ObamaGate is getting big

Post Reply New Topic

Again, Mueller did not exonerate Trump, and even said the actions of Trump's henchmen were suspicious. Being that there are other investigations still going on, Trump aint off the hook yet, and may be in fact one of the real criminals.

What is your criterion here? If an investigation fails to confirm the original suspicion to the standard required for prosecution (according to the suspect's hand-picked prosecutor), then the investigation was in bad faith?

Actually, yes he did. I heard a lawyer break it down. Evidence for and against do not even have to be true, it's up to a court to decide how valid evidence is and whether it can be accepted. He said what stood out and was devastating for the collusion conspiracy is it said there was 0 evidence to support Russian collusion. Which means absolutely no evidence was obtained to suggest any kind of Russian collusion.

Who said that? Attorney General and Trump appointee, Barr? Hardly an unbiased source. With the hundreds of pages sent to him, Bar released a summary of only four pages. The Democrats want to pressure Barr to release the whole report, but the chances are he'll release a heavily redacted version.
Again, the report stated that Trumps WAS NOT EXONERATED!! !

No, it was a lawyer that broke it down on youtube. He broke down what evidence is in lawyer language. You can get mad all you want, the majority of people have already accepted it was a false accusation. Saying that there was 0 evidence of collusion means simply there was no evidence to prove or disprove Russian collusion. 0 evidence is an extremely strong statment, it means if it were taken to court, there is no evidence. You can keep believing in the conspiracy if you want, by all means, keep believing it, it's not going to change anything. Don't hold your breath.

Of course they aren't going to release a unredacted version, it's an FBI report which contains a lot of private and classified information, they generally, or better yet, never release classified information until it is no longer classified. The majority of the population understands this, the majority of the population can also read the statement that there is zero evidence of collusion, once again, there is no way to spin the statement, zero evidence to, well, there is some evidence. If there were evidence to support collusion, it would most definitely not state that there is 0 evidence. You just don't want to accept that because you don't like the result. You don't want to know if he was guilty, you want it to be true, so so sorry, but you just fell for a conspiracy theory. Even the majority of the far left has moved on, the center left has moved on, probably all republicans have moved on. The last of the people still insisting there was collusion are the people who just passionately believe in conspiracy theories.I imagine it said it dosen't exonerate him because. ..ummm....there is 0 evidence. That means there is neither evidence to support collusion nor evidence to dismiss collusion....that's what 0 evidence means.

^^^
Oh, as if I'm going to accept anything and everything on Youtube as the gospel truth!
If you want to accept what this guy on Youtube says, go ahead. I'll still go with what was released from the Mueller Report, and that is Trump was not exonerated. Perhaps there's a different understanding of reality in Georgia than there is here in Washington.

No collusion?
No, obstruction.

lol, he simply broke down what evidence means to point out it's a very simple thing, do you disagree with how evidence was defined by him?? Intelligent people do make youtube videos. It's rather simple....

There was 0 evidence for collusion, aka, no evidence to neither prove nor disprove collusion. Therefor, Trump was not exonerated, why??? Because there was 0 evidence to disprove collusion, thus they can't say he was innocent because they have no evidence to suggest he is innocent, just like they have 0 evidence to suggest he was guilty. When someone points it out, it is rather simple to understand, I surely have no problem understanding what 0 evidence means.

Don't waste your time with people in denial who refuse to admit when they are horribly wrong. People got too emotionally invested in the hoax so there's no going back now.

Mueller found actions by Trump's henchmen to be suspicious, but nothing to directly indicate collusion. Still, that hardly wipes away suspicion. But you seem to be forgetting about obstruction of justice, which Trump's AG henchman shied away from, and which other investigations are clearly looking into.

The exact same thing could be said about your side.

Now we're finally making some progress. Let it end with a lot of senior Obama people in jail.

Nunes to send eight criminal referrals to DOJ concerning leaks, conspiracy amid Russia probe

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes exclusively told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" that he is preparing to send eight criminal referrals to the Department of Justice this week concerning alleged misconduct from "Watergate wannabes" during the Trump-Russia investigation, including the leaks of "highly classified material" and conspiracies to lie to Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nunes- ... ssia-probe

This idea of sending Obama and others to prison is just a right wing fantasy. More likely, once the Mueller Report comes out publicly, and the other investigations run their course, Trump and friends are going up the river.

Stuff will be breaking thick and fast now — hard to keep up with all the developments. New attorney general has acknowledged that Obama admin spied on the Trump campaign. Investigative agencies were weaponized for political use — just like a third-world dictator using the secret police to spy on political enemies. Criminal indictments of Obama people will be coming in the next year. Watergate X 1000. Biggest criminal conspiracy inside the US government in the country's history. Almost brought the country down.

The feds kept an eye on foreign (Russian) interference, and had reason to investigate the Trump campaign. As I recall, Obama hardly did anything to hamper Trump during the last Presidential race, so there's not anything there to prosecute.

Try citing Barr's exact words. What I found, on Barr being asked whether he had any evidence:

An acknowledgement is supposed to be based on actual knowledge. Barr has none. The word also carries connotations of a reluctant admission. Barr is not reluctant. You really need to find a better word.

Barr finds he can't substitute his summary, which he then claimed was never meant to be a summary, how could anybody mistake it for that, for the Mueller report, so he has to find a distraction.