WOODWARD FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION, EVEN THOUGH HE ‘LOOKED FOR IT HARD’

Indeed.

I have no doubt that he had negotiations to get information about Clinton, but I am not sure that we can make any further progress on the collusion file.

But the great thing about Trump is that he is unable to comply with the law, so it will be easy for Mueller to demonstrate cases of obstruction of justice and money laundering.

 

Mueller doesnt want to go to court either remember he didn't get a verdict on 10 counts. So what's in the proffer? Podesta and Craig and some of the other companies involved in any money laundering? What evidence is there that it has to do with anything Trump?

 

I missed the collusion in it.

 

The accusation strikingly similar. A secret dirty tricks operation and money laundering.

 

How many of the people Woodward talked to were under oath?

 

I'm not surprised.

 

So then you beleive Woodward right ?

 

You mean he didn't call you and tell you what was in the proffer?

 

Sort of how leftists insisted that G.W. Bush was too dumb to be president and then accused him of being this Machiavellian genius capable of manipulating the DNC's leadership. They never seemed to realize that they were essentially calling their own leadership as dumb as a bag of rocks.

 

GW a genius? I don't think anyone ever accused Bush of that.

 

It was still a third rate burglary attempt to get information and bug a phone to listen in. Remember when the Democrat guy got caught trying to listen in on the Republican meeting a few years ago? But anyway the Democrats don't need electronic eavesdropping they just have their operatives operating directly in the White House it seems and the FBI and CIA using moles to infiltrate. At least CREEP used their own people.

 

He was JOKINGLY asking them to find those official GOVERNMENT OWNED emails for the FBI who were saying they could not find them. Guess you never saw the speech.

 

That would be with the Anti-Trumpist but glad you admit there was no collusion.
What obstruction of justice and money laundering?

 

So since this story is credible are you lot on the right claiming his book is now credible?

 

It is near as ironic as the left presenting him as the epitome of truth and accurate reporting deeper than anyone else and scrambling to explain why he found not a shred of evidence of any Russian collusion.

 

What story? He found no "story" of collusion. Not a shred of evidence of it even though he looked hard for it. Why should I not believe him when he says he found no evidence of Russian collusion or involvement? Since you seem to not believe that is credible do you bit believe the rest of his book is credible. Quite frankly I believe that if he had even found uncredible evidence of Russian collusion he would have gone with it but couldn't even find that.

 

Why would he have done that?

 

So then you don't know what he has or doesn't have, do you?

 

What part if it is the collusion part?

 

You think he DID find collusion and is lying about it? Why should I think he found collusion but didnt put it in the book and is lying about it now?

 

I would say that lying to protect Putin could be seen as collusion.

 

As someone who never expected that the Trump Justice Department Special Counsel would uncover direct evidence of "collusion", nor perceived that as his imperative, I would have been quite surprised if Woodward's revelatory book were to establish it.

If Mueller, as his assignment continues, can expose the details and extent of Putin's perfidy in his attack upon the US democratic process, related security matters, and criminal behavior accompanying it, and if that awareness leads to measures to prevent future such attacks, he will have carried out his patriotic mission admirably.

 

The story that our potus is essentially a geriatric 8 year old and unable to effectively perform his duties?

 

To be fair to Woodward, though; since he is essentially substituting 'He said/She said' sour grapes style back biting gossip from low level functionaries -- bitter that THEY did not get selected for higher level service -- as facts while hoping never to have to go to court to prove his unfounded assertions against Trump and his staff of higher-ups, Woodward probably feels that he's dancing a close enough dance with the court system as it is. He KNOWS that unfounded innuendo and gossip among staff peons, however, would not remotely be enough EVIDENCE in court had he claimed to believe that Trump colluded with the Russians.

As it is now Woodword is bluffing that he will release 'proof' of his assertions against higher level Trump staffers should they continue to call him a liar -- while hoping that he does not have to do that and reveal to his fans that yes, indeed, he used 'testimony' from bitter little failures who in turn pushed unsubstantiated 'he said/she said' rumors and innuendos as 'truth' and 'facts' to Woodward. Oh and of course those peons DO NOT wanted to get outed in court as the rumor mongers and gossipers since they WOULD get cross examined by top flight attorneys and have to prove their unfounded assertions.

 

Why would he not put it in his book even if he found just rumor and innuendo, as is most of his book I have seen, of collusion and then publically state he found none.