First hand account of how crazy things got in the White House in December

KCfromNC said:

Just like there are people alive today who could disclose any untruths in the article in the OP, and so far no one has done so. Seems like we're therefore forced to take is as gospel.

Click to expand...

How do you consider that as a valid comparison?

disciple Clint said:

all of the false stories

Click to expand...

Such as? Come on, link to them. As it stands I have no idea what you're talking about. And attempting to dodge the question kinda makes me think you don't either.

We all know that Mueller stated that there was not collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for what you claim to know, but this is a falsehood. People who have actually read the report far enough to get to page 2 of the first volume know what he really said.

disciple Clint said:

How do you consider that as a valid comparison?

Click to expand...

Because it applies the same standard consistently to the two difference examples. Which part of my explanation did you have trouble understanding?

KCfromNC said:

Such as? Come on, link to them. As it stands I have no idea what you're talking about. And attempting to dodge the question kinda makes me think you don't either.


I can't speak for what you claim to know, but this is a falsehood. People who have actually read the report far enough to get to page 2 of the first volume know what he really said.

Click to expand...

KCfromNC said:

I can't speak for what you claim to know, but this is a falsehood. People who have actually read the report far enough to get to page 2 of the first volume know what he really said.

Click to expand...

In the wake of the release of Mueller's report, there are indications that special counsel prosecutors mostly knew by the end of 2017, and certainly by a few months later, that the evidence would not establish that conspiracy or coordination — or collusion, to use the popular term Now, it is clear Mueller first looked for collusion in all the obvious places. Failing to establish that it took place, he looked farther to the fringes of the Trump-Russia affair. He failed to establish that it took place there, either. As time passed and the two-year mark for his investigation approached, he finally gave up. Byron York: When did Mueller know there was no collusion?

KCfromNC said:

Such as? Come on, link to them. As it stands I have no idea what you're talking about. And attempting to dodge the question kinda makes me think you don't either.


I can't speak for what you claim to know, but this is a falsehood. People who have actually read the report far enough to get to page 2 of the first volume know what he really said.

Click to expand...

more evidence, dont what anyone to think that there was not evidence provided to you. no nasty rumors or accusations.
“Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not. Highlights from former U.S. Special Counsel Mueller's testimony

KCfromNC said:

Because it applies the same standard consistently to the two difference examples. Which part of my explanation did you have trouble understanding?

Click to expand...

I do not have trouble understand, I do not agree.

disciple Clint said:

Did you feel the same way about the numerous inaccurate and false stories about Russian collusion?

Click to expand...

Which ones would those be?

disciple Clint said:

Public confidence in the media is very low, there are valid reasons for that.

Click to expand...

I have seen just the opposite. People seem very confidant in the media that supports their point of view.

disciple Clint said:

In the wake of the release of Mueller's report, there are indications that special counsel prosecutors mostly knew by the end of 2017, and certainly by a few months later, that the evidence would not establish that conspiracy or coordination — or collusion, to use the popular term Now, it is clear Mueller first looked for collusion in all the obvious places. Failing to establish that it took place, he looked farther to the fringes of the Trump-Russia affair. He failed to establish that it took place there, either. As time passed and the two-year mark for his investigation approached, he finally gave up. Byron York: When did Mueller know there was no collusion?

Click to expand...

Yeah, if I were trying to defend what you wrote previously I'd be stuck going to right-wing propaganda rather than quoting the actual report.

Compare the statement from your source that "Mueller first looked for collusion in all the obvious places." to what his report actually says :

So, now that we've dismissed the idea that Mueller was even investigating collusion, can we move on to that claimed list of "numerous inaccurate and false stories about Russian collusion" which you seem to be avoiding substantiating?

disciple Clint said:

We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term.

Click to expand...

Not exactly the quote I'd go with to back up the claim that Mueller said there wasn't collusion.

disciple Clint said:

I do not have trouble understand, I do not agree.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should have laid out the reasons why you disagree rather than asking for me to explain the post to you. I'm not a mind-reader.

wow - MAGA madness. Yikes I bet so many in the USA are now breathing a sigh of relief.