Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

[Aldebaran]

Show me, in any of those, where Mueller is quoted as saying there was “no collusion”...he finds insufficient grounds to charge criminal conspiracy...

RUSSIAN CONTACTS WITH THE CAMPAIGN

The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Read Robert Mueller’s Written Summaries of His Russia Report

 

[Aldebaran]

The parrots demand an apology... and a cracker.

I can only request that you read the provided information.

 

[Allandavid]

RUSSIAN CONTACTS WITH THE CAMPAIGN

The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
Read Robert Mueller’s Written Summaries of His Russia Report

Again, Mueller found that he could not bring charges of conspiracy....for the third time, I ask you to show where he states that “collusion” did not occur...

This was your and Barr’s claim...

 

[childeye 2]

What you're referring to as a "cynical approach" by me is based on my experiences with what I've seen reported about Trump from the beginning. I've noticed the extreme bias, both by the democrat leadership in Congress and in the media where everything they report about him has a negative slant to it. If he says something against someone, he's portrayed as "blasting, attacking, belittling, or slandering". If someone else makes a similar statement against Trump, the media portrays it as, "Standing up to Trump, or confronting Trump, or putting Trump in his place, or correcting Trump".

Tell me now, is this done out of what you consider to be love? Or do you think maybe there's something else at work here?

Slander occurs when something bad is said about someone that isn't true. I believe it is actually a spiritual entity of darkness (the prince of the air) that appeals to our carnal vanity when we entertain thoughts that think or assert bad things about others with no proof. And when we want to believe and repeat bad things said about others with no proof, surely that is wickedness. So having the proof or not having the proof is what makes the difference between slandering someone as wicked and actually identifying wicked behavior.

I do not know to what things you are refering when you are pointing out bias against Trump or whether there is proof or no proof about what was said. You would have to give an example. I don't just simply believe bad things reported about Trump or members of congress or anyone else for that matter without proof, since I do not want to give place to what I see as the devil. I listen to peoples words and note whether they think and say bad things about others without any proof.

 

[childeye 2]

Then they should be focusing on Russia instead of Trump if they have a problem with something done by Russia.

Well they have done so despite Trump refusing to acknowledge that Russia interfered, calling it a hoax invented by the Democrats because they are mad they lost, and a waste of time and money.

You're the one that keeps making everything out to be either "darkness or light, love or hate". That's why I asked. If you don't want to answer, that's fine.

It's the way you asked it that's the problem. I gave an answer.

Now you're talking about collusion. That was already investigated by Mueller and concluded to not have happened.

Collusion is a vague term. I am not surprised that Mueller found no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to hack into the DNC or help Russia send propaganda through social media. I was not talking about that collusion.

Actually I was talking about whether Trump and his campaign knew that Russia was helping them and kept it secret, and whether Trump had intended to use the power of the Presidency to lift the imposed sanctions against Russia for annexing Crimea and that is why Russia was helping him. I hope you see the implications of what I am talking about.

 

[childeye 2]

Mueller indicted russians who were involved in this, correct?

Yes he did.

 

[Aldebaran]

Again, Mueller found that he could not bring charges of conspiracy....for the third time, I ask you to show where he states that “collusion” did not occur...

This was your and Barr’s claim...

And according to Mueller's report, we were right!

 

[Aldebaran]

Slander occurs when something bad is said about someone that isn't true. I believe it is actually a spiritual entity of darkness (the prince of the air) that appeals to our carnal vanity when we entertain thoughts that think or assert bad things about others with no proof. And when we want to believe and repeat bad things said about others with no proof, surely that is wickedness. So having the proof or not having the proof is what makes the difference between slandering someone as wicked and actually identifying wicked behavior.

I do not know to what things you are refering when you are pointing out bias against Trump or whether there is proof or no proof about what was said. You would have to give an example. I don't just simply believe bad things reported about Trump or members of congress or anyone else for that matter without proof, since I do not want to give place to what I see as the devil. I listen to peoples words and note whether they think and say bad things about others without any proof.

Then I'll give you examples:
Trump blasts Twitter as 'very discriminatory,' says the social-media company removes his followers

Trump blasts Twitter as 'very discriminatory,' says the social-media company removes his followers

Trump blasts Powell and tells central bank chief he's 'stuck' with him: WSJ

https://nypost.com/2019/04/09/trump-blasts-judges-decision-on-immigration-policy-as-unfair/

 

[Allandavid]

And according to Mueller's report, we were right!

No, you were very wrong. And deliberately so, unless you can’t differentiate between conspiracy and collusion...

That’s ok...I can see how this works...like Donny, you just repeat the lie often enough and hope that people who are desperate to support him swallow it...

 

[Aldebaran]

No, you were very wrong. And deliberately so, unless you can’t differentiate between conspiracy and collusion...

That’s ok...I can see how this works...like Donny, you just repeat the lie often enough and hope that people who are desperate to support him swallow it...

Well, I'm glad you finally agree with me. It's refreshing to know that we think so much alike.

 

[childeye 2]

Then I'll give you examples:
Trump blasts Twitter as 'very discriminatory,' says the social-media company removes his followers

Trump blasts Twitter as 'very discriminatory,' says the social-media company removes his followers

Trump blasts Powell and tells central bank chief he's 'stuck' with him: WSJ

https://nypost.com/2019/04/09/trump-blasts-judges-decision-on-immigration-policy-as-unfair/

These all seem like typical reporting, and while I agree they are not an appealing portrait of Trump with the word "blasts", still that does not necessarily make them inaccurate. I've personally read tweets where Trump blasts judges and others who don't agree with him. So please explain what it is about each report that you find to be "illegitimately" or "disingenuously" slanted exactly? Perhaps you can give examples of how you feel they should have been reported. Or are you saying that there is no proof that Trump ever did these things?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then I'll give you examples:
Trump blasts Twitter as 'very discriminatory,' says the social-media company removes his followers

Trump blasts Twitter as 'very discriminatory,' says the social-media company removes his followers

Trump blasts Powell and tells central bank chief he's 'stuck' with him: WSJ

https://nypost.com/2019/04/09/trump-blasts-judges-decision-on-immigration-policy-as-unfair/

Donald screeches and howls that everyone's out to get him... as he always does.

What is this supposed to prove again?

 

[Aldebaran]

These all seem like typical reporting, and while I agree they are not an appealing portrait of Trump with the word "blasts", still that does not necessarily make them inaccurate. I've personally read tweets where Trump blasts judges and others who don't agree with him. So please explain what it is about each report that you find to be "illegitimately" or "disingenuously" slanted exactly? Perhaps you can give examples of how you feel they should have been reported. Or are you saying that there is no proof that Trump ever did these things?

What I was trying to show you is evidence of what I was telling you about before, about how there is a definite bias in how reports are done against Trump that aren't done toward subjects the MSM finds more in-line with their own views. You don't see how the reports use a negative tone in a biased way?

 

[Aldebaran]

Donald screeches and howls that everyone's out to get him... as he always does.

This sounded quite a bit like an MSNBC News report.

 

[Fantine]

What I was trying to show you is evidence of what I was telling you about before, about how there is a definite bias in how reports are done against Trump that aren't done toward subjects the MSM finds more in-line with their own views. You don't see how the reports use a negative tone in a biased way?

I have always found the most dam*ing evidence against Trump comes from his own unvarnished tweets, his own recorded and unedited "rallies," and the videos showing his callous disregard for his own wife and others.

While MSNBC or CNN might comment on these, it is the primary source himself that makes so many of us recoil in disgust and work and contribute to candidates who can defeat him--as well as Senators and Congressmen who can render him powerless until his impulsive and inhumane policies can be defeated for good.

 

[TLK Valentine]

This sounded quite a bit like an MSNBC News report.

I wouldn't know. I don't watch MSNBC.

How much did you watch in order to make the comparison?

 

[childeye 2]

What I was trying to show you is evidence of what I was telling you about before, about how there is a definite bias in how reports are done against Trump that aren't done toward subjects the MSM finds more in-line with their own views. You don't see how the reports use a negative tone in a biased way?

When I read the headlines the word "blasts" is the only thing I see that would carry a negative tone, but that doesn't necessarily indicate a bias. If Trump is castigating someone for something, then that would be a fairly descriptive term. Moreover bias can also be painting a rosy picture of something that isn't so rosy. I took the time to read each article and saw nothing indicating propaganda or slander against Trump, and these news sites are usually pretty consistent in presenting reliable reporting.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What I was trying to show you is evidence of what I was telling you about before, about how there is a definite bias in how reports are done against Trump that aren't done toward subjects the MSM finds more in-line with their own views. You don't see how the reports use a negative tone in a biased way?

No. Can you explain it?

 

[Kentonio]

I can only request that you read the provided information.

That’s ironic, didn’t someone request you read at least some of the Mueller report the other day, and you flatly refused because you couldn’t be bothered?

 

[NotreDame]

There is plenty of substantive evidence of obstruction.

In relation to what? In relation to probable cause to believe Trump committed the crime of obstruction? In relation to obtaining a conviction for obstruction, which is to say there is enough evidence to meet the very high burden of beyond a reasonable doubt?

The obstruction segment of the Mueller report is a mixture, a hybrid, between at times strong evidence, and evidence which cannot be characterized as strong.