MovieChat Forums > Politics > Democrats go off the cliff. The lunatic...

Democrats go off the cliff. The lunatics are in firm control of the party of Impeachment.


They've wanted to overthrow the election results and impeach Trump since before he took office, but after three years of desperately looking for an excuse they still can't find one, certainly not one they can clearly articulate detailed facts of. So they're going forward anyway. Talk about getting ahead of their skis. The damage Democrats' myopic, petty abuse of power could do to this republic is incalculable.

Meanwhile Democrats continue to block the new trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that would help workers, along with everything else that might improve Americans' lives.

reply

https://media1.tenor.com/images/ed9e4d9ca989543c167cf300de6cea37/tenor.gif?itemid=

reply

A lot of the smarter Democrats are the ones shedding tears over this and think Trump is laughing his ass off.

reply

The Ukraine had agreed to give up their nuclear weapons if the U.S. helped with their defense against Russia. Russia invaded them and annexed Crimea. Right now, Ukraine is fighting a war against further Russian invasion. Congress approved $250 million for their defense. Trump withheld that money unless the Ukrainian president found dirt on his political opponent Biden. This is the second time that Trump has asked a foreign government to interfere in U.S. elections.

Trump and Giuliani have admitted what is basically extortion.

reply

Already debunked just hours later. My prediction is that you don't admit you jumped the gun and got your facts wrong, let alone show class by apologizing. Just a hunch.

reply

The only falsehood that was debunked was that Shokin was actively investigating Burisma. Shokin kept saying he was but never did anything to reduce the corruption. The western world had their eyes on Ukraine's monumental corruption and were telling them for a long time to get rid of Shokin. Then Biden got on board and became the point man for the cause.

The problem with you is you don't offer any facts. You wait for a leftist to present them so you can say your "debunked" or "fake news" spiel. Its old and tired just like Trump's base.

reply

No mention of the military aid package let alone using it for leverage, quid pro quo, bullying, mentioning Giuliani 8 times, promise to Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Biden, anything about the upcoming election, or some of the other lies pushed by the left the past several days. All factually debunked. That's why Democrats have resorted to backpedaling on "quid pro quo" and whiningly attacking the transcript as allegedly incomplete.

Democrats ludicrously jumped to supporting impeachment over this alleged "whistleblower" before seeing the phone call contents or even the "whistleblower's" claims.

But I do love your contorted spin of Biden's conflict of interest in actually strong arming Ukraine, using a billion dollar US aid package to extort the country into firing the prosecutor investigating the company his son worked for in an apparent influence peddling scheme.

reply

The prosecutor, Shokin, was never investigating Biden's son. He claimed he was investigating Bursima but everyone saw that he wasn't. His own deputy even called him out for it, along with the western world, and Ukrainian citizens.

Trumpers will never attempt to prove that Biden removed a less corrupt prosecutor in favor of a more corrupt prosecutor. The facts don't align with it, so you'll just imply it and hope people believe you. But the more time we invest into it, the more your conspiracy theory falls apart.

There's no law that says you can't withhold loans/aid from a foreign country if they refuse to fix their corruption. So now its on Trump and the Trumplings to prove Shokin was not corrupt and was actively investigating Burisma. In other words, Trumpers are fucked.

reply

Your spin hinges on subjective characterizations, not facts. It's a fact that Biden publicly said he threatened to withdraw a billion dollar US aid package if Ukraine didn't fire the prosecutor, the one who just happened to be investigating the company his son worked for. Among other things (like being the strong arm tactic Democrats spent several days falsely accusing Trump of) that's a conflict of interest. Your assessment of the job the prosecutor was doing or who if anyone Biden thought may replace him is irrelevant.

You're delusional. This is a Biden scandal, not a Trump scandal.

reply

Its not a fact that Shokin was actively investigating Burisma. That "fact" is heavily contradicted, even by Shokin's own deputy.

I'll break it down as easily as I can for you.

Where's the evidence that Shokin was actively investigating Burisma? Giuliani doesn't have it.
Where's the evidence that Shokin's replacement was corrupt? Giuliani doesn't have it.

If there's no evidence of any of these things, then what grounds does Trump have to withhold aid to investigate it?

Now for Biden...

Where's the evidence that Shokin was corrupt? The G-7 wanted Shokin gone, the IMF wanted Shokin gone, the EBRD wanted Shokin gone, the Ukrainian people wanted Shokin gone.

Where's the evidence that Shokin was not actively investigating the specific issue of Burisma? Shokin's deputy Kasko said he wasn't, and the US ambassador to Ukraine said he wasn't taking it seriously.

This is why you don't pin your hopes and dreams on Giuliani, and certainly why you don't pin them on Trump's decisions.

reply

It's a fact that the office was already investigating it, and he inherited that investigation when he became Prosecutor General. It's also a fact that he and others claimed he was investigating it. Claims by some about the intensity of the investigation are beside the point. Whether your cherry-picked assessments are true or not, someone with Biden's deep conflict of interest shouldn't be the one doing that strong arming, especially with a billion dollars of US tax payer money.

You haven't presented a shred of evidence that Trump withheld any aid to pressure an investigation into Biden or his son, not that it would have been illegal to do so anyway.

reply

Who claimed Shokin was actively investigating Burisma? Give me names, agencies, anything. What did Shokin's replacement do that was corrupt? You have nothing to go on.

We don't need evidence that Trump withheld anything. Trump is not allowed to solicit information from a foreign government about an election opponent unless he has a clear reason to do so that doesn't pertain to the upcoming election. 'Hunter wasn't prosecuted, Biden must be guilty' isn't such a reason.

reply

You mean apart from Shokin himself?

"“The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” Shokin testified.

“On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation,” Shokin added.
"

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

That's from a sworn affidavit, btw, and the whole thing is worth a read.

https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

reply

Or how about Burisma's American lawyers themselves in a meeting with Shokin's temporary successor immediately after he was fired, as they tried to repair relations with the General Prosecutor's office?

“In the end of March 2016…three U.S citizens wanted to make an appointment to see me…those individuals turned out to be Karen Tramontano, Sally Painter, and John Buretta. They turned out to be representatives of the BlueStar Strategies company and, at the same time, Karen Tramontano and Sally Painter said that in the past they had worked in President Clinton’s Administration.

The purpose of their visit was an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures on the activities of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine in regards to the investigation of the criminal activities of Zlochevsky. These individuals noted that they had been aware that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine had implemented all required steps for prosecution of Zlochevsky and that he was released by the British court due to the underperformance of the British law enforcement agencies."

https://www.scribd.com/document/427616178/Ukraine-PGO-Memo-Translation

As for Trump, there’s a mountain of basis for asking if they’re looking into the Bidens’ and the Democrats’ broader solicitation of dirt on Trump and his associates in Ukraine (some of which actually did violate campaign finance laws, DNC hacks not being the nation’s chief law enforcement officer like Trump is). A freaking Ukrainian court has already ruled that certain Ukrainian agencies and officials illegally interfered in the US election to help Clinton and hurt Trump. This is where the real scandal was all along, not lies about Russia “collusion”. It’s Trump’s job to get to the bottom of all this. Someone has to.

reply

Just a heads up uvx, John Solomon whom the brainwashed OP cites in his reply to you above, has a notorious rep in DC for being the launching pad for GOP operatives looking to unload oppo research no other journalists will dare touch. Once upon a time an investigative reporter for the AP, Solomon has spent the last 13 years drifting toward the fringes. After writing two completely bogus stories in The Hill a couple years ago about Clinton and Uranium One they moved him from the News to Opinion .

He also wrote is series of articles in March and April 2019,which provide a skeleton for a number of debunked allegations that Trump and Giuliani have pressed Kyiv to substantiate.

So of course it's entirely predictable that the propaganda casualty we know as krl97a is offering Solomon links as "proof".

reply

LOL! I'm quoting from the Ukrainians' sworn statements in affidavits, you lying doofus. ABC and other sources have Shokin on record saying the same thing elsewhere. Solomon is a great investigative journalist, has been VP of The Hill ("the fringes"?), is more widely read now than he was with the AP or Washington Post, and virtually everything you said is BS.

reply

And read the top of the affidavit dipshit. First, it's dated September 4, 2019. Then right at the top you'll see the words "I make this statement at the request of the lawyers acting for Dmitry Firtash (“DF”), for use in legal proceedings in Austria."

d0h! Any idea who Dmitry Firtash is dumbfuck?

This is exactly why Solomon was moved to the Opinion section doofus. Shit like this would never fly in the News section. That only took me five minutes of due diligence to see through Solomon's smoke and mirrors. You've been duped by his typical disinfo snow job, but that's to be expected because you're a proud propaganda casualty.

It's such a shame since he used to be a competent reporter where he's now reduced himself to shilling Kremlin propaganda. It's no coincidence the whistleblower complaint cites Solomon disinformation right around the time Rudy's in Ukraine trying to extort officials into fabricating dirt for his boss.

What's hilarious is how you seem to think how many readers he has is a measure of his credibility. Alex Jones has a lot of fans too, you must love him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-a-conservative-columnist-helped-push-a-flawed-ukraine-narrative/2019/09/26/1654026e-dee7-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

reply

Sure I know who DF is. So what? Do you know what an affidavit is, moron? This is sworn testimony under penalty of perjury from a former chief Ukrainian prosecutor (not Shokin) about what Burisma's US legal team conceded in a private meeting with him. It's called evidence. Shokin's own repeated statements, both under oath and in interviews, that he was investigating Biden's son when Biden forced his firing is another piece of evidence.

Solomon has nothing to do with those facts apart from doing his usual good work as an investigative journalist and digging it up when most reporters are unwilling to look because they're leftist hacks. Attacking him is just a lame distraction attempt. Your Washpo article is behind a paywall, genius, not that it matters. It is hilarious that in this day and age you still pay that ossified propaganda rag money though. And actually I cited his prominence in reply to your "fringes" lie.

It's amazing that you people still talk like that after three years of CNN and similar liberal outfits getting almost everything wrong week after week from the election to the moronic Russian spy conspiracy theory to Jussie Smollett and countless other things. No remorse, shame, or sensible acknowledgement of imperfection. Just always moving forward like a shark....attack..attack..attack. Well maybe a big school of ferocious guppies, lol. That's a better fit for guys like Brian Steltzer and Fake News Fredo.

reply

"Sure I know who DF is. So what?"

Then you're just too much of a dense baboon to understand why a former Ukrainian prosecutor internationally renown for his corruption and his sworn affidavit for use to help a corrupt oligarch on the run from US law and former business partner of Paul Manafort avoid extradition "for legal proceedings in Austria" (for which he'll never be prosecuted for lying) is riddled with conflicts and lacking in credibility to be next to meaningless.

And I haven't even scratched the surface of why any affidavit made for Firtash can't be taken at face value. Your reaction belies you really have no idea who he is because you're a hapless John Solomon propaganda casualty.

"Your Washpo article is behind a paywall, genius, not that it matters."

You don't know how to bypass paywalls? God you must be an idiot.

Solomon's "evidence" is a mix of bullshit that is simply flat up-is-downism to anyone who was at all familiar with the events as they transpired at the time. All of it is based on undisclosed sources or documents Solomon says he’s reviewed but doesn’t share.

Like I said, you're an easily duped propaganda casualty. This proves it.

You're also gaslighting again bringing up unrelated topics like Smollet so I rest my case. No one will read your predictable gaslit reply. Thanks for making my point.

reply

That was a lot of hysterical BS to try to divert from the fact that multiple Ukrainian top prosecutors are on record saying Shokin was investigating Burisma and indicating possible malfeasance by the Bidens, in sworn affidavits and interviews. That and other evidence more than form a legitimate basis for inquiry.

I already linked directly to some of the documents Solomon shared, you buffoon. As you peter out from being beat down your lies are getting weaker. Solomon's great but Peter Schweizer (a great investigator) and an increasing number of others are on this too. Even liberal outlets have acknowledged aspects of this case for years.

"More than once, after his father engaged in diplomacy on behalf of the United States in foreign countries, Hunter Biden conducted business in the same country….

Ethics experts interviewed by ABC News said these are legitimate questions about possible past and future conflicts of interest...

"Biden was acting not like a U.S. vice president, but as an individual," Shokin told ABC News, "like the individual interested in having me removed -- having me gone so that I did not interfere in the Burisma investigation.""


https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/news/story/biden-sidesteps-questions-sons-foreign-business-dealings-promises-63820806

Loads of new facts are being dug up, like this picture of the Bidens posing on a golf course with Burisma colleague Devon Archer, despite Biden insisting he "never" discussed overseas business with Hunter.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/quid-pro-joe-photo-emerges-of-biden-that-casts-doubt-on-his-ukraine-claims

I listed Smollett and the other stuff to highlight the leftist media consistently getting it wrong. It's sad that you're so stupid you need that explained.

You're a joke.

An emerging story is how the DNC solicited dirt on Trump with a wide net in Ukraine. That's the real mountain to the phone call's fake mole hill. The "up-is-downism" is pretending otherwise.

reply

There is no helping them. All they can do is chant "fake news" when they see facts they don't like.

reply

God you're an imbecile. But I don't blame you for it, it's just the way you were born.

reply

LOL! Oh look, it's the disgraced moron eyedef who was caught lying about having read the Mueller report, falsely claiming "40%" of it was redacted, claiming the Dayton shooter (a radical leftist Antifa supporter) was a "Republican", and countless other humiliating faceplants.

You're back just in time to admit you were wrong about the Democrats already conducting an "impeachment inquiry" months ago, LOL.

reply

This place is full of them. One guy didn't know what type of government the US had in place and there of course there is DoggieDouchebag. This has become the base of the Dems - loopy and insane. Almost too sick in the head to be in the right mind to vote.

reply

doggie, who runs away or changes the subject every time one of his lies is irrefutably debunked without ever even acknowledging it or retracting his claim, currently has 9(!) threads he's started on the front page, lol, all but one of them started within the last day. That's not counting a few more he posted today that have slipped off the front page. The dumbest, most dishonest leftists are also the most vocal.

reply

What do you expect from ignorant left wing sheep. Incapable critical thinking, analysis or independent thought. At best you get a cut and paste from the usual communist Democrat media sources.

Sad thing is special e.d. Is at the top of left wing posters at MC. Reaching a 5 on the hundred scale, clearly tops the rest of the left wing bozos here who’ve been sent straight to the ignore list.

reply

I am so glad Trump is no longer on the Trending board. You ravenous, Wrong wing nuts have ruined rational political discourse and you don't even know it. Smugly accuse the opposition of all the ugly tactics you so revel in, while backing platforms that make life worse for the working class because Hoolyweird elites dare to question what is Social Justice. Label them SJWs and watch the good ol' boy loons pat each other on the back for being obnoxious like entitled high school bullies. God, it's so sickening. You throw mud and feign outrage at mud being thrown back. Eff all of it. Enjoy your game.

reply

It's astonishing how rare intelligent or honest liberals have become. The intelligence side at least is partly a result of mental atrophy. After seizing near full control of the media/entertainment industry and in more recent decades the education system, leftists typically spend most or all of their formative time in echo chambers, insulated from challenging arguments or inconvenient facts. While conservatives are frequently exposed to opposition material that requires them to think critically to remain conservatives, liberals are usually more go with the flow types. They see something from Colbert, CNN, or some other propaganda source and just mindlessly repeat it. They haven't cultivated their critical thinking skills and can no longer debate effectively. I used to know some smart leftists but they're almost extinct.

reply

lulz. Yeah because I was right. I pointed you directly to the document that gave Nadler full authority to commence an impeachment inquiry in his petition to the courts that you were too illiterate to read. Once again, here is what I said.

The full House authorized an impeachment investigation back on June 11th, when it authorized the judiciary committee to request the grand jury material pursuant to rule 6e.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/430/text
or any accompanying report, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), including Rule 6(e)(3)(E) (providing that the court may authorize disclosure of a grand-jury matter “preliminarily to…a judicial proceeding”).


You being too illiterate to read the underlying document had to run to lawfare to try and find a Benjamin Wittes article to try and interpret and refute what the petition said. You came back trying to claim 6e was invalid because there was no inquiry underway when Nadler had House authority to commence the inquiry and he had cited impeachment 84 times in the document you were too illiterate to read. I even told you Pelosi didn't want to admit publicly to what they were doing, but court documents don't lie.

The hilarity of watching you spin your wheels because you were too illiterate to read was just priceless.

But I don't expect a Moonie cultist who thinks the Washington Times is the best paper in the world to understand. You're clearly a propaganda casualty.

reply

Calling me "illiterate" 4 times in one short post, apart from ironically showing your poor writing skill, is hilarious since I've repeatedly had to correct your misreadings on everything from the 6e law to the Mueller report to whether the Dayton shooter was a Republican to my own posts (good luck finding a quote of me calling the WT "the best paper in the world", or to support any of your other BS about what I've said). I literally had to define basic words used in the Mueller report for you because your false claims stemmed from you not knowing what "coordination", "conspiracy", and "collusion" meant, in dictionaries or as defined in the report itself (I caught you red handed lying about having read it), and educate you with more quotes from the report after you kept falsely insisting that "collusion" was some broad, firmly established field of federal criminal law (the opposite of the truth, as Mueller pointed out).

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d536e4f6cf6682000a3f17f/Ethnic-Studies-Education-or-Indoctrination?reply=5d559ea672553248e91214de

Good times.

Neither Nadler nor Pelosi have the power to unilaterally launch anything. A formal impeachment inquiry requires a full House vote, as was taken during both the Nixon and Clinton eras, which Democrats are still apparently too cowardly to hold. Not only would that enhance subpoena power, it would create due process and allow the president's side to cross examine witnesses, present evidence, make arguments, etc.. You know, old fashioned American fairness instead of a one sided partisan railroad job. It would also force individual Democrats to vote on the record, something they've so far been avoiding. That's why even the pugnacious, unscrupulous partisan hack Nadler has been all over the place, saying just two weeks ago they're “engaged in an investigation as to whether to launch an impeachment investigation", lol.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-judiciary-democrats-trump-impeachment

reply

Actually I caught YOU red handed lying that you read it because you claimed the report exonerated Trump and that it cleared him of collusion. I quoted the page and paragraph of the report that proved you never read it because Mueller never evaluated Trump under the rubric of collusion. After that all you could do is gaslight like you're doing right now.

Doesn't matter though, because what you made especially obvious to me was your lack of legal background. You were clearly in over your head trying to explain away the term "rubric of collusion" under which Mueller had explicitly spelled out that he never evaluated Trump.

I even gave you a homework assignment to come up with a list of collusive crimes that don't fall under the rubric of "conspiracy". You couldn't do it, proving that you're a complete and total neophyte who can't be taken seriously. Bribery, aiding and abetting, and money laundering are all collusive crimes that Mueller chose NOT to assess Trump because of his decision to limit his investigation strictly to federal conspiracy law. Mueller let Trump off the hook. He could have investigated these crimes under the rubric of "collusion". He chose instead to narrow the scope and limit it only to "conspiracy".

Your constant blizzard of lies and gaslighting notwithstanding. Like I said, you're a propaganda casualty.

reply

And like I said, you were too illiterate to read the actual filing because if you had you would have known it finesses the Rule 6(e) problem by citing impeachment resolution that was referred to the Judiciary committee on the first day of the new congress (Jan 3). The House had approved a resolution telling the committee to use “all necessary authority under Article I of the Constitution”; a report accompanying that resolution refers expressly to impeachment; an impeachment resolution has been referred to the committee; the committee and its chair had repeatedly said they are investigating whether to approve articles of impeachment; and the committee has now filed a petition in federal court seeking grand jury material on the ground that it falls within an exception applicable to impeachment investigations.

Instead you depend on Fox News to tell you up is down because you were too illiterate to read the actual filing.

reply

What I would like to know is if an impeachment inquiry can provide Trump's tax returns. It may be my own belief in this, but I don't think Mueller had the capabilities to get them and therefore had an impossible hill to climb if he chose to evaluate Trump specifically. Finding out Trump's connection to Russia and Putin seems like an impossible task without getting deep into Trump's finances.

reply

How do I know you lied about reading the Mueller report given that we've established you're a semi-literate buffoon and legal ignoramus (see below)? After all, maybe you just misunderstood as you have so much else in your never ending series of spectacular faceplants. (e.g. you falsely claiming the Dayton shooter was a Republican because you misread your own article: https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d47d6c89f3c622265e18a9d/So-it-turns-out-that-the-Dayton-killer-is-a-leftist-Elizabeth-Warren-and-AOC-supporter-who-is-a-socialist-antifa-bro-n?reply=5d48ff641e1dc6397a3ee59a).

No. I know you lied because you claimed "40%" of the Mueller report was redacted, when it was really only 7%.

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

No one could even glance through it and believe that almost half the report was blacked out. Furthermore, the "40%" number matches the widely reported fact that 40% of the pages have a redaction on them, even if just one word.

That's no coincidence. You hadn't read the report but saw that fact on a blog, misunderstood it, and garbled it.

You should have cut your losses on all this long ago. I'm happy to keep humiliating you on it because you're such an unscrupulous douchebag. It's fun. At this point you've dug your own hole almost to China.

reply

lulz. It's really satisfying watching you desperately grasp at straws and blowing a gasket. Whenever you start gaslighting like you're doing now it demonstrates that you suck at debate and you know you lost.

reply

LOL! The obvious projection in your (non)response is noted.

reply

Yah, I typically don't respond when you start gaslighting. It's all you've got.

reply

I posted and linked to your quotes, lol, while you've got projection about "gaslighting" and...nothing.

reply

Whereas I can't be bothered to dig up your mountain of errors. I just LMFAO that you expend the effort since anyone reading through those threads (not that anyone does) can just as easily see your avalanche of errors. At least I conceded the few times I got it wrong while you sit there and gaslight when I call you out. Any objective reader will recognize that.

reply

Whereas I can't be bothered to dig up your mountain of errors.

LOL! Too busy? Honest, objective readers base their assessments on evidence, not unsupported BS you make up. I've been highlighting the most salient examples and, unlike you, since I'm telling the truth I can directly quote and link to your idiotic comments.
Almost everything you've said in our debates has been wrong, and I only recall you admitting two errors, your claim that 40% of the Mueller report was redacted (and that was like pulling teeth with you stridently insisting it was and rudely attacking me for trying to correct you), only after I linked to a source for you (even then you tried to attack me for posting sources, lol), and your claim that the Dayton shooter was a Republican (also rudely delivered), in which you didn't have much choice as anyone could see from visible address in your own linked article that you had gotten mixed up and it wasn't a complex topic.

You couldn't bury that under mountains of diversionary projection, lies, and actual gaslighting attempts like you typically try to do.


reply

I've shellacked you up and down this thread as everything you've said is riddled with factual errors so I find your false bravado amusing.

Yeah, I admitted the two mistakes I got wrong. What's hilarious is I didn't even admit getting the Dayton shooter wrong to you, I had already admitted it upthread and you jumped in later pretending like you were calling me out. Problem for you is I openly admitted my own mistake long before you even read it. That's how desperate you were for a win because of all the times I outright humiliated you. It's the only conceivable reason you kept bringing it up, it's all you got.

The best was when you were actually trying to claim China practices communism and I had to school you that they do not. You somehow didn't know private property and capitalism are alive and well in China and CPC was communist in name only. Meanwhile, later in that thread you again got schooled for trying to hype antifa as a communist threat, proving once again you are a raging right wing loon disconnected from reality. But I can't take credit, that was another user who educated you that democratic socialism is not communism while your far right brainwashed mind prevented you from understanding the difference.

The ultimate was the thread when you made it obvious you didn't even know what a grand jury was. I'm sure you remember even though you'll predictably gaslight and claim it never happened. I remember because forever after all you could do is cry DAYTON and 40% in futile attempts to salve your deeply wounded psyche. Then there was the time you tried to claim call out culture was a problem on every campus in America and I told you Jonathan Haidt who did a study on the topic would say you were wrong. You insisted Haidt agreed with you. I caught you lying red handed by pointing out he only found the problem at Ivy League and West Coast colleges. Like I've told you before it's not clear why you clown yourself by lying so much.

reply

But this thread is probably my favorite just from the dozens of factual errors you made demonstrating your overwhelming ignorance of the law. You repeatedly make it clear you don't even understand what basic legal terms like "circumstantial evidence", "standards of proof", or a laymen's term like "collusion" even means or you wouldn't claim there's "no evidence of collusion" in the Mueller Report. Collusion is simply a clandestine agreement between two or more parties, implicit or explicit, to act in a mutually beneficial way. This means there is wall to wall evidence of "collusion" in the Mueller Report.

That's why I keep correcting you that the proper word to use is "conspiracy" because Mueller even spells out he did not evaluate Trump "under the rubric of collusion", only conspiracy, yet you insist on using the laymen's term which makes you so laughably wrong.

So you can't really blame me for finding your mind too feeble to discuss these matters. You'll quote Mueller outlining his evaluation based on "conspiracy" yet you'll continue to insist he was cleared of "collusion" like you literally did not even understand a word of what you just cut and pasted. You are literally too stupid to be having this conversation, I really don't know how else to put it kid.

But your Magnum Opus had to be your admission of being a John Solomon conspiracy loon. That explains everything and exposes you as a 4chan wackjob. I now feel the need to bathe and distance myself from you, even conversing with you on a message board makes me feel grimy. It's hard to resist the urge to shut you down when reading your gaslighting posts so this will be wraps for me on this thread. Gaslight away you 4chan freak.

reply

LOL! I just debunked your bizarre lie that I didn't know about the Rosenstein "collusion" memo by posting old comments of me talking about the Rosenstein memo and linking to those posts.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d8abea437f40a0511c69eb2/Democrats-go-off-the-cliff-The-lunatics-are-in-firm-control-of-the-party-of-Impeachment?reply=5d9439a5db263a56f3379eb8

I've proved you factually wrong on point after point, central and trivial. I can back up my statements with evidence.

By contrast you don't post a single quote in your weepy-eyed rant here. Because everything you said is a lie. All of it. You can't cite a single thing I've gotten factually wrong.

I obviously knew what a grand jury is (perhaps your dumbest lie, lol) because I discussed it and corrected your ignorant claims about grand jury secrecy rules, moron. That lie was crudely thrown together in a panic after you finally realized your "40% redacted" claim was way off and you had been exposed as having lied about reading the Mueller Report. You wanted a diversion so you just made something up. You had also just humiliated yourself by dismissing articles on liberal sites like Vox, Rollcall, and Bloomberg (the sources I had linked to there) as "right wing talking points".

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d41d3372e20552565354856/Only-a-liberal-could-collude-with-Russia?reply=5d43acfccc535257408c2411

You only "admitted" your Dayton mistake after others had corrected you (and in a different part of the thread that some of the leftist respondents and other readers who had been misled by your earlier posting may not have seen). You didn't figure it out yourself, you pathetic tool. I replied because there was more to say on the issue, mostly about the killer's online activity, but given how obnoxiously you burst into that topic you don't get to just say "Sorry my mix up" and have that be it with no consequences.

reply

I said China is ruled by communists and has a mixed economy, which is definitely true. You're the one who made the dumbass claim that China "is capitalist to the core and has a free market economy." I educated you and that other guy you mentioned otherwise, citing facts showing that most of the roughly 100 Chinese companies on the Forbes Global 500 are state owned.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d4c5600893552732c13bffd/Nazis-havent-been-a-real-threat-since-1945-Communism-remains-an-ongoing-serious-threat?reply=5d4e8ad83a9376268431e747

At least the other guy conceded that was a fair point. And Antifa was founded by the German communist party and includes lots of communists. I gave both of you quite the schooling, though our exchange mostly went over your head. But perhaps my favorite part of kicking you around there was when you asserted, like the drooling moron you are, that communism is only “an economic system” and “not a political system”, while I said it was both, and you clumsily linked to a Wikipedia page to try to support your claim, misunderstanding the segment you quoted and not noticing that further down the page it flatly contradicted you:

eyedef: “What's clear to me now is that you don't even know what communism is that you'd call it a 'political system'.”

eyedef’s own source: "Communism is also a political system as much an economic one—with various models in how it is implemented"


https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d4c5600893552732c13bffd/Nazis-havent-been-a-real-threat-since-1945-Communism-remains-an-ongoing-serious-threat?reply=5d4e91653a9376268431e759

LOL! Perhaps that’s why you almost never try to support your claims with source evidence. Even you realize your reading comprehension sucks and it’s likely to backfire on you.

reply

you tried to claim call out culture was a problem on every campus in America and I told you Jonathan Haidt who did a study on the topic would say you were wrong. You insisted Haidt agreed with you. I caught you lying red handed by pointing out he only found the problem at Ivy League and West Coast colleges.

Haidt: “The three Great Untruths (of PC-style “coddling”) have flowered on, many college campuses…and they now extend from the campus into the corporate world and the public square, including national politics. They are also spreading outward from American universities to universities throughout the English-speaking world. These Great Untruths are bad for everyone. Anyone who cares about young people, education, or democracy should be concerned about these trends.”(from his book The Coddling of the American Mind)

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d536e4f6cf6682000a3f17f/Ethnic-Studies-Education-or-Indoctrination?reply=5d5904

You never provided any quotes there either, but it’s hilarious you keep bringing your own faceplants up, you dumb buffoon.

On the Mueller report: "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

As I’ve taught you, that means no agreement between Trump and Russia on election interference, and since collusion involves agreement by definition, that means Trump was exonerated of colluding with Russia on election interference, the type of “collusion” people were allegedly concerned with. That's on top of Mueller saying conspiracy is "largely synonymous" with collusion anyway. Your semantic argument has been refuted.

You know nothing about the law or any of these topics we've debated.

You keep falsely accusing others of the lying, gaslighting, and ignorance really exhibited by you. That’s all you’ve got. Your shrieking about me and “conspiracy theories” is funny since you’ve spent years pushing the debunked Trump/Russia conspiracy theory. Are ABC and the others I cited involved in this alleged "Solomon" conspiracy theory too, you clown?

I’ve kicked your ass up and down this thread and in every debate we’ve had. You can’t cite a single thing I’ve gotten wrong while your demonstrable falsehoods are too numerous to count. I don't know if your blustering tactics have worked on others in the past or not, but they obviously don't work on me. You're a lying blowhard with no substance, and you've been dismantled.

That’s why you’re fleeing the thread like the bitch you are, eyedef, leaving a thin trail of urine in your wake. As unpleasant as you are, you really have made a fun punching bag for me on this board.

Bye.



reply

Alright. I'll spank you again.

Mueller let Trump off the hook. He could have investigated these crimes under the rubric of "collusion".

"However, despite its "legalistic" tone, the term collusion has no specific legal meaning in criminal law; there's no such criminal charge called "collusion," nor does the term necessarily signal a criminal offense."

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/is-collusion-a-crime.html

Mueller report, p 180: "In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collud[ e ]" appears in the
Acting Attorney General's August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public
reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law...But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statue…. For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term “collusion”."

Everything else you said is wrong too, but I'm highlighting this rather than burying it under other stuff so any new readers can see what a lying, semi-literate simpleton you are. You know nothing about the law. "Collusion" is a colloquial word, not a criminal law term. Of course a lot of crimes are "collusive", moron, pertinently conspiracy, which Mueller said was largely "synonymous" with it. Mueller even added "coordination" (which you keep forgetting), defining it as any agreement, even tacit, and cleared Trump of that too.

You failed your homework assignment to name any conceivable Trump/Russia collusion not covered.

Trump was exonerated of collusion.

reply

lolz. All you're doing is confirming your ignorance of US law that you have to look these things up Clarence. Everyone except you seems to know that "collusion" is a layperson term, that's because you're a layperson.

First, Mueller clearly reported that he didn't consider the notion of "collusion" at all. This is what I've told you about 4,371 times and you're only now finally acknowledging this simple truth.

But in doing so it's also simple logic that Mueller could not have cleared trump of collusion when he never evaluated whether he colluded can he? Even someone of your limited capacities should be able to grasp this. Yet here you are, insisting he was exonerated of a term he was never evaluated under. You're making it far too obvious you're not the sharpest tool in the drawer Clarence. Words have very specific meanings in law, and to say Trump was "exonerated" means there was no evidence of his guilt. That's why he was never exonerated of anything and you will not find Mueller ever using that term here.

On conspiracy, Mueller clearly spelled out the standard he was using was "beyond a reasonable doubt" which translates to 90%+ certainty of a suspect's guilt. That's a very high bar that Ken Starr didn't bother with when he brought his case to impeach in the Starr Report. Below that the standards of proof are a) clear and convincing (70%) b) preponderance of evidence (civil standard used in torte cases 50.1%) c) probable cause (25%) d) reasonable suspicion (5% to 20%). Mueller obviously found plenty of circumstantial evidence that he documents throughout volume one of the report that you'd know about if weren't so illiterate, but that he still felt fell below the 90% threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to secure conviction.

So once again, you're just wrong but you can't help but to keep clowning yourself on the fact you never read the Mueller Report and you're in way over your head trying to pretend you know the law. If you did you wouldn't keep insisting Trump was exonerated. Good Times.

reply

Watching you try to squirm after being gutted is amusing but sad. Anyone can see you just claimed "He could have investigated these crimes under the rubric of "collusion", and somehow did Trump a favor by not doing so, and you've repeatedly insisted that "collusion" is a broad category of criminal law. As I've proved, Mueller spent a big chunk of the report flatly contradicting you. He didn't use the rubric (title) of collusion because there is no rubric of collusion. "Collusion" doesn't mean anything in criminal law. I even linked to a legal site saying the same thing. It's a common word he only talked about because the media was, but the words he chose to use more than cover what collusion means.

Forget your legal ignorance. You shouldn't have been allowed to graduate junior high with reading comprehension this atrocious.

And no, moron, I obviously don't have to look this stuff up, which is how I instantly know when you're spewing BS and call you on it. I support my claims with sources proving you wrong so readers don't have to take my word for it. If you had been properly educated you'd grasp the value of that. And if you had actually read the Mueller report instead of lying about it you would have noticed this:

"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

"collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy" - Vol. 1 p. 180

"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

Collusion - "Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/collusion

"a secret agreement to defraud or deceive"
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/collusion


You do try to backpedal some in your latest post without admitting you were wrong, but it just results in a clumsy mess. You still haven't cited a single possible collusive act left. Collusion is a subset of "coordination"...




reply

Mueller exonerated Trump of more than just collusion. He exonerated him of any agreement with Russia on the election, collusive or otherwise.

Words have very specific meanings in law, and to say Trump was "exonerated" means there was no evidence of his guilt.

LOL! No it doesn’t. We say a defendant is “exonerated” when he’s acquitted in a trial. Every trial has evidence produced by both sides. Evidence isn’t the same as proof. There isn’t even any real evidence, let alone proof, of Trump colluding in the report. They list the possible leads, followed them, and didn’t find anything substantive. There was certainly no smoking gun (physical and direct witness testimony) like there was with Clinton’s actual crimes. Mueller even included some exculpatory evidence, like admitting that after Trump’s election Russian officials began trying to make inroads into the new administration, and “appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect.” (p. 144) Though he omitted a lot of other exculpatory material, underscoring that this wasn’t a neutral judge but an adversary doing his best to nail his target. If the prosecutor can’t even bring himself to state that Trump colluded or committed crimes, and no one can point to any solid evidence of guilt, then he’s at least as exonerated as if he had been indicted and acquitted. Plus the accusation was absurd to begin with and motivated by political animus.

I love how you keep proving your gross ignorance of basic legal concepts like “innocent until proven guilty” and “evidence”. You’re a never ending faceplant machine who loses every debate. If you were a good person I’d feel bad about having fun using you as a punching bag but you aren’t so I don’t.

reply

LOOOOOL! Your reply is so laughably ignorant on so many levels you're making it really hard to take you seriously. I'll have to save a copy of this for the infamy archives. Hint: I'm not talking about a trial b/c Trump was never brought to trial. I'm talking about standards of proof for a prosecutor to bring an indictment genius. A suspect a prosecutor declines to prosecute because he hasn't found enough evidence to meet the standard of proof of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case is not "exonerated" unless it was case of mistaken identity or wrongful arrest. Otherwise there needs to be reasonable suspicion for the criminal referral to have been made in the first place. This requires at bare minimum circumstantial evidence. It's clear you have no idea what you're even talking about.

"There isn’t even any real evidence, let alone proof, of Trump colluding in the report."

I know you're slow on the uptake, but again Mueller never investigated Trump for collusion. He narrowed the scope to conspiracy law and gave his reasons why. Your previous quotes make this point but you keep conflating the two terms because you apparently don't understand the difference. It's also inarguable he could have just as easily investigated Trump under the more expansive rubric of collusion that includes collusive crimes like bribery, money laundering, and aiding and abetting. These are also federal crimes. Aiding and abetting IS collusion and can rise to the crime of criminal conspiracy, but not necessarily.

You see, if you had really read the Mueller Report instead of cherry picking right wing talking points you'd know that Manafort had a cooperation agreement with Mueller that he reneged on when Trump kept witness tampering by dangling pardons through Giuliani. That diminishes any determination of lack of evidence on the conspiracy charge because he was obstructed from obtaining evidence. Volume Two makes this point crystal clear. You should try reading it.

reply

What a mountain of diversionary BS you just spewed, lol. Mueller could have investigated Trump for jaywalking too I suppose but what we're discussing here is collusion with Russia regarding the election, which was Democrats' accusation and the media's professed concern. Since "collusion" isn't a criminal law term (no criminal law "rubric"), contrary to your earlier claims, they chose other terms that more than covered collusion.

Mueller cleared Trump and his campaign of having any "agreement--tacit or express--" with the "Russian government on election interference."

You can't name any conceivable collusion between Trump and Russia regarding the election that could have existed without even a tacit agreement between the two parties, since collusion involves an agreement by definition (as I've also educated you on above, tuition free as always ;)). No wonder you keep focusing solely on "conspiracy" (which Mueller said is largely synonymous with "collusion" anyway and that you're also wrong on) while ignoring "coordination", which he's also been exonerated on.

And I know Trump wasn't on trial, moron. That it's easier to indict than convict was my point. Millions of dollars spent over 3 years in a thorough search by the most rabidly biased prosecutors imaginable found nothing.

It's not just that you know nothing about the law and have atrocious reading comprehension. You suck at logic too. We proved you lied about reading the Mueller report ("40%", lol), but since then it's become clear that even if you had read it you wouldn't have understood it.

Gathering unrelated snippets of jargon from a law blog and clumsily mashing it together in a desperate bid to sound knowledgeable to unsavvy people reading this won't hide the substance you've been crushed on.

reply

lulz. Part of the problem when discussing these things with you is that you're just not aware of just how ignorant you are. I would never claim collusion was a legal term except in anti-trust law because that's what I was taught. That's you strawmanning and projecting your own ignorance again. I challenged you to come up with a list of collusive crimes that don't fall under the rubric of criminal conspiracy. You couldn't do it, proving you're a complete and total neophyte. You should have stayed in school.

Nor did the word "collusion" come from the media or Democrats you sad little clown. The present participle was used in a directive ordered in a classified memo from Rosenstein to Mueller dated August 2, 2017 that he should investigate allegations that Trump campaign manager Manafort was "colluding with Russian government officials" to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/politics/read-rosenstein-aug-2-memo/index.html

That's why Mueller chose to address the word and narrow the scope to conspiracy, because investigating "collusion" was IN HIS DIRECTIVE from Rosenstein. You can't even get basic facts right.

"And I know Trump wasn't on trial, moron. That it's easier to indict than convict was my point."

LOOOOLZ! If that was your point then you're even more incapacitated than I thought because that had nothing to do with why I was spelling out standards of proof to you as a lesson on why Trump was in no way "exonerated". You started incoherently babbling about what "exonerated" means from being acquitted at trial which was irrelevant because Trump never went to trial you dense baboon. If I bothered to catalog everything you've gotten wrong it'd be a Greek epic. So of course you can't address the fact that in the view of Mueller and his team NUMEROUS Trump witnesses lied, withheld evidence, destroyed evidence, as Trump obstructed Mueller constantly from gathering evidence. So yeah he lacked enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Duh!

reply

Dense baboon. Haha, that's funny!

reply

He really is when he can't even follow his own train of thought and just gaslights bullshit to try to explain why he's not making any sense.

The problem is that when he gaslights he makes even less sense. He's just too dense to recognize it because he apes his gaslighting hero, the illegitimate president.

reply

He's a big fan of gaslighting, yes. Like the NRA thread where he tried to accuse me of calling ALL NRA members "terrorists" and trying to accuse me of "wanting all NRA people arrested/executed".

People looking for validation typically gaslight.

reply

People looking for validation typically gaslight.

LOL! The irony. Probably should have left that "looking for validation" part out, since that and help are what you clearly came desperately running here for after getting exposed on the other thread as the psychotic statist you are.

Since you bring it up though, feel free to clarify which NRA members you do want imprisoned or killed for "terrorism" and why them rather than others. The San Francisco edict you applauded declaring them "terrorists" made no distinctions.

reply

Trust me, krl97a--the only people around here who hate me are ALL people I'm HONORED to be hated by. :)

Never in my life would I ever want someone like you approving of me. ;)

reply

So you can't answer the question about which NRA members you want treated as "terrorists"? That's what I figured.

reply

The fact that you're even posing the question proves just how much my earlier point flew over your head.

Poor guy--you're trying SO hard! :)

reply

Poor guy. You desperately running over here seeking help from leftist comrades in such a hamfisted manner does make me feel sorry for you, despite you being a totalitarian nutjob.

Your statement wanting the NRA labeled "terrorists" was clear and exposing the failure of your spin job requires no effort.

reply

LOL!

reply

So you still can't provide any conceivable Trump/Russia collusion that could hypothetically have taken place without an "agreement". Since Mueller cleared the Trump campaign of having any agreement with Russia on the election that means he's cleared of collusion (and then some). Maybe you're finally conceding that.

Until now your central argument has been that Trump wasn't exonerated of collusion because Mueller didn't use the word "collusion". That's because you hadn't read the report and you didn't know what these words mean (including "coordination", which you're still dodging and I still haven't seen you mention at all, lol). If you want to shift to some sour grapes "stonewalling!" argument have fun with that, but it's weak after three years and tens of millions of dollars spent by a rabidly biased prosecution team pursuing every possible lead they could with the full power of the federal government behind them. The report turned up a lot of info, just no collusion, and even exculpatory evidence undermining the collusion narrative. That’s why it’s worth noting that they couldn’t conclude he was guilty even with no defense presented.

I would never claim collusion was a legal term except in anti-trust law because that's what I was taught.

Yeah, you were taught by me, LOL! I'm glad it's finally sinking after several threads and me repeatedly hitting you over the head with quotes and definitions like a sledgehammer. Why would I waste time listing "collusive" crimes? That's like listing "dishonest" crimes. Your arguments aren't even logically coherent.

Your entire posting is projection, straw man arguments, weak gaslighting, and attempted diversions from your defeat. I've even explained before how you're an ape throwing feces (happily with poor aim). A screeching monkey like robo doesn't help you. Nor would doggie etc.. Where are they, btw? Still smarting from that egg on their face last time they tried to rush in and help you, lol?

reply

Nor did the word "collusion" come from the media or Democrats you sad little clown. The present participle was used in a directive ordered in a classified memo from Rosenstein to Mueller dated August 2, 2017

LOL! Above I literally quoted Mueller himself saying it came from the media as well as that memo, you sad little clown! The media was discussing "collusion" long before August, which is why the memo mentioned it. Example (March 23, 2017): "Schiff: New evidence shows possible Trump-Russia collusion" https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politics/adam-schiff-trump-russia-grand-jury/index.html

Heck, it’s even why you launched your failed bid to claim Trump hadn’t been exonerated of collusion. If “collusion” wasn’t a thing people were talking about you wouldn’t have cared.

Your faceplant here is a trivial tangent, eyedef, but it illustrates the routine, idiotic falsehoods you spew as you jump up and down throwing feces like the ape you are.

You’re all fronting, no substance.

reply

You're lying again. Rosenstein directed Mueller to investigate collusion. You were completely oblivious of this fact and repeatedly claimed it was "media and Democrats" as to why Mueller brought up the word. No, Adam Schiff and Democrats were not his superiors giving him orders what to investigate. Your claim is ridiculous. Like I said, you can't even get basic facts right, that's why you have to keep lying to cover for all the mistakes you make reading off your list of John Solomon inspired talking points.

Because he was directed by Rosenstein to investigate collusion Mueller could have taken a more expansive view of the word to include bribery, money laundering, aiding and abetting, even the solicitation of foreign campaign contributions. All are federal collusive crimes. He chose to only investigate conspiracy and let your idol off the hook. There wasn't enough available evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" of conspiracy because of Trump's constant obstruction. This is the overriding theme of the Mueller Report, Mueller meticulously documents how his repeated attempts to obtain evidence were stymied by obstruction. I already explained to you that declining to bring an indictment by prosecution because a lack of available evidence investigators were obstructed from obtaining does not mean that suspect is "exonerated". This crystal clear point naturally flew over your head because you're a propaganda casualty.

It's a pattern. Every time you're wrong, you try and claim you were right all along. You're doing it again right now, proving you can't be taken seriously. Repeating your already discredited arguments and lying about what you said previously is you signaling you lost. When I don't respond, it means I haven't read your reply because you've already made it clear with your gaslighting that you've lost the plot. This is again the case right now.

reply

Mueller's mandate and our discussion is about election interference, moron, and whether there was collusion on that score. Not a bank robbery or some secret murder decades ago or whatever other off topic crap you might conjure up. Though Mueller looked at other stuff like that too, going after distant Trump associates on unrelated charges like bank fraud from years ago, lol. He couldn't find anything like that on Trump.

Trump was exonerated of colluding with Russia in the election, Mueller finding no conspiracy or coordination, defining "coordination" as any agreement with Russia regarding the election, making clear that more than covered collusion.

You again falsely claimed he "only" looked at conspiracy. Like "collusion", "coordination" isn't even a criminal law term but I guess he used it because he felt it was easier to clearly define and it was broader than collusion, meaning it increased their chances of nailing Trump on something.

You've spent months disputing this because you didn't understand the terms involved, you don't know anything about the law, and you lied about reading the Mueller report. Your partial backpedaling indicates the education I've generously given you is starting to sink in but you're still getting stuff wrong.

Your "obstruction" claim is asinine. If you weren't legally illiterate you'd know that targets of investigations typically don't give prosecutors with vendettas every little thing they want, lol, especially when they've shown themselves to be as sleazy as Mueller's team. People get indicted and convicted anyway. But Trump cooperated a ton, and the investigation was thorough. They found nothing because nothing was there. The accusation was a partisan fraud from the beginning and never should have been launched.

reply

You're lying again. Rosenstein directed Mueller to investigate collusion. You were completely oblivious of this fact and repeatedly claimed it was "media and Democrats" as to why Mueller brought up the word.

LOL! I quoted Mueller above and in other threads mentioning the memo.

"the word "collud[ e ]" appears in the Acting Attorney General's August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public reporting"

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d8abea437f40a0511c69eb2/Democrats-go-off-the-cliff-The-lunatics-are-in-firm-control-of-the-party-of-Impeachment?reply=5d8ee595267d366a7ae4ffd7

I used my own words in this old post:

"Mueller said he was taking time to discuss collusion "to begin with" because the media had used it so extensively, and it casually appeared in a DOJ document. He felt compelled to explain why he'd be using other words instead."

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d536e4f6cf6682000a3f17f/Ethnic-Studies-Education-or-Indoctrination?reply=5d582e86edbbbb7bf45a6fb9

I never denied the memo, but you did deny the media and Democrats' role:

eyedef: "Nor did the word "collusion" come from the media or Democrats"

I already linked to Democrat Schiff falsely alleging "collusion" in CNN months before the memo, one of countless examples and the reason for Rosenstein using it, so that is where it came from, and I've quoted Mueller saying so too.

You're wrong and I'm right, you lying turd. You can't link to a single real quote of me getting anything wrong, let alone lying, while I've done that to you all over this thread. You're the one whose pattern is to lie, gaslight, exhibit ignorance, and then falsely accuse me of your failings to try and hide your thorough ass kickings.

You lack the mental acuity to grasp complex points or form cogent arguments. You've utterly lost the debate.

You're just a shrieking ape, upset and impotent to do anything about it.

And I see you peeking. ;)

reply

Why would snake-in-the-grass Schiff, who's always had it in for Trump, feel a need to open the inquiry with such a blatant mischaracterization of what the transcript actually said, unless he felt a lack of confidence it could stand on its own without his hyperbole and embellishment? That signals desperation and a weak position from the onset.

reply

Yeah, he spent years lying about having secret "proof" of Trump/Russia collusion too to keep the base ginned up. Funny how that's just.....gone away. He's an unscrupulous hack who would be expelled if the Democrats had any ethics.

reply

Just saw Beto O' Rourke on CNN sugarcoating Schiff's efforts as "just trying to do his job". That and a lot of sanctimony, flag waving, constantly invoking the expression "the American people..." which is nothing but classic demagoguery. That guy is such a joke who's never had a chance in hell of becoming the POTUS.

reply

they couldnt even get an impeachment going after the mueller report concluded, now they want to impeach because of a phone call? makes no sense...

reply

I didn't realize democrats impeached Bill Clinton.

reply

Two decades ago. And he actually committed crimes that were reported by the Independent Counsel, unlike Trump.

reply

Lol!

reply

Just facts.

reply

krl is the one over the cliff. Dems didn't impeach Clinton. Repubs did. And it wasn't for crimes reported in the Independent Counsel either. It was for Bill lying about a blowjob. He thinks he can warp history to make heir Trump look better. But he's just another cult 45 member.

reply

Clinton committed perjury by lying under oath. Trump beat Hillary and the left will never get over it.

reply

Why was Clinton asked under oath to disclose something personal that he had every right to keep secret?

Trumpers are so quick to condemn democrats for lying about something perfectly legal, but don't like it when their savior gets caught doing something even Napolitano and half of Fox News says is against the law.

Clinton made the mistake of going under oath in front of a bunch of savages that had no interest in upholding the constitution. Because of the bullshit republicans pulled, we'll never get to hear a president answering legitimate questions for fear of something like "does Melania like it up the ass?" or some stupid shit like that. Republicans did that to our country. You're happiness comes from the unfortunate fact they got away with it. And now you want them to continue getting away with it. You just like every Trumper that has ever existed will always be a born and raised bootlicker. Pathetic to the core.

reply

You sound deranged, ultravioletx. You even did a Trump/Hitler thing above. You're proof that insanity can be banal.

The underlying crime in the Clinton investigation was the sexual harassment of Paula Jones, where his obscene antics closely resembled what we now know his long time running buddy Harvey Weinstein was doing. Questions about sex necessarily come up during such investigations, and that's when he committed perjury and obstruction of justice.

The same party pushing the #metoo stuff to extremes was the one that circled the wagons and defended Clinton at all costs despite him really committing crimes.

reply

I didn't come anywhere close to mentioning Hitler ya doofus.

Asking Clinton about his blowjob from Lewinsky under oath in a public manner could never implicate him in sexual harassment with Jones because repugs couldn't get Lewinsky to say she was coerced. They tried by locking her in that room against her will, but she refused to go along with their bullshit. Didn't matter though because repugs suspected Clinton would lie about his personal, yet legal, encounter with her. Thats the one and only reason they asked him.

First Weinstein and now #metoo. Your stupidity is all over the place. Clinton = bad because Weinstein. #metoo = bad because democrats. Yet #metoo is responsible for Weinstein getting caught.

My god. Tangent after tangent. You can't stay on topic for one goddamn sentence. Its no wonder you copy/paste so much text written by someone else. When you articulate on your own like this you start crapping your pants while sucking your thumb. Eyedef is correct. You are one dense baboon. Whenever you come across something you don't like to see or hear, you throw your feces at it.

reply

Establishing sexual behavior patterns, especially at work, is often part of sexual harassment cases.

I didn't come anywhere close to mentioning Hitler ya doofus.

ultravioletx: "He thinks he can warp history to make heir Trump look better" (sic)

Ok, so your position is you committed a typo and misspelled "their" instead of committing a typo and misspelling "herr"? I guess I"ll take your word for it. But the banal insanity comment stands because of the rest of your posting. You really go off the deep end, tossing out meandering ranting like, "You just like every Trumper that has ever existed will always be a born and raised bootlicker. Pathetic to the core", talking about Melania taking "it up the ass", and other vile garbage.

And what "copy pastes" are you talking about, moron? You mean when I support my articulated positions with linked quotes?

The proof says eyedef isn't right about anything, LOL. We've established that he's the ape throwing feces wildly and hoping something sticks. You're one of those screeching monkeys I predicted would show up doing the same thing, right on cue. ;)

reply

heir
/er/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: heir; plural noun: heirs

a person legally entitled to the property or rank of another on that person's death.

Trump got everything from his father.

Repubs foamed at the mouth when they found the semen-stained dress. You're the one celebrating them for their behavior which involved locking Monica in a room against her will downright demanding that she say she was coerced into blowing him but refusing their demands.

Here's whats amazing about Trump. In 2016 the alt-right were deserted by both parties. Thats how they became alt right. But not even Obama could drive them far enough to support the neocons. The party that impeached Clinton for a blowjob and started two wars was dead to the alt-right. Oh but here comes Trump. Now Clinton deserved to be impeached because of lying about a blowjob, and anything pertaining to war is blamed on Obama. This is the junk you throw on a daily basis. It only works on your fellow cult members. Everybody else sees the monkey hole you're grabbing it from.

reply

LOL! I've only seen a few rabid Trump haters use "heir Trump" like that and it's supposed to be a Hitler pun on "Herr Trump". Whatever.

Just some feces you're throwing, like the monkey you are. Here are some other mindless handfuls to prove my point:

"You just like every Trumper that has ever existed will always be a born and raised bootlicker"

^feces.

"Trump got everything from his father."

^feces.

"The party that impeached Clinton for a blowjob and started two wars"

^feces.

"It only works on your fellow cult members."

^feces.

"repugs couldn't get Lewinsky to say she was coerced."

^feces.

"does Melania like it up the ass?"

^feces.

"Clinton made the mistake of going under oath in front of a bunch of savages"

^feces.

"You're happiness comes from the unfortunate fact they got away with it."

^feces.

Wow, and that's just a small sample.

reply

A lot of Trumpers are guilty of this, I've noticed.

If Trump was SO great he wouldn't even NEED a defense and most CERTAINLY wouldn't need deflections, spin tactics, strawmen and rewriting of history.

reply

Word!
Living near NY, I’ve been privy to Trumps shenanigans since the 80s.
He’s always been bad news!

reply

Seems like New Yorkers have nothing but bad things to say about the guy. Most normal people would see an entire hometown hating a person as a giant red flag. Trumpers don't, though.

reply

I've noticed leftists project a lot, and that you didn't post a single fact.

reply

What did I project?

What did I post that wasn't a fact?

List them, please.

reply

If you had a case you'd refute me by listing facts in your post. That's how this works, not with me proving a negative. You shouldn't have dropped out of school.

reply

...I DID list facts in my post. You claim I didn't and just repeated your accusation just now. I think your brain is malfunctioning. Please seek medical attention immediately.

reply

In this post, lol?

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5d8abea437f40a0511c69eb2/Democrats-go-off-the-cliff-The-lunatics-are-in-firm-control-of-the-party-of-Impeachment?reply=5d934a8fd2ce221a3a691dc7

Physician, heal thyself.

reply

...Still waiting to see proof. That link you provided only reinforces what I stated. Try again.

reply

If you feel your vague, unsupported opinions about Trump supporters and strategy constitute "facts" then maybe you do have a learning disability.

reply

So I'm an idiot in your eyes. Noted. I can live with that. :)

reply

You have been for a while. Have a nice day. :)

reply

They've wanted to overthrow the election results and impeach Trump since before he took office


Yet another lie by krl97a.

Show proof that Dems wanted to 'impeach T-rump since before he took office'.

reply

Dec. 15, 2016 "DEMOCRATS ARE PAVING THE WAY TO IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/democrats-pave-the-way-to-impeach-donald-trump


Nov. 14, 2016 "Do a LexisNexis search, and you’ll find that “Trump” and some variant of “impeach” have already appeared in 37 newspaper headlines. (Duplicates are at play, yes, but let’s not get in the way of a striking statistic.) Documentarian Michael Moore has vowed to look for the first impeachment opportunity and do what he can to help spur it along. Law professor Christopher Lewis Peterson of the University of Utah has written a paper arguing that Donald Trump can technically be impeached immediately, provided that Trump University is judged to be as fraudulent as it looks. Allan Lichtman, the American University professor who predicted Trump’s win, also predicted Trump would be impeached. Clearly, no one’s wasting time on this."

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/will-trump-be-impeached

Some more of the many examples: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/26/impeach-trump-preceded-even-donald-trumps-nominati/

Democrat Maxine Waters: "I have been calling for and talking about impeachment of this president since his inauguration."

https://www.essence.com/feature/maxine-waters-trump-impeachment-interview/





reply

Waters has plans for Pence too: "There are those who say, ‘What if we get rid of him? Then we’ve got that Vice President and he’ll be worse.’ I say knock off the first one and then go after the second one. We have the power. We have the numbers. But we’ve got to understand our power and we’ve got to use our power. Not only do we have individual power, but just think about the readers that you have. The people who look forward to getting your newspapers. …That’s all power. Let’s use it.”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/09/flashback-maxine-waters-wants-to-impeach-trump-then-go-after-pence/

She was addressing a national newspaper association and her tyrannical insanity received a standing ovation.

Democrat Al Green pushed an impeachment resolution in Trump’s first year in office that couldn’t articulate any actual high crimes or misdemeanors and basically just amounted to him saying he didn’t like Trump.

It got 58 Democrat votes even then.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/06/us-rep-al-green-begins-bid-force-impeachment-vote-us-house-floor/

Your status as the board’s biggest serial liar is safe, doggiedaddy, especially from me. I haven’t posted any lies.

reply

Lied again. None of them were trying to impeach before he took office.

reply

They can't actually impeach him before he takes office, halfwit. I said Democrats have wanted to impeach him since before he took office, and I just linked to numerous articles talking about it, lol.

You've been owned again, doggie, as always.

reply

What you mean to say is Dems wanted a reason to impeach Trump before he took office. They wanted him to do something wrong so they could have a reason to kick him out. The reality is, repubs wanted a reason to impeach Obama before he took office. Dems wanted a reason to impeach Bush before he took office. Repubs wanted a reason to impeach Clinton before he took office. Etc, etc, etc.

But your belief that dems wanted to impeach Trump based on nothing is patently false. Dems were already aware at that point that Guccifer 2.0 hacked into the DNC server to help Trump.

In fact, if Trump won the election without that DNC hack, there would've been no Mueller investigation. But if there was no Mueller investigation, and Trump still made that call to Ukraine, there would still be an impeachment inquiry.

reply

No, I meant what I said, and so did Maxine Waters. She and many other Democrats couldn't care less about the reason. They just wanted to impeach Trump (and some of them Pence, lol), more than any other party in history. Even the liberal outfits I linked to commented on how unusual it was. There hasn't been a party behave in this immediately hostile fashion, to the point of calling itself "the resistance", since Lincoln's election on the eve of the Civil War. Trump's the first president I've seen not to get a honeymoon at all.

They still haven't found a reason but they're pushing it anyway because of the calendar schedule and the approaching election. Their rabid desire for impeachment all along undermines the process's credibility.

Only those who already hated Trump support it. Pursuing it at all costs will only further divide and damage the country.

The DNC hack had nothing to do with Trump's election. It exposed gross Democrat/media corruption (the real story which has been brushed under the rug with the hysterical "Russia!"/"Wikileaks!" diversion), but most media gave it little to no coverage, following Clinton's lead in deflecting onto how Russia was supposedly helping Trump (even when it promoted Black Lives Matter and anti-Trump rallies?). If it didn't happen Trump still would have won, and Democrats would still be trying to impeach him for something. Though technically there still is no "impeachment inquiry". Pelosi doesn't have the power to announce that any more than she can declare new laws or office holders. It's an act of the House that requires a full vote.

reply

Issa's Oversight Committee alone issued more than 100 subpoenas to the Obama administration. Issa said he wanted oversight hearings seven days a week (48 weeks they were in session).

This is the same Issa that wanted the Obama admin prosecuted for the IRS scandal. No obstruction of justice from the Obama camp. No lies. No witness tampering. The IRS investigation had its own problems such as finding out the IRS audited more liberal groups than conservative. Yes, the whole thing was propaganda to weaken dems for reelection. The IRS investigation didn't end until 2017 due to a lack of evidence. But but but but Mueller!

Imagine if during Issa's hearings, the RNC was hacked and David Axelrod was told ahead of time that the dirt from those hacks would be released in October 2012.

Imagine if the guy in charge of the investigation was fired by Obama.

Imagine Obama talked to Ukrain'e president and sent his personal lawyer to "look into" candidate Romney.

How do you think Issa's "seven days a week" Oversight Committee would respond to any of that? Forget 12 counts of obstruction, just one is all it would take.

The problem congressional republicans are having now is that they were conditioned so hard to hold Obama's feet to the fire when he did nothing wrong that they cannot look away at Trump's blatant corruption right in front of their faces.

reply

Your comments are the opposite of reality. Unlike Trump, Obama had real scandals and abuses of power and never faced any real investigation with teeth. Your old talking point about the IRS auditing more liberal groups misses the point by conflating legitimate audits with inappropriate ones. The issue was how they were handled and why groups were targeted.

Obama's own IG found a pattern of discrimination against conservative groups. As a court later ruled, the findings "include that the IRS used political criteria to round up applications for tax-exempt status filed by so called tea-party groups; that the IRS often took four times as long to process tea-party applications as other applications; and that the IRS served tea-party applicants with crushing demands for what the Inspector General called “unnecessary information.”"

https://cei.org/blog/another-court-ruling-confirms-irs-illegally-targeted-tea-party-and-conservative-groups

Yet as always the administration investigated itself and cleared itself, lol, while truly stonewalling. Holder, the most partisan hack in the history of attorneys general, passed out immunity like candy without targeting anyone, rendering future investigations unfeasible. Lois Lerner, who pleaded the Fifth and refused to testify, and who was guilty as hell, was never held accountable, nor was anyone else. That scandal alone is one of the worst in US history, but Obama had others where people died (e.g. Fast and Furious, Benghazi, letting Hezbollah global drug rings operate to pursue the Iranian deal) that got similar cover up treatment.

Despite controlling Congress, Republicans never pushed for impeachment.

We don't have to imagine Democrats seeking foreign dirt on Trump because they actually did it on a big scale in Ukraine and elsewhere. Democrats are trying to divert from real corruption by the DNC and Bidens by making up crap about Trump. Biden's son followed his dad around the world making bundles of cash. The more facts emerge, the shadier this looks.

reply

Still no evidence Shokin was actively investigating Burisma. Yet multiple western agencies said he wasn't.

Still no evidence Ukraine interfered in 2016 and blamed it on Russia. The new Trumpian conspiracy.

Trump has admitted more than twice now that he asked Ukraine to investigate Biden.

Trump has also admitted now that he asked China to investigate Warren.

Both transcripts have been moved to a classified server against protocol.

Fox News has recently uncovered Quid Pro Quo even though its not needed to impeach as solicitation itself is enough.


Trump is fucked.

reply

Shokin himself and other Ukrainians said he was investigating Burisma and Biden in particular, as I've documented.

Ukraine's own courts have already ruled that they illegally interfered in the US election, LOL.

Hopefully China and Ukraine can help get to the bottom of both election interference and the Bidens' apparent corruption.

Your statement about a "protocol" violation is false. If anything locking it down was a good thing since that makes it harder to tamper with. Obama did numerous times too. I really want to see transcripts of Biden's calls to Ukraine and other governments, and some of Obama's to Russia and elsewhere. Could be great reading.

Quid pro quo was debunked by both the transcript and testimony yesterday, and Trump simply doing his job by investigating crimes isn't remotely illegal much less a high crime.

Trump is fucked.

LOL! I've already seen another poster mindlessly repeating that refrain. So that is a new cult-like chant of the delusional leftist echo chamber. Got it.

reply

EXACTLY..the Dems are incredibly stupid for going this impeachment route over FLIMSY evidence. Trump WILL be re-elected.

reply

Huh!?

reply

Another Trumptard who went over the cliff.

reply