I think you are referring to the fact Russia ed with our election when claiming the credibility of the 17 agencies, and that actually did happen. The investigation was about if Trump knew and conspired with them, along with obstruction. Big difference bruh.well he was right all along about no collusion while yall cried about how credible the 17 intelligence agencies(17 my ass... more like 4 if any at all) and how noble mueller is. hook, line, and sinker with you sheep!
i replied 5 posts up from yours... you're just a living in a world that doesn't care for es like yourself. cry some more cuckles!
russia russia russia... did russia with the midterms like the dnc did? lmao
you can't have obstruction if the pres asks for his circle to be investigated; comey's words not mine.
You don't seem to understand Simple Jack. I was stating the difference between Russia ing with our election, which is a fact backed up by our intelligence agencies, and what the Mueller investigation was about. In other words you confused two different talking points.
Educate yourself.
Lmao. Noam is a brilliant man, but he is not beyond being wrong. This is very clearly the case since he doesn't have all of the information related to the issue. Our intelligence agencies, along with the Mueller investigation, confirmed Russia ed with our election.
This is from the Barr summary of Mueller's report btw.
"The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election."
"The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election."
You are arguing against reality ya .
You're listing sh** that is not collusion. That's full-on .
Are you ing re ed? Russia ing with our election and collusion are two separate things. That was my entire point, and if you weren't so pathetically partisan, you might have caught it sooner. Russia ing with our election is a fact, but that never meant the Trump campaign was involved with it. Do you understand now or should I bust out the crayons?
"that never meant the Trump campaign was involved with it."
Trash and his mafiya KNEW Pootin was attacking US elections in Trash's favor, and kept that crime a secret, said nothing to FBI, aka, passive collusion.
Trash's campaign manager gave election data to the Russians
Trash's son met with Russians to get dirt on Hillary. Trash knew about and lied about it, "adoptions"
Why have Trash and his mafiya been "forgetting", lying (about their Russian contacts), obstructing for 2 years?
The narrative was collusion. The Russians tweeting or whatever else is a nothing issue by comparison.
Nah you're just a re who thinks you know something. ing re s like you are a dime a dozen.
Says the dumb who confused two different talking points.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying to koriwhat. I could give two s about the narrative, I was merely separating Russian election interference from an investigation into potential collusion, as he was clearly getting them confused. 17 agencies didn't conclude collusion, they concluded Russia ed with our election.
Irrelevant to my point tbh. I was just trying to separate talking points for the two morons. I don't believe I ever stated what I believe about the investigation one way or the other in this thread, as it had nothing to do with what I was saying.
Russian interference is basically an immaterial issue in the grand scheme of it all, bruh. But if it means that much to you, be the first to start a thread on it.
issue cop strikes again.
What is the actual issue according to you?
You really are a re . How do you continue to miss the point so completely? I was correcting someone who confused two different topics, not giving my opinion on the matter you ing idiot.
At this point it is clear he has no clue. What I was stating was fairly straight forward, yet he is like a robot programmed to argue against any comment that isn't blatantly pro Trump, regardless of what was actually said. It is pretty pathetic.
i didn't confuse either... if you want to really talk then why not mention china's intervening in our elections, aus, uk, etc? all fact but you harp on russia because you're a dip re who eats up the left's bs narrative. it's comical you re ed s actually think yall are heads and shoulders above everyone else mentally and morally.
your assumptions of me just prove how much of a dip you truly are. go back to trolling with this stupid alt account you ing loser!
UnWantedTheory
We swung the election to Trump. You should be mad as .
Holy , you still don't get it. I wasn't giving my opinion one way or the other you , I was correcting the fact you confused the investigation and election interference. You are stuck on ing argument auto pilot, and if it wasn't so pathetic, it might be hilarious.
Cool beans, but I am not mad. It is what it is.
"deep state" being a code word for anyone who cares about the rule of law.
Trump is slowly ticking the "dictator" boxes, and sniveling sycophants like you keep applauding.
Calls for using libel laws to shut down critics: Check
Calls free press "enemy of the people": check
Attacks independent law enforcement: check
attacks independent judiciary: check
Attacks rule of law: check
calls for followers to commit violence: check
The four markers are:
Rejecting or showing weak commitment to democratic rules.
Denying the legitimacy of political opponents.
Encouraging or tolerating violence.
A readiness to stifle or limit civil liberties of opponents, including media.
You want a dictator, and seem to be fighting to get one. If you don't like democracy, get the out of my country.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote