MovieChat Forums > Politics > Only a liberal could collude with Russia

Only a liberal could collude with Russia

posted 5 years ago by LordBAElish (2015)
30 replies | jump to latest

In 2012 Romney said Russia would soon be American's biggest threat. Libs like Obama laughed him off. Barry told Putin he would have more room to work with Russia after the 2012 election.

Hillary Clinton transfers 20% of US uranium to Russia. Russia then "donates" 145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Russia then pays Bill $500K for a 30 minute speech. The left and MSM lead a witch hunt against Trump to cover up the lefts collusion with Russia dating all the way back to the 2012 election.

The left is obsessed with socialism and communism, which Russia as you know, is very familiar with.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Your microwave is talking to you again, huh? Kellyanne Conway warned us about those talking microwaves back in early 2017.

Smart people will say 'you're off your meds', once again.

[–] LordBAElish (2015) 5 years ago

yea man, its just like that scene in Requiem for a Dream.

[–] slimone (7996) 5 years ago

Oh, and t-Rump didn't collude with Russia to get elected??????????????

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Nope. Didn't you read the Mueller report? Or this recent court decision dismissing the DNC's lawsuit against Trump over Russia hacking?

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d40ee1b2e20552565354382/Judge-dismisses-DNC-lawsuit-against-Trump-campaign-over-hacking-shooting-down-weak-conspiracy-theory

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Why do you keep pretending you've read the Mueller Report when you so obviously haven't? If you had you'd know Mueller declined to evaluate whether Trump 'colluded' but instead whether his actions met the evidentiary threshold beyond reasonable doubt of a criminal conspiracy.

You'll find his explanation of this distinction on page 180 and his reasons. He did not consider any charges that would fall under the broader rubric of "collusion". You can't say he was cleared by Mueller of collusion when he was only cleared of the more narrowly defined charge of federal conspiracy.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

"collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy" - Vol. 1 p. 180 (the very page you cite, lol)

"In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ed]"--a term that appears in the appointment order--with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement--tacit or express--between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference." - Vol. 1 p. 2

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." - Vol. 1 p. 2

You're wrong again. They say on p. 180 they didn't use "collusion" because it doesn't mean anything in US fed. law, it's not some "broader" rubric of crime. They say to the extent "collusion" means anything generally it's basically synonymous with "conspiracy" in legal dictionaries, which does appear in US law so they used that. Their use of "coordinate" covers any reasonable aspect of "collusion" not already covered by "conspiracy".

Trump and his campaign were exonerated of collusion in the statement above.

What's awesome is you rushing here to spew BS about the report that you clearly didn't read, as exposed in your spectacular faceplant on the other thread where you repeatedly insisted that "40%" of the report was redacted (it was actually 7%).

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d3a731e23472e263c8dcc56/Would-You-Support-a-Trump-Dictatorship?reply=5d40bf692e2055256535416b

LOL! No one could read the report and believe that almost half of it was redacted. If you read the report at all you would have noticed near the beginning where page 2 refuted what you just said. You didn't even read the full page you cited or you wouldn't have faceplanted here again.

You're a joke.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

You're lying again. Like Trump, you always try to just blatantly lie when I call you out. This is the exact quote from page 180 of the Mueller Report you did not read:

"As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potential criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of "collusion," but through the lens of conspiracy law"

Your gaslighting doesn't work because I am quoting verbatim. I paraphrased from memory in my OP but it's essentially what I told you the first time.

If you had actually read the report you'd know everything you just quoted was evaluated through the "lens of conspiracy law" and "not under the rubric of collusion" as is explicitly spelled out in the opening paragraph.

[–] CharlotteXavier (2357) 5 years ago

You toss your pearls before swine, eyedef.

PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. lol

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Good point. I'm chastened. 😳

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Talk about the blind leading the blind, lol. Both of you can barely read.

[–] CharlotteXavier (2357) 5 years ago

LMAO. It’s NEITHER of you can barely read.

Duck kri! The irony might hit you in the head as it passes over.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

It’s NEITHER of you can barely read.

No. That would mean you both read well, genius, which isn't the case.

LOL! Now what were you saying about "irony" (while misspelling my name to boot)?

[–] CharlotteXavier (2357) 5 years ago

I know, I know.. lol

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

I'm honestly not sure what you're even trying to dispute in my post with that quote. Since it doesn't look like you're going answer, the only thing I can guess is that you're trying to imply I said the word "rubric" doesn't appear in the report, which is nonsense. I said ... They say on p. 180 they didn't use "collusion" because it doesn't mean anything in US fed. law, it's not some "broader" rubric of crime. The only word I put in quotes was "broader", "crime" being the other key word.

I was refuting your claim that there's some broader branch of "collusion" criminal law they declined to address.

eyedef: "He did not consider any charges that would fall under the broader rubric of "collusion". You can't say he was cleared by Mueller of collusion when he was only cleared of the more narrowly defined charge of federal conspiracy."

My quotes make clear they said there is no broader "collusion" federal crime law, which you clearly didn't know because you didn't even read the whole page and you're ignorant of the law in general.

Not only did you ignore them saying collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy, but you didn't even mention the paragraphs they wrote about exonerating Trump of "coordination" too (not just "conspiracy") that underscore how wrong you are.

If that one word was your whole point, which you still got wrong, that's pitiful, eyedef. I know I said cut your losses, but that's like slipping on your own urine and facelanting again as you flee the debate.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

This guy kr97a is a demonstrable gaslighter and liar slimone. I wouldn't bother taking anything he says seriously, he's clearly never read the Mueller Report. I had to refer him to the section that he's now flailing to refute.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

eYeDEF: "Barr's DOJ refuses to share the grand jury material from Mueller's investigation with congress in the 40% of the Mueller Report that was redacted.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d3a731e23472e263c8dcc56/Would-You-Support-a-Trump-Dictatorship?reply=5d3cedb9d0d7e45c4f9570ff

eYeDEF: "It is about 40% redactions. I know because unlike you I've actually read the Report whereas you rely on right wing talking heads to interpret the report for you. "

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d3a731e23472e263c8dcc56/Would-You-Support-a-Trump-Dictatorship?reply=5d40aece2e205525653540b6

I figured you had lied about reading the report when you first made that ludicrous claim (no one who actually read it could believe almost half of the report was blacked out), though at first I generously only called you out for the BS percentage and didn't accuse you of not reading the report in case you had misspoken. But then you doubled down on the claim, along with the lame projection you added, LOL!

I know you're butthurt over humiliating yourself on the other thread but following me around tossing out dumb stuff like you're doing here will only make things worse. If you keep digging your own hole I might start to feel sorry for you but I won't stop exposing you as a lying simpleton. Time to cut your losses.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

He lies and twists things all the time. When someone calls him out his response is always “ I did not!” and goes on a hate filled rant like T-rump.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

LOL. Quick! Get two more board liberals to rush in and help the feckless, disgraced eyedef. Even without a shred of evidence, if five of you repeat lies like that in the same thread they become true. Oh wait...no they don't.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Damn, I'm really embarrassed for you. You've just gotten completely pwned by eyeDEF , who wiped the floors with you, and you're still trying to win your ridiculous argument.

HINT: This is the point where T-rumpanzees disappear from the forum for a few weeks, and come back with a different account name. Good luck!

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Anyone can see eyedef has been eviscerated in clear, objective detail, lol, which is why you and the other leftist bottomfeeder rushed in to help....because he desperately needs it. A vague post without any substance like the BS you just posted won't get it done, but maybe you can succeed where he failed, "doggiedaddy".

Since I proved the Mueller report cleared the Trump team of any "conspiracy or coordination" with Russia, and of having any "agreement" with Russia, defend eyedef's crushed position (that the report somehow left room for "collusion" to have happened) by explaining how "collusion" can exist without an agreement of any kind between Trump and Russia. This should be entertaining.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Anyone can see eyedef has been eviscerated in clear, objective detail

Only you see that, because that didn't happen. At all.

It's time for you to pack it in, exit stage right and come back next week with a new moniker (like you've done before). We'll forget krl97a was ever a thing to begin with.

Good luck !

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

^Doggiedaddy waves a white flag^

I guess you can't succeed where eyedef failed, lol. Just another line of lame BS from you. You can't rationally dispute that Trump was exonerated of collusion.

PS - I'm about to travel for the weekend and may not be able to respond until next week, but I eagerly look forward to seeing your replies, assuming you don't flee the thread right now, lol. Try to make them less moronic than what you've posted so far.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

*crickets*

Guess "doggiedaddy" did flee the thread. He and his little loser comrades got one of my posts deleted while I was gone, but they couldn't name one thing I got wrong in eviscerating that clown eyedef. They're classless in defeat. Pathetic.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Yup, it's true. This joker above will just outright deny what he said in a previous post in the very same thread. It's hilarious.

Fortunately his long babbling rants are too incoherent for anyone to bother to read. I'll just respond to the first lie I come across, refute it, and move on. I learned from experience everything after that is just gaslighting nonsense anyway.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

You've been crushed on the Mueller report (which you haven't read) and I haven't told any lies, but if you want to hang around we can discuss another hilarious lie you got busted on at the same time.

eyedef: "I've never seen you cite anything but right wing talking points"

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d3a731e23472e263c8dcc56/Would-You-Support-a-Trump-Dictatorship?reply=5d40cb472e20552565354206

Here's a list of all the media sources I cited up to that point on the thread while proving you wrong on various things.

Bloomberg (leftist)
The Hill (quoting Democrat leaders)
Lawfare (anti-Trump site started by Democrats and establishment Republicans)
Rollcall (leftist)
Vox (leftist)

Forget all...which one of those are "right wing talking points", lol?

Your credibility has been put through a shredder and set on fire.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Did you know that accusing me of not having read a report that I just finished schooling you over makes you look like sour grapes?

I say this in all sincerity. It makes you look like a sore loser.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

So you admit none of those are "right wing", lol? You're spinning your wheels. You even said above you don't understand my "long" posts. No wonder you didn't read the Mueller report.

Mueller exonerated the Trump team of even having a tacit agreement with Russia. How can you honestly claim he didn't exonerate him of collusion? What collusion can occur without an agreement of any kind? Or is that tldr?

PS - Even you're smart enough to know your ass has been thoroughly kicked. In all sincerity you should be paying me tuition.

[–] Gd5150 (11050) 5 years ago

Ouch. Another lemming owned.

Darn those facts.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Wait, you, maybe the biggest spreader of fake news and propaganda this site has ever seen, all of a sudden give lip service to facts?

That is truly hilarious. No wonder why you're having such a hard time discerning what facts are here.