Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Feb 2019, 12:57 am
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
I think we should worry more about the disinformation coming out of our own corrupt media than other countries.
The new McCarthyism continues!
The new McCarthyism continues!
Who needs evidence when you have opinions.
Apparently everyone who bought in the Russian narrative.
If it's not from RT it's not a legit source on the Russia investigation.
You're good for a laugh VM, I'll give you that much.Fact: There still remains no evidence of Russia collusion. Why do you resort to snarky comments when you have no argument? (I love rhetorical questions.)
Trumps people frantically denying they had met with the Russians, even though evidence shows that they had, says there's something they don't want getting out in relation to the Russians.
Still doesn't prove collusion. And there still is no proof that Russia had anything to do with swaying the election in Trump's favor.
You didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence, and he provided some. Stop moving the goalposts, its a disingenuous way to argue your point.
Thank you.
21 Feb 2019, 1:11 am
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
I think we should worry more about the disinformation coming out of our own corrupt media than other countries.
The new McCarthyism continues!
The new McCarthyism continues!
Who needs evidence when you have opinions.
Apparently everyone who bought in the Russian narrative.
If it's not from RT it's not a legit source on the Russia investigation.
You're good for a laugh VM, I'll give you that much.Fact: There still remains no evidence of Russia collusion. Why do you resort to snarky comments when you have no argument? (I love rhetorical questions.)
Trumps people frantically denying they had met with the Russians, even though evidence shows that they had, says there's something they don't want getting out in relation to the Russians.
Still doesn't prove collusion. And there still is no proof that Russia had anything to do with swaying the election in Trump's favor.
You didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence, and he provided some. Stop moving the goalposts, its a disingenuous way to argue your point.
Proof noun evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament.
Bill's purely conjectural statement of
Kraichgauer wrote:
Trumps people frantically denying they had met with the Russians, even though evidence shows that they had, says there's something they don't want getting out in relation to the Russians.
doesn't qualify as evidence.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Feb 2019, 1:21 am
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
I think we should worry more about the disinformation coming out of our own corrupt media than other countries.
The new McCarthyism continues!
The new McCarthyism continues!
Who needs evidence when you have opinions.
Apparently everyone who bought in the Russian narrative.
If it's not from RT it's not a legit source on the Russia investigation.
You're good for a laugh VM, I'll give you that much.Fact: There still remains no evidence of Russia collusion. Why do you resort to snarky comments when you have no argument? (I love rhetorical questions.)
Trumps people frantically denying they had met with the Russians, even though evidence shows that they had, says there's something they don't want getting out in relation to the Russians.
Still doesn't prove collusion. And there still is no proof that Russia had anything to do with swaying the election in Trump's favor.
You didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence, and he provided some. Stop moving the goalposts, its a disingenuous way to argue your point.
Proof noun evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, validation, attestation, demonstration, substantiation, witness, testament.
Bill's purely conjectural statement of
Kraichgauer wrote:
Trumps people frantically denying they had met with the Russians, even though evidence shows that they had, says there's something they don't want getting out in relation to the Russians.
doesn't qualify as evidence.
Any law enforcement officer worth his or her salt will tell you that the display of consciousness of guilt during an investigation is reason to dig deeper.
21 Feb 2019, 1:26 am
21 Feb 2019, 1:53 am
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
I think we should worry more about the disinformation coming out of our own corrupt media than other countries.
The new McCarthyism continues!
The new McCarthyism continues!
Who needs evidence when you have opinions.
Apparently everyone who bought in the Russian narrative.
If it's not from RT it's not a legit source on the Russia investigation.
You're good for a laugh VM, I'll give you that much.Fact: There still remains no evidence of Russia collusion. Why do you resort to snarky comments when you have no argument? (I love rhetorical questions.)
Trumps people frantically denying they had met with the Russians, even though evidence shows that they had, says there's something they don't want getting out in relation to the Russians.
Still doesn't prove collusion. And there still is no proof that Russia had anything to do with swaying the election in Trump's favor.
You didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence, and he provided some. Stop moving the goalposts, its a disingenuous way to argue your point.
What evidence was that?
That Trump has obstructed justice in trying to end the investigations into his connections and business dealings with Russia is definitely evidence that there may be collusion there. Why else would he go to literally criminal lengths to hide those dealings if there is nothing criminal about them in the first place? It was this behaviour that indicates hiding criminal activity when a person obstructs justice in this fashion. I'm sorry you struggle to understand what evidence is, but your lack of understanding doesn't make that evidence not exist. If only it were that easy to make these investigations go away, Trump would have wished them out of existence already if it were because he definitely doesn't understand the process either.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Feb 2019, 1:53 am
21 Feb 2019, 1:59 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Any law enforcement officer worth his or her salt will tell you that the display of consciousness of guilt during an investigation is reason to dig deeper.
But it doesn't qualify as evidence, it only qualifies as suspicion. Hence the need to dig deeper to find actual evidence.
Which was done, leading to the numerous indictments and convictions, with more on their way.
Mueller's team (and the other prosecutors that they have farmed out some aspects of the investigation to, like the SDNY prosecutors) have literally brought hundreds of charges against dozens of people so far in the several indictments of Russian agents and Trump associates, but there's no evidence of any wrongdoing there.
God, these Trump-supporting arguments are so delusional and demonstrably false that they are laughable.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Feb 2019, 2:03 am
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Any law enforcement officer worth his or her salt will tell you that the display of consciousness of guilt during an investigation is reason to dig deeper.
But it doesn't qualify as evidence, it only qualifies as suspicion. Hence the need to dig deeper to find actual evidence.
Which was done, leading to the numerous indictments and convictions, with more on their way.
Mueller's team (and the other prosecutors that they have farmed out some aspects of the investigation to, like the SDNY prosecutors) have literally brought hundreds of charges against dozens of people so far in the several indictments of Russian agents and Trump associates, but there's no evidence of any wrongdoing there.
God, these Trump-supporting arguments are so delusional and demonstrably false that they are laughable.
That's what you get when you cross a cult of personality with wishful thinking.
21 Feb 2019, 2:13 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Any law enforcement officer worth his or her salt will tell you that the display of consciousness of guilt during an investigation is reason to dig deeper.
But it doesn't qualify as evidence, it only qualifies as suspicion. Hence the need to dig deeper to find actual evidence.
Which was done, leading to the numerous indictments and convictions, with more on their way.
Mueller's team (and the other prosecutors that they have farmed out some aspects of the investigation to, like the SDNY prosecutors) have literally brought hundreds of charges against dozens of people so far in the several indictments of Russian agents and Trump associates, but there's no evidence of any wrongdoing there.
God, these Trump-supporting arguments are so delusional and demonstrably false that they are laughable.
That's what you get when you cross a cult of personality with wishful thinking.
Apparently so. It's fun to poke holes in anyway, if a little too easy.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Feb 2019, 2:19 am
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Any law enforcement officer worth his or her salt will tell you that the display of consciousness of guilt during an investigation is reason to dig deeper.
But it doesn't qualify as evidence, it only qualifies as suspicion. Hence the need to dig deeper to find actual evidence.
Which was done, leading to the numerous indictments and convictions, with more on their way.
Mueller's team (and the other prosecutors that they have farmed out some aspects of the investigation to, like the SDNY prosecutors) have literally brought hundreds of charges against dozens of people so far in the several indictments of Russian agents and Trump associates, but there's no evidence of any wrongdoing there.
God, these Trump-supporting arguments are so delusional and demonstrably false that they are laughable.
That's what you get when you cross a cult of personality with wishful thinking.
Apparently so. It's fun to poke holes in anyway, if a little too easy.
!
21 Feb 2019, 2:37 am
21 Feb 2019, 2:39 am
21 Feb 2019, 5:12 am
VegetableMan wrote:
Since none of those indicted have been charged with Russian collusion, I'm still awaiting for this alleged "evidence." (I'm certain I will be waiting for a very long time.)
Indeed you will if you're waiting for an indictment with the words "the crime of collusion" on it, because there is no such thing as "the crime of collusion" in your laws. It's called other things, like being compromised by a foreign power and therefore a threat to national security, and treason, and words to that effect. You'll never see the word "collusion" on an indictment in America, they will use other words to describe the crimes Trump's campaign and administration has committed, like money laundering and tax fraud and working for a foreign power while serving in office and not disclosing that (can't remember the exact words for that one, but that's close enough for government work, as they say.)
But I know it doesn't matter how many times this is explained to you, you'll keep saying "no collusion" until they march Trump out of office and into a jail cell.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Feb 2019, 5:14 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Feb 2019, 5:16 am
21 Feb 2019, 5:21 am
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Since none of those indicted have been charged with Russian collusion, I'm still awaiting for this alleged "evidence." (I'm certain I will be waiting for a very long time.)
Indeed you will if you're waiting for an indictment with the words "the crime of collusion" on it, because there is no such thing as "the crime of collusion" in your laws. It's called other things, like being compromised by a foreign power and therefore a threat to national security, and treason, and words to that effect. You'll never see the word "collusion" on an indictment in America, they will use other words to describe the crimes Trump's campaign and administration has committed, like money laundering and tax fraud and working for a foreign power while serving in office and not disclosing that (can't remember the exact words for that one, but that's close enough for government work, as they say.)
But I know it doesn't matter how many times this is explained to you, you'll keep saying "no collusion" until they march Trump out of office and into a jail cell.
It's just being pointed out that in fact no actual evidence of collusion has been presented yet. The rebuttals to that have been in the form of conjecture and prognostication.
