Trumpees and Trumpettes starting to get it yet, or are you still holding on to the lies?

It's not going to end well folks. It's. Not. Going. To. End. Well.

Meanwhile the Mexicrat Party “colludes” with Mexico daily...begging them to stack more Mexicrat voting wetbacks on top of the tens of millions already here.....but like a retarded parrot would, the filth continue to cry “RUSSIA”!
So fucking weird.

Perhaps, you'll understand better when The Orange Virus is in prison.

 

[forkup]

Do you even get what you are saying? You need EVIDENCE to start an INVESTIGATION??? Do you get that the purpose of an INVESTIGATION is to gather EVIDENCE? If I suspect a kid is being abused do I need evidence to tell the police about my suspicions, and does the police need evidence to look into it?

Yes you need evidence to start an investigation, that is the LAW.

When the police ask you why you think the kid is being abused, what do you tell them? I don't have any evidence, but that guy just looks mean?

Maybe the kid is acting in a strange manner, being unusually withdrawn. Maybe it has bruises. Maybe I see it cringe inexplicably when the kid sees the father. Maybe all of the above. None of it is evidence but it is suspicious. In order for the FBI to start an investigation suspicion is sufficient. There is no such thing in the law that states that one has to have evidence before an investigation can take place. The only thing the law says is that just cause is required.Just Cause Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Just cause is not evidence. It is simply stated a "reason to suspect."

I'm outside my lane here, I'm just posting what Rudy Guiliani said on CNN. Rudy was an FBI prosecutor and knows the Law. Rudy said that the Mueller investigation did not have adequate legal justification because McCabe and Strzok said that they had no evidence.

Can I ask if you see the fault in reasoning that the defense attorney of someone being investigated has to tell the truth about what's transpiring in an investigation on his client? I'm not trying to flip here but do you see the logical fallacy here?

Rudy said that he will respond to the Mueller report, so it looks like the dems will read it one way, and the GOP will read it another way. Rudy seems confident that the Mueller report will not implicate Trump, we'll see.

Actually how a person reads something should have no bearing on the report. We are talking about a report from a career prosecutor, not an opinion piece. I'll even tell you a little secret. I don't think that if the worst we fear about Trump is true, the public should be informed. It would be a big I told you moment for the Dems, but it also would be extremely disruptive for the US. Most of the core supporters of Trump would not believe it, and it would create an even more divided country.

 

[forkup]

Rudy had a good debate with Cuomo on CNN last night. Cuomo threw all the dems' bullshit at Rudy, and Rudy shot them all down. It all depends on what Mueller can prove in his report. Based on the law, the "criminal" investigation should not have even started, because the deep state fucks did not find any evidence of wrongdoing for the FBI's "counter-intelligence" investigation. The entire mess was apparently FBI payback for firing Comey.

Do you even get what you are saying? You need EVIDENCE to start an INVESTIGATION??? Do you get that the purpose of an INVESTIGATION is to gather EVIDENCE? If I suspect a kid is being abused do I need evidence to tell the police about my suspicions, and does the police need evidence to look into it?

This is a logic trap.

When someone is murdered the investigation starts TO get evidence.

no, that isn't what he said, he said you start investigating before the murder happens. get that crystal ball out baby, cause we need to go get evidence on something that hasn't happened. then we will tell you what we found and then give you the crime.

I'm not sure what school taught this line of investigative work, but somewhere someone did. cause here we are. no crime and an investigation of nothing.

That's not what I said at all. I said that starting an investigation on the suspicion of a crime is perfectly normal. In the case of a murder a better way to put it would be that you can investigate who committed a murder before you have evidence that a particular person committed it.

yes, you can investigate who committed a murder before you have evidence, it happens everyday.

There is a crime, someone was killed. that means there is a person who did it if the dead person didn't commit suicide. But they are investigating the murder. that's all.

you are saying you have no crime and are just investigating someone cause it's fun!! that's what you're saying. Cause we've asked you for the crime, so far, there hasn't been one defined. I'm still waiting. I'm waiting on the FBI to tell me the crime. still we have no crime. Therefore, I can say with confidence what Mueller is conducting is a witch hunt.

Again using a straw man. No I didn't say you should investigate someone for "fun". I said you should investigate someone if you suspect they committed a crime. Is that all you got, misstating my posts?

 

[jc456]

Do you even get what you are saying? You need EVIDENCE to start an INVESTIGATION??? Do you get that the purpose of an INVESTIGATION is to gather EVIDENCE? If I suspect a kid is being abused do I need evidence to tell the police about my suspicions, and does the police need evidence to look into it?

This is a logic trap.

When someone is murdered the investigation starts TO get evidence.

no, that isn't what he said, he said you start investigating before the murder happens. get that crystal ball out baby, cause we need to go get evidence on something that hasn't happened. then we will tell you what we found and then give you the crime.

I'm not sure what school taught this line of investigative work, but somewhere someone did. cause here we are. no crime and an investigation of nothing.

That's not what I said at all. I said that starting an investigation on the suspicion of a crime is perfectly normal. In the case of a murder a better way to put it would be that you can investigate who committed a murder before you have evidence that a particular person committed it.

yes, you can investigate who committed a murder before you have evidence, it happens everyday.

There is a crime, someone was killed. that means there is a person who did it if the dead person didn't commit suicide. But they are investigating the murder. that's all.

you are saying you have no crime and are just investigating someone cause it's fun!! that's what you're saying. Cause we've asked you for the crime, so far, there hasn't been one defined. I'm still waiting. I'm waiting on the FBI to tell me the crime. still we have no crime. Therefore, I can say with confidence what Mueller is conducting is a witch hunt.

Again using a straw man. No I didn't say you should investigate someone for "fun". I said you should investigate someone if you suspect they committed a crime. Is that all you got, misstating my posts?

well fk everyone should be investigated with that statement. too fking funny. really you are dishonest as the day is long. that is called a witch hunt, no other word for it.

 

[bodecea]

Here's how their story changed from the very beginning (of the campaign) to now...

1. No contact
2. Okay contacts, but not planned
3. Oay planned, but not via the campaign
4. Okay via the campaign, but not meaningful or useful
5. "Collusion" is not a crime
6. Well, you can't collude if you don't know Putin
7. Repeat 5
8. Okay, maybe someone colluded, but not Trump though

Are you Trumpees and Trumpettes starting to get it yet, or are you still holding on to the lies?

It's not going to end well folks. It's. Not. Going. To. End. Well.

Meanwhile the Mexicrat Party “colludes” with Mexico daily...begging them to stack more Mexicrat voting wetbacks on top of the tens of millions already here.....but like a retarded parrot would, the filth continue to cry “RUSSIA”!
So fucking weird.

Are you comparing Mexico with Russia?