Trump files Federal Lawsuit against Hillary, & Other Dems, OVER RUSSIA LIE.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO. You clearly haven't read it.



So to claim they found no Russian conclusion is to completely ignore what they wrote. The didn't evaluate any evidence to see if there was collusion since collusion isn't a crime.

They did find multiple contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign.

They couldn't establish any evidence of coordination but the report says nothing about there being no collusion.
But while they couldn't establish coordination, that doesn't mean there was no evidence of coordination based on their earlier statement.
Click to expand...
first you argue they cant find collusion because collusion isn't a crime
(conspiracy is what they actually looked for) then this gibberish

They couldn't establish any evidence of coordination but the report says nothing about there being no collusion.
Click to expand...
 
anatta said:
first you argue they cant find collusion because collusion isn't a crime
(conspiracy is what they actually looked for) then this gibberish
Click to expand...

I didn't say they couldn't find collusion. I said they didn't even look for collusion. If you don't look for something it would be idiotic to claim it doesn't exist since they couldn't find it.

Why is my statement gibberish? Can you not understand plain English as written by me or as written in the report? Evidence of coordination is required for conspiracy to proved. The evidence also has to be pretty clear for a court of law.

Perhaps you should go read the actual report before you accuse me of gibberish.
For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was
on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term “collusion.” The Office
considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked
individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy—either under statutes that have their
own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1951(a)), or under the general conspiracy
statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume
I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal
criminal law—including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are
discussed further below
Click to expand...
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I never said it did. I said it didn't show there wasn't collusion since it didn't look for collusion. You seem to have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader.
Click to expand...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller may not have found evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia, but his report details extensive contacts between the campaign and Russian operatives who sought to influence the election.
Click to expand...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...extensive-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN1RU2MA
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I didn't say they couldn't find collusion. I said they didn't even look for collusion. If you don't look for something it would be idiotic to claim it doesn't exist since they couldn't find it.

Why is my statement gibberish? Can you not understand plain English as written by me or as written in the report? Evidence of coordination is required for conspiracy to proved. The evidence also has to be pretty clear for a court of law.

Perhaps you should go read the actual report before you accuse me of gibberish.
Click to expand...
They found no conspiracy. You must first collude to conspire.
 
anatta said:
no collusion per specialcounsel
Click to expand...

Nope. Again, Mueller did not make a finding that collusion did not take place. Consider this from the Washington Post today:

"While Mueller did not find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, he has made a point to emphasize — as he said in the report — that the report didn’t address collusion. What’s more, Mueller didn’t say there was “no evidence”; he instead said the evidence wasn’t “sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy.”

Then there is this nugget you may recall:

"And since then, a bipartisan report from the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee stated that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had shared “sensitive internal polling data” and “campaign strategy” with a man it described as a “Russian intelligence officer,” Konstantin Kilimnik. The report called the relationship between Manafort and Kilimnik a 'grave counterintelligence threat.'" That alone was collusion.

All that this suit accomplishes is headlines and misplaced excitement among Trumpers.
 
Grokmaster said:
Well, well, well; there is no way Mr.Trump can possibly lose this lawsuit ,as there are thousands of hours of video, thousands of documents, and an ONGOING FEDERAL SPECIAL COUNSEL PROBE PROVING IT AS WELL.


IMAGINE ALL THAT WILL BE EXPOSED IN DISCOVERY!!

CANNOT WAIT TO SEE WHERE THIS GOES. :cool:



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Donald Trump on Thursday sued Hillary Clinton and several other Democrats, alleging they tried to rig the 2016 U.S. presidential election by tying his campaign to Russia.

"Acting in concert, the Defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty," the former president alleged in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Florida.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-allegations/ar-AAVsC6i?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

youre-still-buying-5c1a5a.jpg




2.jpg





IT'S ON!!!!



(AND HERE COME THE DESPERATE JPP LEFT AD HOMS AND/OR DESPERATE ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE THE TOPIC.....
Click to expand...

Pay attention, Trump never wins in court.
 
ExpressLane said:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...extensive-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN1RU2MA
Click to expand...

No conspiracy is not the same thing as no collusion since collusion can occur without it being a criminal conspiracy. For that matter conspiracy can occur without it being a criminal conspiracy since the criminal aspect requires a conspiracy to break an actual law.

I wonder why you can't just provide a link to the actual report instead of relying on third hand interpretations? Can't you read past a headline let alone a 160 page report?
But what do you think those extensive contacts were about? Did the Russians just want to share cookie recipes?
 
ExpressLane said:
They found no conspiracy. You must first collude to conspire.
Click to expand...

Here we see your complete inability to think clearly.

Let's examine your argument.
Collusion must occur before criminal conspiracy occurs.
No conspiracy was found to have occurred.
Your conclusion is therefore there was no collusion.

Simply because A is required before B occurs doesn't prove A didn't occur because B didn't occur.

Example showing how your logic is faulty.
Someone has to go into the water before they can drown.
No one drowned.
Therefore that proves no one went into the water.

As you can see, unless you can prove that B must always follow A, the fact that B didn't occur doesn't prove that A didn't occur. Everyone that goes into the water doesn't drown. Everyone that colludes doesn't commit a criminal conspiracy. You might want to stop with your idiotic arguments at this time before you drown.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
No conspiracy is not the same thing as no collusion since collusion can occur without it being a criminal conspiracy. For that matter conspiracy can occur without it being a criminal conspiracy since the criminal aspect requires a conspiracy to break an actual law.

I wonder why you can't just provide a link to the actual report instead of relying on third hand interpretations? Can't you read past a headline let alone a 160 page report?
But what do you think those extensive contacts were about? Did the Russians just want to share cookie recipes?
Click to expand...

THERE WAS NO COLLUSION FOUND, DIPSHIT.

HE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE OPRESENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS CASE; THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THOSE HE CITEs ,DID EXACTLY WHAT HE IS SUING THEM FOR.


WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU IDIOTS ,AND YOUR RIDICULOUS "ALTERNATE REALITY"


BUNCHA IDJUTS.
 :cool:
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Here we see your complete inability to think clearly.

Let's examine your argument.
Collusion must occur before criminal conspiracy occurs.
No conspiracy was found to have occurred.
Your conclusion is therefore there was no collusion.

Simply because A is required before B occurs doesn't prove A didn't occur because B didn't occur.

Example showing how your logic is faulty.
Someone has to go into the water before they can drown.
No one drowned.
Therefore that proves no one went into the water.

As you can see, unless you can prove that B must always follow A, the fact that B didn't occur doesn't prove that A didn't occur. Everyone that goes into the water doesn't drown. Everyone that colludes doesn't commit a criminal conspiracy. You might want to stop with your idiotic arguments at this time before you drown.
Click to expand...

HE'S SUING THEM FOR CREATING, FINANCING AND PROMOTING THE COMPLETELY DEBUNKED RUSSIA LIES, WHICH CAUSED HIM PROVABLE DAMAGE.



THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE NAMED DEFENDANTS DID SO.


WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU MORONS ??
 
NO QUESTION OF THE LAWSUIT'S CLAIMS...


Former President Donald Trump has filed a sweeping RICO lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and others, alleging that they "maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that [Trump] was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty [Russia]" to try and rig the 2016 election.

"The Defendants, blinded by political ambition, orchestrated a malicious conspiracy to disseminate patently false and injurious information about Donald J. Trump and his campaign, all in the hopes of destroying his life, his political career and rigging the 2016 Election in favor of Hillary Clinton," Trump's lawyers say in a 108-page lawsuit filed in Florida. "When their gambit failed, and Donald J. Trump was elected, the Defendants' efforts continued unabated, merely shifting their focus to undermining his presidential administration."



https://www.npr.org/2022/03/24/1088694473/trump-lawsuit-clinton-democrats-russia
 
Jarod said:
Pay attention, Trump never wins in court.
Click to expand...

Tell Stormy Daniels. $300,000+ worth of "winning".


She's gonna have to give a lot of blowjobs to raise that kind of $$.

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THOSE HE IS SUING ARE GUILTY.
 
Last edited:
The named defendants in the 108-page civil lawsuit include, but are not limited to, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party law firm Perkins Coie, that firm’s former partner Michael Sussmann, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI attorneys Lisa Page and Kevin Clinesmith, and former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe. Also sued are several “John Does” and unknown corporations.


The Thursday lawsuit alleges the following 16 counts, but not all counts are alleged against all defendants. Here is a list of the claims and a sampling of some of the named defendants:


(1) RICO law violations;
(2) RICO conspiracy;
(3) injurious falsehood;
(4) conspiracy to commit injurious falsehood;
(5) malicious prosecution;
(6) conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution;
(7) computer fraud and abuse;
(8) theft of trade secrets;
(9) violations of the Stored Communications Act;
(10) agency (e.g., that Clinton acted as a principal and directed her agents to harm Trump);
(11) respondeat superior (e.g., that Perkins Coie “is vicariously responsible for the torturous conduct of its agents, servants, representatives, employees and/or contractors”);
(12) respondeat superior/vicarious liability against the DNC;
(13) respondeat superior/vicarious liability against the Clinton Campaign;
(14) respondeat superior/vicarious liability against fusion GPS;
(15) respondeat superior/vicarious liability against Orbis Business Intelligence LTD;
(16) respondeat superior/vicarious liability against Neustar.








https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/tru...le-racketeering-plot-against-him-to-the-test/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top