Trump and Russia

[Deranged Rhino]

Shhhh. 

Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/themarketswork/status/1040981308896243712

[Buffalo_Gal]

57 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Shhhh. 

Thread: https://mobile.twitter.com/themarketswork/status/1040981308896243712

That was in response to this tweet. The first response in that thread cracked me up:
 

 

[BeginnersMind]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

Woodward: No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion, I Searched For Two Years  by Ian Schwartz

Original Article

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Friday, Bob Woodward said that in his two years of investigating for his new book, ´Fear,´ he found no evidence of collusion or espionage between Trump and Russia. Woodward said he looked for it "hard" and yet turned up nothing.          I guess we can end this thread then.     .

 

In the other thread, everyone is saying not to believe a word Woodward  says. Fun stuff. 

 

Of course there is no collusion. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

In the other thread, everyone is saying not to believe a word Woodward  says. Fun stuff. 

 

Of course there is no collusion. 

I think the reaction to something like this is ... If even Bob Woodward says there is no Russian collusion, there is no Russian collusion. IOW, it must have killed him to admit it.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Buffalo_Gal

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I think the reaction to something like this is ... If even Bob Woodward says there is no Russian collusion, there is no Russian collusion. IOW, it must have killed him to admit it.

 

It makes going back through the thread quite funny. So many people convinced (without evidence) that the Trump Russia story was real. 

 

But it never was. It was always a coup. Always. The same people who were so convinced it was real, will now move on to "Trump's mean!" and completely forget their panicked pleas of TREASON just a few months ago. 

 

TDS is real. It's spread through corporate media and the entertainment industry. And it's intent is not to do a heroic good for the country of removing a dangerous president, but instead the intent is to lie to the American public and convince them that it's okay for previous administrations to have attempted to suppress the voice and will of the people in favor of protecting the establishment and status quo. 

 

That's not a democratic republic. It's an oligarchical fascist state... how many will ever admit their error? There's no shame in being wrong. There's no shame in being whipped up into a frenzy by known liars and perjurers... yet there IS public shame in admitting anything that can end up being parsed as "supporting Trump". 

 

Rectify that. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It makes going back through the thread quite funny. So many people convinced (without evidence) that the Trump Russia story was real. 

 

But it never was. It was always a coup. Always. The same people who were so convinced it was real, will now move on to "Trump's mean!" and completely forget their panicked pleas of TREASON just a few months ago. 

 

TDS is real. It's spread through corporate media and the entertainment industry. And it's intent is not to do a heroic good for the country of removing a dangerous president, but instead the intent is to lie to the American public and convince them that it's okay for previous administrations to have attempted to suppress the voice and will of the people in favor of protecting the establishment and status quo. 

 

That's not a democratic republic. It's an oligarchical fascist state... how many will ever admit their error? There's no shame in being wrong. There's no shame in being whipped up into a frenzy by known liars and perjurers... yet there IS public shame in admitting anything that can end up being parsed as "supporting Trump". 

 

Rectify that. 

I think it is a combo of TDS, fear for their careers (ie doing the bidding of their higher-ups) and fear of seeing the inside of a jail cell (depending on where in the media pool that person lands). 

The rest I am in complete agreement with. 

[Koko78]

16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

That's not a democratic republic. It's an oligarchical fascist state... how many will ever admit their error? There's no shame in being wrong. There's no shame in being whipped up into a frenzy by known liars and perjurers... yet there IS public shame in admitting anything that can end up being parsed as "supporting Trump".

 

Some people would rather burn it all down - and look like colossal fools in the process - rather than admit to being wrong. Look at this thread from TSW, for example:

 

This guy went for 3 pages trying to keep his facade of superiority going after being called out as a dipshit. Rather than cutting his losses, or (God forbid) admitting that the thread premise was stupid and turned into a hot mess, he just kept plowing ahead acting like a fool. (Obviously this dumbass was just trolling, but you get the idea.)

 

The liberal lunkhead lemmings like 26, 34, Gary, Gator, etc. are never going to admit they picked the wrong side and were too stupid to see it.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Koko78

[DC Tom]

4 hours ago, B-Man said:

Woodward: No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion, I Searched For Two Years  by Ian Schwartz

Original Article

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Friday, Bob Woodward said that in his two years of investigating for his new book, ´Fear,´ he found no evidence of collusion or espionage between Trump and Russia. Woodward said he looked for it "hard" and yet turned up nothing.          I guess we can end this thread then.     .

 

Of course, he didn't look for collusion, he looked to write his usual tome on the inner workings of the White House, as he does for every administration.  It's a statement with virtually no credibility.

[3rdnlng]

3 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Of course, he didn't look for collusion, he looked to write his usual tome on the inner workings of the White House, as he does for every administration.  It's a statement with virtually no credibility.

But he clearly stated that he looked hard for it. Should we not believe him on that but believe what he wrote in his book?

[BeginnersMind]

7 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I think the reaction to something like this is ... If even Bob Woodward says there is no Russian collusion, there is no Russian collusion. IOW, it must have killed him to admit it.

 

I don’t know. Woodward’s books on Obama, particularly Obama’s Wars, painted him in a much harsher light than this Trump book paints Trump. 

 

He may lean lean left but he casts a critical eye on many. 

 

There was influence peddling by Russia into the Trump campaign obviously. But collusion is a big leap from that, and there’s never been any report of credible evidence on that front in the media despite all the teeth gnashing. And my source for that is...the media. 

[DC Tom]

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

But he clearly stated that he looked hard for it. Should we not believe him on that but believe what he wrote in his book?

 

Looked hard by...interviewing White House officials?

 

That's like looking for evidence of child molestation in the Catholic Church by only interviewing priests.

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Looked hard by...interviewing White House officials?

 

That's like looking for evidence of child molestation in the Catholic Church by only interviewing priests.

How do you know that he only interviewed WH officials?

[Tiberius]

6 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

How do you know that he only interviewed WH officials?

Tom's right. 

 

Woodward has nothing at all to compel testimony, search for evidence like emails, nor access to the records seized from Manafort, Cohen or Deutche Bank. 

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Tom's right. 

 

Woodward has nothing at all to compel testimony, search for evidence like emails, nor access to the records seized from Manafort, Cohen or Deutche Bank. 

And he had all those with the WH officials?

[DC Tom]

9 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

How do you know that he only interviewed WH officials?

 

He wrote a book on them.

 

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Tom's right. 

 

Woodward has nothing at all to compel testimony, search for evidence like emails, nor access to the records seized from Manafort, Cohen or Deutche Bank. 

 

!@#$ off, dipshit.  If I ever need assistance from the likes of you, I'll go out and buy a monkey.

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

He wrote a book on them.

 

 

!@#$ off, dipshit.  If I ever need assistance from the likes of you, I'll go out and buy a monkey.

He also stated that he looked hard at collusion and found none. Do you think for a moment that if he had found any hint of collusion that he wouldn't have run with it? Under what circumstances do we believe him and under what circumstances do we not believe him? I understand why you don't want the dipshit's help but even he considers how flawed your argument is and is only trying to help you save face.

[DC Tom]

38 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

He also stated that he looked hard at collusion and found none. Do you think for a moment that if he had found any hint of collusion that he wouldn't have run with it? Under what circumstances do we believe him and under what circumstances do we not believe him? I understand why you don't want the dipshit's help but even he considers how flawed your argument is and is only trying to help you save face.

 

 

Let's start with "When the scope of his work includes the campaign and its interactions with Russia."  Idiot.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

Let's start with "When the scope of his work includes the campaign and its interactions with Russia."  Idiot.

He clearly stated in an interview that he looked at collusion "hard". So, you must believe that he wasn't telling the truth?

[njbuff]

This Russian joke is still going on?

[B-Man]

Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn’t prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment

 

To date, Lisa Page’s infamy has been driven mostly by the anti-Donald Trump text messagesshe exchanged with fellow FBI agent Peter Strzok as the two engaged in an affair while investigating the president for alleged election collusion with Russia.

 

Yet, when history judges the former FBI lawyer years from now, her most consequential pronouncement may not have been typed on her bureau-issued Samsung smartphone to her colleague and lover.

 

Rather, it might be eight simple words she uttered behind closed doors during a congressional interview a few weeks ago.

 

“It’s a reflection of us still not knowing,” Page told Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) when questioned about texts she and Strzok exchanged in May 2017 as Robert Mueller was being named a special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation.

 

With that statement, Page acknowledged a momentous fact: After nine months of using some of the most awesome surveillance powers afforded to U.S. intelligence, the FBI still had not made a case connecting Trump or his campaign to Russia’s election meddling.

 

http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/406881-lisa-page-bombshell-fbi-couldnt-prove-trump-russia-collusion-before-mueller