Musk/Twitter Document Dump
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
Well...if we're going to insist to others that "words matter", we may want to revise "Mueller found no collusion."
I believe that your link said that "Mueller's investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States' 2016 election..." (bold is my emphasis added.)
I don't believe that Mueller investigated "collusion" since it isn't a criminal charge.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
No I don't believe they have. All we know is some vague references on some emails and a couple dick pics. I'd be willing to bet there isnt shit on the laptop hence the real reason it wasnt reported on much. What's to report? That Hunter Biden owned a laptop and it needed repair? so he took it to some shady repair person who is evidently Ill qualified as a laptop repair person? So the crime is Hunter not calling the geek squad?
Maybe there is something there. Guessing FBI has to clear warrants and what not. Then piece everything to other evidence(if that even exist).
Until the contents are fully released we dont Jack shit. And the contents may never be fully released.
I highly doubt it. Maybe? I dont know. But nothing about this story would say they did.
Holding and gathering evidence and not commenting on an active investigation are hardly odd things. And not commenting when nothing is found is also not uncommon.
The Washington Post has a copy and there is nothing there. It's been out there for 9 months.
Cool. Will do since I know you really believe that words matter and aren't just being pissy "because grover."
Cant read that because its behind a pay wall. I believe someone linked the actual hard drive contents. We should all read that and not an editorial from The National Review.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Get bent, sniper. Your boy flat out said that there are people here who still don’t believe Trump colluded with Russia.
Does that not mean he has definitive proof and it’s been proven that he did? And I show a professional qualification gatekeeper article stating that it is not proven and there was no evidence that any collusion happened. Yes, collusion is a non-legal umbrella term for actual criminal charges but I grant the ABA the license to use it. Sorry if that’s more to snipe at. A sniper loves a soft target.
Go away if this is the best you got. My new working theory is that Hickory is your dumber burner account.
No they didn't. And you're right, words do matter so you owe Hickory an apology.Dumber than ever. Mueller found no collusion. We can agree he obstructed. Words matter, Grover.
You should really consider your standing on this forum. You bring very little to the table and you think you’re the smartest man alive - or at least smarter than all the conservatives. Hint: You’re Not.
Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice.www.americanbar.org
Mueller said: “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not. That’s an important distinction, between a colloquial term, collusion, and what Mueller’s team sought to determine, which was whether there was enough evidence to prove criminal conspiracy. Mueller is pointed: There was no determination on “collusion” — and there may have been at least some evidence pointing to possible conspiracy.
“Does your report state there is sufficient factual and legal basis for further investigation of potential obstruction of justice by the president?” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) later asked.
“Yes,” Mueller replied.
“Did your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?” Lofgren asked.
It did, Mueller replied. Lofgren followed up: Which one?
“Well,” Mueller said, “it would be Trump.”
Muller: “The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.
Politico:
"Mueller’s report on the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia includes a 200-page volume chronicling Trump’s repeated efforts to thwart his investigation. He documented 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, describing in detail the president’s persistent efforts to derail Mueller’s work and constrain the scope of his probe. But Mueller noted at the outset that he faced significant constraints on his ability to investigate Trump — chief among them a long-standing Justice Department policy that prohibits the criminal indictment of a sitting president."
Mueller’s report paints a damning portrait of Trump’s behavior in the weeks and months after the special counsel was appointed. In each of the 10 episodes he cataloged, Mueller pointed to the three elements of obstruction of justice charges and determined that Trump met all three in several instances. His analysis led hundreds of former prosecutors to issue a letter declaring that Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not the president.
Mueller’s evidence focused primarily on his (Trump's) efforts to sideline the Russia investigation. For example, Trump asked his former White House Counsel Don McGahn to remove Mueller and then create a false record denying that it happened, the investigation found. Mueller’s team also found that Trump attempted to enlist his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to pressure former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to curb the investigation. In both cases, Trump sought others’ assistance to carry out his wishes, and in both cases, his aides told Mueller they refused to comply with those directives.
Mueller refutes Trump’s ‘no collusion, no obstruction’ line
‘We focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.’
www.politico.eu
Republican Senate Panel Finds Russia Interfered in 2016 Election:
"The Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat, a Senate panel concluded Tuesday as it detailed how associates of Donald Trump had regular contact with Russians and expected to benefit from the Kremlin’s help."
"The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers."
"The findings, including unflinching characterizations of furtive interactions between Trump associates and Russian operatives, echo to a large degree those of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and appear to repudiate the Republican president’s claims that the FBI had no basis to investigate whether his campaign was conspiring with Russia."
"Among the more striking sections of the report is the committee’s description of the professional relationship between former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the committee describes as a Russian intelligence officer. Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik, represented a grave counterintelligence threat,”
"The report notes how Manafort shared internal Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik and says there is “some evidence” Kilimnik may have been connected to Russia’s effort to hack and leak Democratic emails, though that information is redacted. The report also says “two pieces of information” raise the possibility of Manafort’s potential connection to those operations, but what follows is again blacked out."
^^^Kinda sounds like conspiracy. But as Michael Cohen has said many times; Trump's MO is like a mafia boss. He doesn't email. He doesn't write things down. That way he can never actually be "linked". It just so happens that his entire campaign was sharing information with Russia. And this is from a Republican led report.
Senate panel finds Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election
The report purposely does not come to a final conclusion, as the other reports did, about whether there is enough evidence that Trump’s campaign coordinated or colluded with Russia to sway the election, leaving its findings open to partisan interpretation.
www.pbs.org
Last edited:
Well...I guess it takes a sniper to know one. I get that you don't like the same standard applied to you that you snipe at hick about, but you can't even get it right the second time around.
Your link doesn't say, "...there was no evidence that any collusion happened."
Your link says, "Mueller's investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States' 2016 election".
It's a simple thing to say, "True on that, hoos. I think hickory was more egregious about it, but I kinda did the same thing he did."
Or you can rant drunkenly about "your boy" and "soft target" and your "new working theory. Hopefully words actually matter in your new theory.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Another valuable contribution.
This is the headline. In America, hoos, one is innocent until proven guilty - even the big fat guy that we mutually dislike. Finding no collusion means that Grover’s purported “fact” is completely baseless, like all of his posts. That you’d choose to stick up for the nonsensical claim says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about me.
Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open
On edit; my post said “found no collusion”. If you took that to mean I said it didn’t happen - then fine that wasn’t my point. I meant it as it wasn’t proven. Which is how America works. But your defendant states he colluded with Russia and used it definitively. You know who’s right here - you just don’t give a flying ****. You love to snipe almost as much as you love paying taxes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, Ranger. I get it. Words don't really matter to you. They only matter to you when you don't like what someone else says. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.
I'm not sticking up for what Hickory said, but that's all you can comprehend in your must-be-combative universe. If we're being precise (with words that matter), I believe that both you and Hickory have been inaccurate in your statements about Mueller.
Rage on, Ranger. Rage on.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Dumber than ever. Mueller found no collusion. We can agree he obstructed. Words matter, Grover.
You should really consider your standing on this forum. You bring very little to the table and you think you’re the smartest man alive - or at least smarter than all the conservatives. Hint: You’re Not.
Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice.
Yea, those meetings with Russians were about adopting a russian kid. Sadly, gullible and dumb is a constant look for you.
Here’s What Mueller Found (Or Didn’t Find) On Collusion
Special counsel Robert Mueller was unable to establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with Russians.
dailycaller.com
All it states is that they didn't find evidence to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT so they didn't bother moving forward. Doesn't mean there wasn't smoke.
Just in case the definition was a struggle for you.
Collude
To act together, often in secret, to achieve an illegal or improper purpose.
Lot of meetings in secret with Russian agents. Russians interfering with our elections is definitely improper. Aka collusion.
Last edited by a moderator:
I miss cereal. Honey Nut Cheerios.
Unfortunately, they seem to have been discontinued, and they only have the unsweetened and peanut butter versions. I literally used to stock up and buy 3 or more boxes at a time, but I've checked at every Kroger in Bloomington for the past couple months and haven't been able to find them. Sucks...
This is going to sound like heresy, but I actually prefer the generic brand of Kroger Honey Nut Os. They tasted better, and they were about half as much and had more cereal in the box...
Unfortunately, they seem to have been discontinued, and they only have the unsweetened and peanut butter versions. I literally used to stock up and buy 3 or more boxes at a time, but I've checked at every Kroger in Bloomington for the past couple months and haven't been able to find them. Sucks...
First off, your link seems to be a premature assessment of what Mueller did and did not find, predicated not on the report itself but rather Barr's summary letter of the report's findings. From your link...Dumber than ever. Mueller found no collusion. We can agree he obstructed. Words matter, Grover.
You should really consider your standing on this forum. You bring very little to the table and you think you’re the smartest man alive - or at least smarter than all the conservatives. Hint: You’re Not.
Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice.
"In his letter to Congress, Barr summarizes the Mueller investigation as looking at two areas: Interference by Russia in the 2016 presidential election and obstruction of justice.
The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
Contrast that early March assessment by Barr with this April 29 assessment of the actual report by Ryan Goodman in Just Security. He points out that Mueller dismissed "collusion" as a criminal act (conspiracy is the crime) while simultaneously pointing out several blatant examples of collusion in a "counterintelligence context".
Mueller did not issue any findings in that area, because he felt it was beyond the purview of his mandate. But he certainly identified the troubling events...Mueller basically said that he did not feel the level of collusion rose to a criminal offense, but that is far different than saying he found no collusion, as DANC continues to falsely maintain...
"The redacted Mueller Report documents a series of activities that show strong evidence of collusion. Or, more precisely, it provides significant evidence that Trump Campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. The Report documents the following actions (each of which is analyzed in detail in Part II):
During the course of 2016, Trump Campaign associates failed to report any of the Russian/WikiLeaks overtures to federal law enforcement, publicly denied any contacts with Russians/WikiLeaks, and actively encouraged the public to doubt that Russia was behind the hacking and distribution of stolen emails"
Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion”
Essential reading on the Mueller Report: an annotation plus key findings, drawing on investigative reports and Special Counsel court filings.
www.justsecurity.org
Last edited:
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
If that was supposed to be a sick burn, it would help if you posted it in English. Words matter.
Oh, right, it was agents Bill & Ted who came got the laptop. And Hunter, who’s supposed to have made a billion dollars from China, didn’t have the $85 to go get his laptop.
And I forgot about agents Bill & Ted. Or were they special agents? What about all the hard drive copies Rudy has? The hard drive is all you need. Aside from bios, all info is on the hard drive.
Who cares? Who the **** is jim baker? The evangelist?
This is like old fart Republican's version of TMZ. You guys are a knitting circle.
That's Jim Bakker. Two K's. He makes apocalypse chow down in branson
This whole Twitter file dump has been exactly that. Elon took a huge dump in a bag, threw it out in the yard and the usual suspects are all gathered around enjoying the aroma.
Why post then if you don’t care? Sit back and giggle to yourself about us silly rubes and maybe catch a rerun of Fauci and the boys. This thread is for men who enjoy Budweiser, loose women, and Elon Musk kicking a#%. Take your champagne of beers elsewhere.
Is that the Robert Mueller who was even more confused than Joe Biden when testifying before Congress?No they didn't. And you're right, words do matter so you owe Hickory an apology.
Mueller said: “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not. That’s an important distinction, between a colloquial term, collusion, and what Mueller’s team sought to determine, which was whether there was enough evidence to prove criminal conspiracy. Mueller is pointed: There was no determination on “collusion” — and there may have been at least some evidence pointing to possible conspiracy.
“Does your report state there is sufficient factual and legal basis for further investigation of potential obstruction of justice by the president?” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) later asked.
“Yes,” Mueller replied.
“Did your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?” Lofgren asked.
It did, Mueller replied. Lofgren followed up: Which one?
“Well,” Mueller said, “it would be Trump.”
Muller: “The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.
Politico:
"Mueller’s report on the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia includes a 200-page volume chronicling Trump’s repeated efforts to thwart his investigation. He documented 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice by Trump, describing in detail the president’s persistent efforts to derail Mueller’s work and constrain the scope of his probe. But Mueller noted at the outset that he faced significant constraints on his ability to investigate Trump — chief among them a long-standing Justice Department policy that prohibits the criminal indictment of a sitting president."
Mueller’s report paints a damning portrait of Trump’s behavior in the weeks and months after the special counsel was appointed. In each of the 10 episodes he cataloged, Mueller pointed to the three elements of obstruction of justice charges and determined that Trump met all three in several instances. His analysis led hundreds of former prosecutors to issue a letter declaring that Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not the president.
Mueller’s evidence focused primarily on his (Trump's) efforts to sideline the Russia investigation. For example, Trump asked his former White House Counsel Don McGahn to remove Mueller and then create a false record denying that it happened, the investigation found. Mueller’s team also found that Trump attempted to enlist his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to pressure former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to curb the investigation. In both cases, Trump sought others’ assistance to carry out his wishes, and in both cases, his aides told Mueller they refused to comply with those directives.
Mueller refutes Trump’s ‘no collusion, no obstruction’ line
‘We focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.’
Republican Senate Panel Finds Russia Interfered in 2016 Election:
"The Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat, a Senate panel concluded Tuesday as it detailed how associates of Donald Trump had regular contact with Russians and expected to benefit from the Kremlin’s help."
"The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers."
"The findings, including unflinching characterizations of furtive interactions between Trump associates and Russian operatives, echo to a large degree those of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and appear to repudiate the Republican president’s claims that the FBI had no basis to investigate whether his campaign was conspiring with Russia."
"Among the more striking sections of the report is the committee’s description of the professional relationship between former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the committee describes as a Russian intelligence officer. Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik, represented a grave counterintelligence threat,”
"The report notes how Manafort shared internal Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik and says there is “some evidence” Kilimnik may have been connected to Russia’s effort to hack and leak Democratic emails, though that information is redacted. The report also says “two pieces of information” raise the possibility of Manafort’s potential connection to those operations, but what follows is again blacked out."
^^^Kinda sounds like conspiracy. But as Michael Cohen has said many times; Trump's MO is like a mafia boss. He doesn't email. He doesn't write things down. That way he can never actually be "linked". It just so happens that his entire campaign was sharing information with Russia. And this is from a Republican led report.
Senate panel finds Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election
The report purposely does not come to a final conclusion, as the other reports did, about whether there is enough evidence that Trump’s campaign coordinated or colluded with Russia to sway the election, leaving its findings open to partisan interpretation.
And he was still censoring tweeters last Friday. Musk canned his ass today.
Nancy did a pretty good job of keeping today's moonbats in their place. They got their face time and were able to move things a notch, but they weren't allowed to control or sabotage the agenda. Time will tell if that continues.
i am not a huge NP fan as you know, but you are right about her ability to manage the nut jobs in her camp.
i am not a huge NP fan as you know, but you are right about her ability to manage the nut jobs in her camp.
Last edited:
Why? Please spare no computerese or other nerd-like details.
The reports that the computer shop owner was blind/semi-blind seems enough to undercut the credibility of the computer shop owner.
But we'd love to hear about the methodology he claimed to use.
The Bidens have been elbow deep in the cookie jar for decades. He served one solitary purpose in 2020 and we have paid a steep price for needing it to happen.
How did you personally rule out that it may be child porn from a 1/4 inch X 1/4 inch thumbnail?
