• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Russia collusion story was fake. Hunter's hard drive was real.

The track record would indicate that those who were wrong about collusion are going to be wrong about this.
I mean-- chain of custody LOL... That is a term that kicks in when law enforcement take over.
You think he was talking about a term? And you're laughing? He's talking about actions, which make the laptop's data unreliable. It's been reported profusely.
 
You think he was talking about a term? And you're laughing? He's talking about actions, which make the laptop's data unreliable. It's been reported profusely.

As the NY TIMES reports, the feds are poring over the laptop and the files therein.
That is when 'chain of custody' becomes a thing.
And that's because if the information becomes evidence for a trial, the information kind of needs to stand to scrutiny from the judge and of course the defense.

 
Something "falsely called" isn't a lie unless you can show intent.

Wanna try again?

2 newspapers lied by not verifying the story and passing it off as true. That was their intent.
 
I see fine. It's okay, gp. I don't judge.

You do know who the Village People are? Trump doesn't. I'm surprised DeSantis hasn't banned them. And Queen. And Rock Hudson movies.

Nah, gp. I see well. Ain't no 20-15 like it was when I enlisted, but I don't need glasses to see nonsense. Here. I'll take 'em off.

No, you commies were the marks. And you performed just as they planned.

See? I had to enlarge the nonsense. Shit, I'm as old as you, gp. I'm sure you understand.
So.... you're gay? How does that have anything to do with the topic?
 
What did the NYTimes call it? Your source is something called “Mronline.”
😆

morans.jpg
 
The reality of it, Mueller concluded that Trump didn't collude with the Russians for ANY election.



Laptop, yes, dirty secrets...we don't know yet.
Actually not true.
What Mueller actually testified to Congress was
“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.
“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”
And the Republican lead Senate committee did indeed determine that Russia interfered with the 2016 election in Trumps behalf.

And we keep hearing accusations about Hunters laptop but as yet absolutely zero evidence to back anything up.
 
Actually not true.
What Mueller actually testified to Congress was
“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office.
“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”
And the Republican lead Senate committee did indeed determine that Russia interfered with the 2016 election in Trumps behalf.

And we keep hearing accusations about Hunters laptop but as yet absolutely zero evidence to back anything up.

Your incorrect. Your putting up a strawman by adding additional arguments that has nothing to do with statement. My statement is still true.

I only stated no collusion with the Russians. Your attempting to add a strawman that has nothing to do with the Russians and Trump. And even that is speculation, even by Mueller when he said "allegid".

This statement: The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.

Trump doesn't have to be exhaunerated for a non-crime. A defendant is always assumed innocent, no exhauneration nessicarily. That's how our legal system works.
 
Your incorrect. Your putting up a strawman by adding additional arguments that has nothing to do with statement. My statement is still true.

I only stated no collusion with the Russians. Your attempting to add a strawman that has nothing to do with the Russians and Trump. And even that is speculation, even by Mueller when he said "allegid".

This statement: The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.

Trump doesn't have to be exhaunerated for a non-crime. A defendant is always assumed innocent, no exhauneration nessicarily. That's how our legal system works.
Not enough evidence to convict does not mean innocent of the charges.
 
Not enough evidence to convict does not mean innocent of the charges.

How do you exhaunerate if charges were never filed?!? That is where your argument falls apart.
There is nothing to exhanurate for...
 
Back
Top Bottom