What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

LogGrad98 said:
Do you read, or read into? That says he didn't find enough evidence to charge anyone on that one count. How does that mean it was fabricated? Do you know what fabricated means?
Click to expand...
Yes it means they(the FBI) made up(fabricated) and used fabricated (made up)evidence to obtain a warrant to illegally spy on the Trump campaign. In Mueller's own reports he admits that the FBI used false info(I believe he uses the word propaganda), out of Russia, to spy on an elected officials. Again this isn't hearsay like what Trump is going through with this soldiers thing, this has been investigated and is in writing by an actual former head of the FBI.
 
LogGrad98 said:
If you have been paying attention, I never said that in any way. All I did was call out your assertion that it was fabricated and admitted to. And you've still done nothing to show that. You take it to the farthest reaches of assumption. Try to show PROOF of YOUR OWN CLAIM. That's it. Not assumptions. Not implications. Just proof that what you said is true. YOU KEEP MOVING THE GOALPOSTS.
Click to expand...
"Much of that information was inconsistent with, or undercut, the assertions contained in the FISA applications that were used to support probable cause and, in some instances, resulted in inaccurate information being included in the applications," the report stated.

So... If something is inaccurate, how does it become that way? Was it fabricated? Yes. It was false information. False information just doesn't randomly make itself, someone else made it.

Off topic but let's also remember we have known of meddling since 2014 and nothing was done. I have no facts as to why worthless Obama didn't stop it then but according to some in his own cabinet he allowed them to meddle in return for Putin to sign onto his Iran deal. Again his staffs words, not mine. His own intelligence even admits to being told to stand down. So its weird how you all blame Trump for Obama allowing meddling under HIS presidency. He should've stopped it in 2014 but he didn't. He sold America for Iran.

The same guy who told Russia on a hot mic "once I'm re-elected I can give you more leeway". Giving the people meddling in our own elections leeway. Wtf is that supposed to mean?
 
Last edited:
I’ve fallen several pages behind on this thread, so I’m not sure if the information being commented on in this clip, in its particulars, has been discussed already. However, if not, it seems relevant to contrast with the mistaken belief that there was never anything to the Russia story. The Senate Intelligence Committee findings were also not the final say, if one takes seriously journalist Mike Schmidt’s revelations, as outlined by Maddow.



I think any leverage the Russians have over Trump involves financial relationships. At least, that’s always been my best bet in what it is that he has tried so hard to keep hidden. I recall when Trump told Mueller, via a tweet, that Mueller should not be looking at Trump’s finances. For whatever other reasons Trump has held that information sealed, there’s a connection to Russia in there that would be damaging, probably to the extreme. Just a hunch.
 
Last edited:
JazzyFresh said:
I feel I have provided plenty of proof.

Obama officials admit there was zero evidence. Zero. So where did this evidence come from? If Obama officials had no evidence? Who did?

The FBI
Ohhh you mean the evidence vwe now know is Russian propaganda? Why was Hillary warned by the FBI but not Trump? Hmmm...

Why did the FBI have to straight faced lie to get said FISA warrant? Why did they fabricate evidence? If the Trump campaign really colluded then there would be no reason to lie

Then Mueller, you know, the main investigator admits he found that Russia meddled(under Obama) but Trump nor his campaign were guilty of collusion.

This is the FBI that on record stated they would not allow Trump to be president Strzok and Page via text.

Then I provided proof in your own article that stated nobody was indicted for colluding.

Nobody was ever indicted for collision and even the people indicted like Flynn we now have proof that the FBI extorted him by saying they were going to either get him fired or force him to lie

This is all 100% fact. There is absolutely no disputing any of this this is 100% proof that Trump didn't collude.
Click to expand...
So again, assumptions. You following the other sheep apparently. Blowing smoke, no proof.
 
JazzyFresh said:
"Much of that information was inconsistent with, or undercut, the assertions contained in the FISA applications that were used to support probable cause and, in some instances, resulted in inaccurate information being included in the applications," the report stated.

So... If something is inaccurate, how does it become that way? Was it fabricated? Yes. It was false information. False information just doesn't randomly make itself, someone else made it.

Off topic but let's also remember we have known of meddling since 2014 and nothing was done. I have no facts as to why worthless Obama didn't stop it then but according to some in his own cabinet he allowed them to meddle in return for Putin to sign onto his Iran deal. Again his staffs words, not mine. His own intelligence even admits to being told to stand down. So its weird how you all blame Trump for Obama allowing meddling under HIS presidency. He should've stopped it in 2014 but he didn't. He sold America for Iran.

The same guy who told Russia on a hot mic "once I'm re-elected I can give you more leeway". Giving the people meddling in our own elections leeway. Wtf is that supposed to mean?
Click to expand...
So now "inaccurate in some cases" = "admitting" it was all fabricated. Man are you ever working up a sweat pushing those goal posts. Keep going, eventually you'll convince your other sheep buddies of something they already believe.
 
gandalfe said:
“While this report does not conclude that the President committed crime.” - Robert Mueller
Click to expand...
Thanks! The second part is absolutely irrelevant. Also the ghost crime would not be collusion, the ghost crime after contradicting himself would be obstruction(zero to do with collusion). By your own post he couldn't say whether or not that happened. By any SANE and lawful standards that's being innocent.

After...3...years... The best he got was there was no obstruction but I'm(Mueller) not going to say that even though I(Mueller) just said it the sentence before..
 
Last edited:
Personally, Im all for the first amendment but I think something should be done about an obvious hit piece, 60 days before an election, that has zero evidence, zero real witnesses and is nothing but he said she said. It's insanely dangerous and it's mind boggling that actual adults don't even question it.

If you're going to make such a radical claim against a running official, no matter the party, it should have actual witnesses and substance behind it. I'm not saying it should be illegal but it should have a label on the piece, something like "manufactured hearsay" or "no evidence behind claim but".. in the headline. Kind of like an opinion piece states it's an opinion.

Especially when this happened in 2018 but just randomly pops up out of thin air. 60 days before an election. Obviously fluff and they accuse others of election meddling.
 
Last edited:
JazzyFresh said:
Thanks! The second part is absolutely irrelevant. Also the ghost crime would not be collusion, the ghost crime after contradicting himself would be obstruction(zero to do with collusion). By your own post he couldn't say whether or not that happened. By any SANE and lawful standards that's being innocent.

After...3...years... The best he got was there was no obstruction but I'm(Mueller) not going to say that even though I(Mueller) just said it the sentence before..
Click to expand...
It's IRRELEVANT that it does not exonerate him?

You're an ideologue, a fanatic, pure and simple.
 
JazzyFresh said:
Personally, Im all for the first amendment but I think something should be done about an obvious hit piece, 60 days before an election, that has zero evidence, zero real witnesses and is nothing but he said she said. It's insanely dangerous and it's mind boggling that actual adults don't even question it.

If you're going to make such a radical claim against a running official, no matter the party, it should have actual witnesses and substance behind it. I'm not saying it should be illegal but it should have a label on the piece, something like "manufactured hearsay" or "no evidence behind claim but".. in the headline. Kind of like an opinion piece states it's an opinion.

Especially when this happened in 2018 but just randomly pops up out of thin air. 60 days before an election. Obviously fluff and they accuse others of election meddling.
Click to expand...
You don't even have the tiniest little idea how journalism works, do you?

Or the real world, for that matter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top