Pretty weak sauce there, Mo...which probably explains why you overuse it.
Session's Testimony.......
- Thread starter Bird Dog
- Start date
Pretty weak sauce there, Mo...which probably explains why you overuse it.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
bwhahahahaha
sorry if the truth hurts there, Mo. and you have no room to talk about overuse. You get stuck repeating your idiocy like a skipping record all the time
PsyOps
Pixelated
There "appears to be evidence"? Evidence either "is" or "isn't".
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
is that how it works? How about the classified stuff. Is that evidence or does it just appear to be?
Do you really think Flynn did nothing illegal in not disclosing his ties to turkey? The lies about Russia might not be illegal, but they may. You can keep ignoring what is there, but that doesn't make it nothing.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Assumptions are not evidence. Appearances are not evidence.
I don't know if Flynn did anything illegal. There's evidence that there was money exchanged between Flynn and the Russians. It has not been determined to be illegal. There is no evidence that Trump colluded; as has been stated over and over again by people on both sides.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
there is also evidence that Flynn didn't disclose that information and that he lied about his contacts with the Russians. The only way to determine if it is illegal or if trump/anyone else was involved or covered it up is to investigate it.
If this was Obama's NSA you would certainly see the connection and wouldn't be insisting that the investigation is pointless.
Never has before...why would it now?
That's got exactly what to do with you lefties and your "Russians!!!" narratives?
Hey look on the bright side. With all this dicking around back and forth, Congress doesn't have time to raise our taxes.
philibusters
Active Member
A month before the election on Oct 7th, two intelligence agencies, the ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security, issued releases that stated they believed the Russians had hacked the DNC and Podesta. Here is a October 7th article on the release https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election
In January 2017, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that Russia also meddled in the elections by disseminating fake news promoted on social media https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...4ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.7e4e18d9578e
On December 9, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community had concluded, in a consensus view, that Russia conducted operations to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency, stating that "individuals with connections to the Russian government", previously known to the intelligence community, had given WikiLeaks hacked emails from the DNC and John Podesta https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.61e96a52f38a
So that is the CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Department of Homeland Security have all stated they have evidence that Russia was behind the DNC hacks and Podesta hack and one of them additional said they have evidence Russia put fake news out on social media. A fourth intelligence agency, the FBI, has never officially stated an opinion, but from Comey's testimony last week, it is clear that he also believed the Russians interfered with the election.
Was there collusion? We don't know and certainly no evidence has been released to indicate there was collusion. At this point, any collusion is just speculation. However, all the experts who have investigated have said Russia interfered with the election. To me, a person who is objectively looking at the evidence would have to conclude that Russia interfered.
And we owe them thanks for their good work.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Yes, there is evidence against Flynn. Let the chips fall...
But, it has taken a huge leap beyond reality to assume that just because Trump or anyone else talked to a Russian means there was some sort of collusion. The evidence against Flynn doesn't even suggest that he had anything to do with the hacking into the DNC. So, that makes any sort of collusion more of a stretch.
And the hacking occurred during the Obama admin. So why aren't any of those people being pulled in to testify? Lots of people that I think look very suspicious - #1 Hillary Clinton!
PsyOps
Pixelated
They don't have time to lower them either.
Bwahahahaha! Like that would ever happen.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
A standard that didn't seem to apply to Hillary.....
http://www.mediaite.com/election-20...-told-the-fbi-she-couldnt-remember-something/
Sappy narrative bites the dust...again.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
so now there is evidence you just don't think it could possibly be connected to Russia or collusion? BTW, hacking and collusion are two different issues. One doesn't have to be involved with both. Like I said, we don't know and that is exactly why they need to investigate.
BTW, they have called members of the Obama admin to testify. :shrug:
so now there is evidence you just don't think it could possibly be connected to Russia or collusion? BTW, hacking and collusion are two different issues. One doesn't have to be involved with both. Like I said, we don't know and that is exactly why they need to investigate.
BTW, they have called members of the Obama admin to testify. :shrug:
I hope and expect the "hearings" and "investigations" will continue for a long time. I hope they do; they keep people like you entertained while the adults move on with more pressing and real matters.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
bwhahahahahahaha
your only pressing matter is responding to every thread on SOMD with trolling nonsense
