The Mueller Report. BREAKING NEWS: AG’s Summary Report Released. NO COLLUSION!

[Nanker]

From DR’s post above - a direct quotation from The Mueller Report:

 

"The investigation  did not establish that members of the Trump campaigned conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

[The Red King]

Just now, row_33 said:

 

Therefore,  no grounds to pursue the accusation of collusion.  

 

You should read how our legal system works.

 

 

See, you're still not getting it.  I'm not saying whether or not there was collusion, only that claiming the report said 'no collusion' is inaccurate.

 

If the police say they do not have enough evidence to accuse 'suspect x' of a crime, does that suspect say 'See?  The police said I didn't do it!  They cleared me!".  Of course not.  Yet that's the leap you're trying to make.

 

For the record, I think there was signifigant Russian interference in the election.  I don't, however, think there was collusion.  So no, I am not biased here.  But again, to anyone that says outright the report says "No collusion", I say show me where.  You're certainly allowed to come to any conclusion you want, but that is something you say, not the report.

Just now, Nanker said:

From DR’s post above - a direct quotation from The Mueller Report:

 

"The investigation  did not establish that members of the Trump campaigned conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

 

"Did not establish" is not the same as conclusively saying it did not happen.

[row_33]

Just now, The Red King said:

 

See, you're still not getting it.  I'm not saying whether or not there was collusion, only that claiming the report said 'no collusion' is inaccurate.

 

If the police say they do not have enough evidence to accuse 'suspect x' of a crime, does that suspect say 'See?  The police said I didn't do it!  They cleared me!".  Of course not.  Yet that's the leap you're trying to make.

 

For the record, I think there was signifigant Russian interference in the election.  I don't, however, think there was collusion.  So no, I am not biased here.  But again, to anyone that says outright the report says "No collusion", I say show me where.  You're certainly allowed to come to any conclusion you want, but that is something you say, not the report.

 

Collusion is not a crime, did you read the intro to the Report?

 

 

[Nanker]

1 minute ago, Nanker said:

From DR’s post above - a direct quotation from The Mueller Report:

 

"The investigation  did not establish that members of the Trump campaigned conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

 

1 minute ago, The Red King said:

 

See, you're still not getting it.  I'm not saying whether or not there was collusion, only that claiming the report said 'no collusion' is inaccurate.

 

If the police say they do not have enough evidence to accuse 'suspect x' of a crime, does that suspect say 'See?  The police said I didn't do it!  They cleared me!".  Of course not.  Yet that's the leap you're trying to make.

 

For the record, I think there was signifigant Russian interference in the election.  I don't, however, think there was collusion.  So no, I am not biased here.  But again, to anyone that says outright the report says "No collusion", I say show me where.  You're certainly allowed to come to any conclusion you want, but that is something you say, not the report.

 

You’re nuts. 

[The Red King]

1 minute ago, Nanker said:

 

 

 

Replied to you above while you were replying.

[row_33]

Anyone who spends ten seconds fretting over this total waste of time is so biased...

 

 

[The Red King]

2 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Collusion is not a crime, did you read the intro to the Report?

 

 

 

Who said anything about a crime?  Now I don't think you're even readng my replies.

[row_33]

Just now, The Red King said:

 

Replied to you above while you were replying.

 

And you still call collusion a crime, that makes you a total moron.  And you are so totally biased.

 

 

Just now, The Red King said:

 

Who said anything about a crime?  Now I don't think you're even readng my replies.

 

You are now ignored for being a fool on here.

 

[The Red King]

Just now, row_33 said:

 

And you still call collusion a crime, that makes you a total moron.  And you are so totally biased.

 

 

 

You are now ignored for being a fool on here.

 

 

I never once used the word 'crime' in this post.  So...thanks for showing your bias, and lack of basic reading skills.

[row_33]

The first ignored post display, best thing on here this morning.

[Nanker]

Just now, row_33 said:

 

And you still call collusion a crime, that makes you a total moron.  And you are so totally biased.

 

 

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. A THOUSAND times NO!

 

It was clearly collusion to conspire to create a cabal of codependent conspirators to Co-opt the Constitution with creepy memes and most likely contraband - which sure, is just speculation - but they couldn’t PROVE there isn’t any, so BURN THE WITCHES! 

[row_33]

The use of “collusion” to scream for a criminal charge shows someone is a total nitwit.

 

conspiracy is a crime, so use that word instead, but even that stops anyone with a 3 digit IQ, because it ain’t there....

 

 

[BuffaloHokie13]

40 minutes ago, The Red King said:

 

"Did not establish" is not the same as conclusively saying it did not happen.

You rooted for the Patriots. Prove with facts that it didn't happen. 

[Tiberius]

I guess OJ isn't a murderer then...

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, The Red King said:

"Did not establish" is not the same as conclusively saying it did not happen.

 

Let's try this another way:

 

After an exhaustive investigation, the available evidence did not establish that @The Red King molested children. Therefore, you could still be a child molester, because we could not conclusively say you didn't molest children.

 

Do you see how stupid your position is, or do we just go on pretending that you're actually a child molester because it hasn't been proven that you're not?

[row_33]

I’m not biased but The Red King proved a stubbornness against truth and the American Way, therefore I cannot say he isn’t a traitor.

 

Did I say I’m not biased at all?

 

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by row_33

[Buffalo_Gal]

Welp, this thread sure does prove that TDS is a mental disease with no cure. 

I cannot believe someone could come into this thread after the report was released and dissected, and argue that not finding evidence of a crime, doesn't mean there wasn't a crime.   

Trump had his undies inspected. If there was even a whiff of a crime, it would have been trumpeted (heh) from on-high. No crime was found, President Trump is the cleanest person in Washington DC (ok, ok, not that high a bar), and instead of being thrilled, we have goobers pissed about it. Just odd.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[row_33]

I look forward to people totally losing their control over this for the next 40 years

 

maybe instead they should dig deep into the last 8 or so chapters of the book of Ezekiel and come up with a theory from it...

 

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Let's try this another way:

 

After an exhaustive investigation, the available evidence did not establish that @The Red King molested children. Therefore, you could still be a child molester, because we could not conclusively say you didn't molest children.

 

Do you see how stupid your position is, or do we just go on pretending that you're actually a child molester because it hasn't been proven that you're not?

Was red king trying to take the children to a Moscow hotel? No

Was red king running around saying "I love wiki links and children" no 

Was red king calling out to Russia to find children? No

Did red king hold a meeting in Trump Towers to meet children? No

 

 

Do you understand what evidence is? 

[row_33]

Red King is about 3 months behind any chat on the matter.

 

its boring, nothing worthy of a criminal charge was found