When I read posts about Mueller's hunt for evidence of Russian collusion, I often see references to Gates, Manafort, Flynn, Papadoppulos, and Cohen being presented as if they were evidence of collusion. Why do lefties present these in conversations about Trump winning the election because of Russian collusion?
Relevance of nothingburgers
- Thread starter Evmetro
- Start date
If the Repukes on Senate Committee are releasing info, what are they trying to get ahead of?
Why are they willing to admit that Jr wanted dirt?
What is about to come out?
What is Avenatti about to release?
Why is he admitting now that he paid back Cohen?
What's coming this week?
Why are they willing to admit that Jr wanted dirt?
What is about to come out?
What is Avenatti about to release?
Why is he admitting now that he paid back Cohen?
What's coming this week?
Many are, but this still does not help me understand why these things are being presented in place of evidence of collusion.
You do know this was from The Republicans in The Senate ... correct?
No Robert Mueller's investigation ....
This does not clear up why lefties keep presenting the cases described in my op as if they are evidence of collusion.
Who said they were "evidence of collusion?"
I used the exact same names earlier to show that the big "nothingburger" ain't a nothingburger
And the whole "evidence of collusion" is a deflection, first off, collusion isn't even a crime, and secondly, it is nearly impossible to prove.
Mueller was never appointed to provide "evidence of collusion', but rather to investigate "Russian Government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election, to include any coordination or links between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"
Which is exactly what he is doing, quite successfully I might add
What it is on the menu will be shown when Mueller presents his results. Anyone who says they know what will happen, is just noise making. However some people Mueller interviewed say he is zeroing in on collusion. Interesting, but still have to wait. It is not a nothing pizza.
This is exactly what I am talking about. I don't understand how these nothingburgers are somethingburgers when discussing evidence of Trump collusion. None of these other cases are evidence of Trump/Russian collusion, so why are these cases presented in discussions of collusion? Why are these other cases of any interest at all, besides exposing dirt on political opponents?
I agree
Speculation. I speculate as well, and have noticed that nothing has come up in too long a time period, so I am doubtful that anything will come up. Like you do, I must wait as well.
Back to the opening post, alas. What do you know that makes you state this?
Where's the beef?
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Are YOU NOW willing to say the meeting wasn't about Russian Adoption?
Like the President LIED and said it was ... ?
Well, there was an adoption. They adopted the Russian position on who should be president.
You Want Thighs ... with Beef?
At last, we have something.
It has been a very short time period. it just reached a year. Mueller had to staff up and organize, He had a lot of preliminary work to do. He has interviewed a lot of people and has 19 charged already. 4 years of Benghazi=zero. That was all political all the time. 2 years email=zero. So the difference is clear. this is a real criminal investigation and a way to discover Russian interference. It is actually moving a a fast rate.
Some of those interviewed have said Mueller is still on collusion and has a lot. As Trump showed with his disclosure today and many previous statements, he breaks laws casually.
I still do not see how all the nothingburgers are somethingburgers.