The "Great Unraveling" continues.

None of it was made up.

 

None it was made up? And you think republicans are the ones who fall for lies? Lmao

 

Refute something if you can. https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-what-did-senate-intelligence-committee-find

For example......

Our own conclusions are notably closer to those of the Democrats than to those of the Republicans. To read these thousand pages and come away with the conclusion that they amount to evidence of “no collusion” really involves a protestation of faith, not a dispassionate assessment of presented evidence. As we said at the outset, debating what constitutes “collusion” is not worth anyone’s time, given that the word has no agreed-upon meaning in this context and that to say that there was none of it doesn’t answer in any event the more important question of what the facts amount to. Here are the conclusions we believe the Intelligence Committee’s evidence supports:

1. The Trump campaign and Donald Trump himself were certainly aware in real time of Russian efforts to intervene in the 2016 presidential election. The campaign had a heads-up that Russia had stolen Democratic emails. And Russian operatives sought and received a meeting with senior Trump campaign officials promising “dirt” on Trump’s opponent. As the campaign wore on, and the Russian efforts were increasingly made public, Trump personally and publicly encouraged them.
2. The Trump campaign was run for a time by a man with an ongoing business relationship with a Russian intelligence operative, to whom he gave proprietary internal polling data.
3. The Trump campaign did not discourage Russian activity on its behalf. In fact, it sought repeatedly to coordinate its messaging around WikiLeaks releases of information. The campaign, and Trump personally, sought to contact WikiLeaks to receive information in advance about releases and may well have succeeded.
4. The campaign sought to obtain disparaging information about Hillary Clinton from actors who either were Russian operatives or it believed were Russian operatives. It did so through a number of means—some of these efforts were direct. Some were indirect.

 

Now you’re pointing to a blog? You can’t be for real. You can’t even use these writings in college as actual references. I will read it for good humor a bit later but it’s a blog… I’ve never even seen anyone use a bloggers page for a debate….. ever!

 

What does it matter if someone doesn't accept the election results? We had four years of Democrats not accepting the 2016 election results. Let those people think whatever the hell they want because it doesn't matter.

 

We pretty much have to accept it but we don't have to believe it was or is honest.

 

It's politics. The left rail against Trump for not accepting the 2020 election results but Democrats didn't really accept the 2016 election results and are currently not accepting the election results in some of the recent elections in Virginia and New Jersey. It's what politics on both sides has devolved to.

 

How about you stop pretending you can refute the factual information presented in my post. Because we both know you can't, or you would.

 

Not true. But we did point out the despicable ways Trump welcomed help from Russia, failed to report multiple contacts between his campaign and Russians, and then obstructed Mueller's investigation.

Why not open your mind, and your eyes, read the Lawfare article, and then get back to me.

 

So when did you stop beating your wife?

How about using actual factual sources, rather then someone's thoughts?

 

The conclusions Lawfare makes are based on the extensive evidence provided by the SIC's report. Much of which is corroborated in Mueller's report. At some point one of you needs to refute the evidence based findings or admit you have nothing.

 

Oh I can, and I will.

 

They’re based on opinion. The dossier was proven false. It’s literally been debunked which is why you’re trying to use a blog lol

 

Please proceed.

 

Nope. They're based on evidence presented in the SIC. We're going in circles here. How about this. Scroll down to the end of the article and pick any one of the 10 conclusions made by Lawfare..........then refute it with facts.

 

Neither Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election. If you want to get technical about it, it was Obama who learned that Russia was trying to influence our elections and Obama told his people to stand down and let it happen. Where are the investigations into Obama for colluding with the Russians to influence the 2016 election?

 

This crap has been decided, it was a lie start to finish. It keeps being revived because the Left is afraid he will run again. Those of us who love this country are afraid he won't.

 

I'll count you among those who maintain the erroneous belief of Trump's innocence yet can not give one iota of fact to back it up. Scroll down to the end of the article and pick any one of the 10 conclusions made by Lawfare..........then refute it with facts.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-what-did-senate-intelligence-committee-find

 

You hang on to them, you'll need them again in '04. Good stuff like that is hard to make up so just circle back to it and recycle it.

 

As I said, you've got nothing.

 

Adam Schiff Gets Grilled on ‘The View’ for Promoting Bogus Steele Dossier. ““You defended, promoted and even read into the congressional record the Steele dossier. We know last week the main source of the dossier was indicted by the FBI for lying about most of the key claims in that dossier… Do you have any reflections on your role in promoting this to the American people?”

Of course he doesn't. He's a professional liar.

 

Remember when Generalissimo Bone Spurs denied that any US soldiers were injured during Iran's retaliatory bombing of a US base in Iraq? Incredibly, he said he didn't think the brain injuries dozens of soldiers suffered were injuries at all. I suppose because he is a feckless a**hole who does not have the slightest regard for the well being of US troops........or any person other than himself.

Troops injured in Iran attack downplayed by Trump were denied Purple Hearts. Now, that may change.

WASHINGTON – The Army is considering more than doubling the number of Purple Heart medals awarded to soldiers wounded in the Iranian ballistic missile attack on their base in Iraq in January 2020, an attack the Trump administration downplayed as concerns swirled about an escalating conflict.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...irans-soleimani-revenge/6351342001/?gnt-cfr=1

Despite Trump dismissing the injuries 29 soldiers received a Purple Heart. That number is now going to exceed 100.

 

What is the "Bar" for a Purple heart ? do these folks in the base fit that Bar .. do give everyone who is injured a purple heart ? if so then they should have them.

 

Lots was made up... is what the courts have said .. in numerous instances. .. the latest pertaining to the Steele dossier Fraud.

Would be nice to be able to lock up Hillary for that one. Dirty deeds .. through and through -- her electoral shinannigans were.

 

There was nothing to investigate or punish