Yea… but that doesn’t make for a good campaign pitch. He needs to be the savior for this to work. He needs those rubes that are drunk off the firehose of falsehoods to continue propagating.
The latest in Trump's unending blizzard of dangerous lies
- Thread starter Bowlmania
- Start date
Lol. Another who doesn’t understand the Mueller report. It’s sad really.
Josh Hawley? The coward who gave the fist pump to the J6 rioters? And then ran like the little bitch he is? That Josh Hawley? Lol
Who boy. Another Trumper talking about dumbing things down and gaslighting about Trump’s crimes. It would be amusing if not so sad.
Name another president who has broken the law his entire life? Name another president who has had a fake university? Name another president who was forced to stop running his charity because he was stealing ? Name another president who has been accused of sexually abusing more than 20 women? Name another president who brags about watching 15 year olds get undressed and grabbing women by the p—y? You get the point yet? Cause I could go on all day…. He’s tried to play ball? Oh hon….bless your heart.
Really? When exactly do I bring you up in a random discussion with someone else?
You’re living in an alternate reality. I don’t know how you got there, but you should try mental therapy.
I know what I understand about it. It's about as reliable as the Steele Dossier.
In your mind everyone is obsessed with you. Who do you have staked out for Mark to get rid of next?
I said she believed in Russian collusion. She said I didn’t understand the Mueller report.
The report I read said they found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and/or Russians.
Maybe I missed a section? Maybe there was an addendum?
I was just wondering.
It said no such thing, since "collusion" is not a legal question, and was never considered.
Bingo. Mueller said they weren’t looking for “collusion” because it’s not a legal term (except in the context of antitrust law). The report reflected multiple instances of “coordination” between the Trump campaign and Russia but not enough evidence to support criminal conspiracy charges.
Of course, this doesn’t stop that poster, danc and others from rolling out the “No Russia Collusion!” argument in numerous threads.
Last edited:
You guys are hilarious. Here you go-
So Mark is right that they weren’t investigating “collusion” because “collusion” is not a specific crime. They did, however, investigate whether there was any type of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia that would amount to a criminal conspiracy and in doing so they found that-
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.
So, you guys can quibble with the wording all you want but my statement is true. Mueller found no collusion.
Wasting your time. They have TDS.You guys are hilarious. Here you go-
So Mark is right that they weren’t investigating “collusion” because “collusion” is not a specific crime. They did, however, investigate whether there was any type of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia that would amount to a criminal conspiracy and in doing so they found that-
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
So, you guys can quibble with the wording all you want but my statement is true. Mueller found no collusion.
Even while the then-Republican controlled US Senate did confirm Russian was working to get Trump elected in 2016- the question Danc etc will head meet sand over is why Putin wanted Trump in power.
Direct quotes from DDE's post:
"IDK what that is."
"IDK."
"I have no clue."
Nonetheless, he still types as though he knows important things to say. Sad.
Here you go. You tell us what you don't understand:
