Because some on the board still deny it..........

The desperate "Nothingburger!" defense had fizzled long ago.

The current ploys by the Trump fanatics are:

1) Impeach the integrity of the Trump Justice Department's Republican Special Counsel, and pretend that his team's assiduously refraining from leaks constitutes a lack of progress (despite their already having secured five guilty pleas and 17 indictments, including charges against Russian nationals and companies for participating in "information warfare" to sway the 2016 race.)

2) Contrive diversions of the "Oh yeah! Well what about...? - Hey, look over there!" variety.
​

Were they confident that the evidence uncovered would exonerate their messiah, they would be cheering the Trump Justice Department's Republican Special Counsel's thoroughly fulfilling his patriotic mission. After all, everything in his report will be subjected to scrupulous examination by Congress and others, not blithely accepted - just as no one should unquestioningly swallow Trump insider Bannon's condemnation of the Trump operatives clandestine trysts with Putin's as "treasonous!")

Why do they display so little faith in their messiah's moral rectitude?

​

 

Please answer this question as a measure of just how lost in the clouds of smoke being created by Team Drumpf you are.

Are you suggesting the conversation between Downer and Papadopoulos didn't take place or that the subject matter is not what has been reported it was?

 

The title and article, being from CNBC, of course is a lie. Democrat Mark Warner is not the head of the committee. Rather, the truth is in that the House Intelligence Committee concluded exactly the opposite.

The anti-American Democrat Russian stooges in Congress struck out again.

 

No. I am not suggesting that.

Perhaps if you weren't in the clouds The Afflicted live in, your ability to understand written words would be improved.

I encourage you to read the piece I linked to. You know, from the Clinton confidant/operative guy.

This is the part that especially hits home to me: (Emphasis added)

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/388549-stopping-robert-mueller-to-protect-us-all

This process must now be stopped, preferably long before a vote in the Senate. Rather than a fair, limited and impartial investigation, the Mueller investigation became a partisan, open-ended inquisition that, by its precedent, is a threat to all those who ever want to participate in a national campaign or an administration again.


​

 

Reasonable people could simply refer to our collective memories at to what was being said when this entire probe began. Since that characterization seemingly doesnt apply to you however, I will point you to the words of Hillary Clinton

".....Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton says there are still a number of questions surrounding the legitimacy of the 2016 presidential election due to Russian interference in the race.

"I think there are lots of questions about [the election's] legitimacy"...."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-lots-of-questions-about-legitimacy-of-trumps


Lets face it, calling into question the legitimacy of the election by one of the candidates, and Russias desire to undermine confidence in the democratic process are one and the same. Hillarys implication made their efforts successful beyond their WILDEST dreams.

 

There are many hysterical opinions out there. There is no reason to give this one any more weight than yours.

 

Put in context..................
I think there are lots of questions about [the election's] legitimacy and we don't have a method for contesting that in our system. That's why I've long advocated for an independent commission to get to the bottom of what happened," Clinton told Mother Jones in an interview published Friday.

"This is the first time we've ever been attacked by a foreign adversary, and then they suffer no real consequences, and so I'm worried that we're not learning all of the lessons," she continued. "The forces at work outside of my campaign are not going away. Somebody else is going to be running for Congress or governor or eventually president. We've got to know how to protect ourselves."

"I think as we learn more about it, we know that the web of connections between people on Trump's team and Russian representatives just gets more dense," she added.........................something you failed to do (I wonder why) I think her comments (she is advocating for a thorough examination of what happened during the campaign) are more than reasonable.

 

Right. It's the hysterical opinions you bring to board that should be accepted......

 

You asked for an example of a Democrat implying that Russia handed the election to Trump. Calling into question the legitimacy of the election due to Russian interference is a prime example of such. You asked, and I delivered (rather easily). You are welcome. Your memory must not go back very far because most people know this because we all lived through it.

 

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree that her comments can accurately be interpreted as "implying that Russia handed the election to Trump."

 

You can get hung up on semantics if you so choose, but the reality is that her calling the election illegitimate due to Russian interference fits perfectly with the goal of undermining confidence in Democracy.

 

You keep presenting that failed report as were it proof of something.
Why does it not bring up what Mueller brought up, to wit: Russians active on Facebook? Event here, since the trier of fact has yet to perform, all it amounts to is leveling a charge. Have we yet reached the state of affairs that to try in court automatically means guilty?

Deal with 6 questions to focus on what is true.

 

Believe it or not, the fact that Obama was elected, per your story format, means that the Kremlin wanted Obama and worked on his behalf. You can't do this part way.

 

I must have missed the story reporting the DNI had hard evidence Russia acted to aid Obama's election. Could you post the link?

 

It is.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-some-are-still-in-denial-of-this-too.533124/

 

This is what you said:

OK, a nothing at all meal.

 

Were I to post a link, it would be as much nonsense as your links are proven to be.

 

So..........I'll count you among those who still deny the unequivocal findings included in the DNI's report that Russia, at Putin's direction, had measures taken to aid Drumpf's candidacy. That you can't admit to this basic fact says a lot about you.

 

Since your sole aim is to talk about me, let me talk more about me than you can ever hope to do.

What did the DNI report prove? Even you admit it does not prove that Russia and Trump combined into a collective that knocked Hillary out of office. I suspect you believe it was her right to be president? Not me.

She made significant errors. She refused to appeal to states where Trump hammered her lights out.

Quit blaming Russia for the Hillary Clinton failures. Even the most Mueller can dream up is various ads placed in Facebook that honestly do not swing elections, no matter who put the ads onto Facebook.

 

If the American people wanted a criminal in office they had the chance to vote Hillary, they decided against that course of action, but it was the voters that made their own decisions, not mysterious Russian hackers...

 

Many of these leaked Russian emails have been proven to be planted falsifications to further hurt Hillary's image. Despite how much of this information was truly factual, your OPINION that this propaganda had no bearing on the outcome of the election cannot be proven, and ALL information revealed to voters is assimilated and integrated as the basis for their final decisions. . . . It cannot be struck from the record, as in a courtroom.

It is noteworthy that candidates with the highest campaign contributions are the ones most likely to win, and these contributions are most often spent on media exposure. . . . I would characterize these leaks as political contributions, and they most certainly had an effect on gullible voters. . . . Of course, they had no effect on those who stubbornly backed Trump anyway, independent of reason.

 

But you DO understand that the Russians most definitely aided Trump's election....

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Mark Who???HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

Not trolls ! But he was elected by many voters who were not totally happy with him as the candidate .

Yet , the left picked Hillary and that was more than enough to get the vote out , against her .

I wasn't thrilled with Trump .... But , Hillary was a far worse choice !

Now, I'm happy with what Trump has done ....

 

You're "happy" with what Trump has done?

He's "done" essentially nothing