Poll: More support impeaching Trump than Nixon at start of Watergate

LV426 said:
No you haven't.




Not what the report says at all, which is how I know you're lying about reading it.

The report says they couldn't establish criminal collusion, but they established plenty of good, old fashioned, regular collusion.

Like Paul Manafort sharing GOP polling data with Russian assets. That's collusion.

In fact, Volume I details the Russian attacks and how Americans were involved and the support certain Americans gave.

He also talks about how GOP Congressional Candidates solicited help from Russian assets for their campaigns. That was in an actual indictment.
Click to expand...

there is no way on Gods green earth anyone is this ^^^^ stupid
 
LV426 said:
No you haven't.




Not what the report says at all, which is how I know you're lying about reading it.

The report says they couldn't establish criminal collusion, but they established plenty of good, old fashioned, regular collusion.

Like Paul Manafort sharing GOP polling data with Russian assets. That's collusion.

In fact, Volume I details the Russian attacks and how Americans were involved and the support certain Americans gave.

He also talks about how GOP Congressional Candidates solicited help from Russian assets for their campaigns. That was in an actual indictment.
Click to expand...

"Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election."
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... no, it does not state that in the least.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

You're now in denial because you know what admitting this means; that your judgment sucks, your instincts are poor, and that you lack the character to resist being conned.


But do post the page reference you think says that.
Click to expand...

ALL OF VOLUME I.

Now, it's your turn to show where in Mueller's report it says any of the things you claim it does.

You won't do that, of course, because you didn't read Mueller's report; you lied about reading it because all you can do is lie.
 
Superfreak said:
"Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election."
Click to expand...

Evidence not sufficient doesn't mean no evidence exists!
 
LV426 said:
I've read Mueller's report; you haven't.

You actually refuse to read it.

The reason is obvious; reading it would force you to conclude that your judgment and instincts are poor.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to read it to you......which part don't you understand?......
 
LV426 said:
Yes it does.

You're now in denial because you know what admitting this means; that your judgment sucks, your instincts are poor, and that you lack the character to resist being conned.




ALL OF VOLUME I.

Now, it's your turn to show where in Mueller's report it says any of the things you claim it does.

You won't do that, of course, because you didn't read Mueller's report; you lied about reading it because all you can do is lie.
Click to expand...

LOL... I posted the quotes. You simply say 'read the report'. Because you are lying.
 
LV426 said:
Evidence not sufficient doesn't mean no evidence exists!
Click to expand...

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

That is as clear cut as you can make it. You seem to be confused... or you are a liar.
 
Superfreak said:
That is as clear cut as you can make it. You seem to be confused... or you are a liar.
Click to expand...

You're the liar here because that sentence you quoted appears no where in Mueller's report.

So you lied about reading the report, and you lied about what the report -that you lied about reading- said.

You're a liar.

You lie because you have lied so much in your life that you don't even know what it is to tell the truth.
 
LV426 said:
That would be the first time you read it.
Click to expand...

Clearly you are the one that hasn't read it. You keep saying my quotes are not in the report. Yet they are.

You can't point to anything to support your claims, instead crying 'read all of volume 1' despite the FACT that you haven't read volume 1.
 
Superfreak said:
Clearly you are the one that hasn't read it. You keep saying my quotes are not in the report. Yet they are.

You can't point to anything to support your claims, instead crying 'read all of volume 1' despite the FACT that you haven't read volume 1.
Click to expand...

I have read Volume I, I was just searching your entire quote in document cloud and because you didn't quote it accurately, it didn't come up when searched.

Secondly, Volume I establishes several instances of Conservatives and Trump folks colluding with Russia...so this narrow thing you're trying to say clears Trump doesn't actually clear him. It doesn't make him or any of his people guilty either, but it doesn't exonerate them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top