• 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!

Trump approval drops after Report

snakestretcher said:
No he did not lie, he investigated suspicion of collusion and came to the conclusions he did. Did Mueller ever unequivocally state that there was collusion? No, he did not, so it isn't Mueller who's lying here...:roll:
Click to expand...

He said he found no evidence of it and indicted no one for it. Basically, it didnt happen.
 
snakestretcher said:
Meanwhile there are 20 (twenty) , other ongoing investigations into Teflon Don and his activities. The fun hasn't even begun yet.
Click to expand...

I know. I've heard that same crap from you guys for the last two years. Let me know when you find something.
 
Fletch said:
He was vindicated. Mueller didnt indict a single American for any crime involving Russia during the 2016 election. The entire time you liberals were lying about him and calling him a traitor and dreaming of his doom, he was an innocent man. And Mueller cleared him. But no, I dont expect Collusion Truthers to ever accept that fact.
Click to expand...

Trump was "vindicated", huh? One might think some random guy named Giuliani believes tRump or some of his minions did something just a little bit off

Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani said while he would have advised the Trump campaign to avoid Russian help, he thought there was nothing wrong with a campaign taking information from Russia.

"There's nothing wrong with taking information from Russians," Giuliani said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

Asked by CNN's Jake Tapper if he would have taken information from a foreign source, Giuliani said, "I probably wouldn't."

"I wasn't asked," Giuliani said. "I would have advised, just out of excess of caution, don't do it."
Click to expand...

Giuliani in Chris Wallace's show this morning -- YouTube
starts at 2:53 and runs to 16:55 of the video Giuliani complains about Wallace’s questions.
“What you’re doing is you’re taking the Mueller’s report, which is a prosecutor’s version of what happened, you’re giving it full credit and you’re not giving me a chance to explain the other side!” the president’s lawyer charged.

Wallace: “I’m asking you about the other side.”

Giuliani: “It’s pages of calumny, lies and distortions.”

Wallace: “You think that’s what the report is?”
Click to expand...

During the interview, Wallace noted that Trump provided insufficient answers to Mueller in a written interview, saying he did “not recall” 37 times.

At one point, Giuliani says: "There can't be obstruction of justice because there is no underlying crime." Rudy is doing his lawyer thing for sure. In response, Wallace reads from pg 157, Vol 2 (12:21) noting that "obstruction of justice" does not require a criminal foundation
 
Fletch said:
I know. I've heard that same crap from you guys for the last two years. Let me know when you find something.
Click to expand...

None of the criminal indictments and convictions to date amount to "something" in your opinion. Am I correct in saying this?
 
snakestretcher said:
So he didn't lie then. Good, I'm glad we cleared that up. A lie, as if it needs repeating, is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Click to expand...

I never accused Meuller of lying. As to the rest of you liberals, its probably not fair to say that you were lying either. You guys were duped by a lie and believed and repeated it. That doesnt make you liars. Fools maybe but not liars.
 
Somerville said:
Trump was "vindicated", huh? One might think some random guy named Giuliani believes tRump or some of his minions did something just a little bit off



Giuliani in Chris Wallace's show this morning -- YouTube
starts at 2:53 and runs to 16:55 of the video Giuliani complains about Wallace’s questions.


During the interview, Wallace noted that Trump provided insufficient answers to Mueller in a written interview, saying he did “not recall” 37 times.

At one point, Giuliani says: "There can't be obstruction of justice because there is no underlying crime." Rudy is doing his lawyer thing for sure. In response, Wallace reads from pg 157, Vol 2 (12:21) noting that "obstruction of justice" does not require a criminal foundation
Click to expand...

There was no collusion. Mueller found none. He indicted no one. See my sig.
 
Somerville said:
None of the criminal indictments and convictions to date amount to "something" in your opinion. Am I correct in saying this?
Click to expand...

Right. I dont really care what happens to Manafort or Gates. Trump was cleared of collusion. Period.
 
snakestretcher said:
No he did not lie, he investigated suspicion of collusion and came to the conclusions he did. Did Mueller ever unequivocally state that there was collusion? No, he did not, so it isn't Mueller who's lying here...:roll:
Click to expand...

Mueller said he could not establish (find evidence) that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated.
 
Fletch said:
There was no collusion. Mueller found none. He indicted no one. See my sig.



"The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election"
Click to expand...

Yes, I can read your sig, a quote from Vol 1 of the report. However, I have been reading the actual report and did come across the following on pg 10

Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct
we investigated-including some associated with the Trump Campaign---deleted relevant
communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature
encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In
such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to
contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared
inconsistent with other known facts.

Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office
believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps,
the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional
light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.
Click to expand...

Then this morning during two separate TV interviews, Giuliani appears to have unwittingly said, "Yeah, so what if we got information from the Russians?"

Former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, speaking with Jake Tapper on CNN
“On the question of whether or not it’s okay to take information from the Russians, I appreciate Giuliani’s role is to defend the president at all costs, whatever argument he can put forth, whether it makes sense or not,” he continued. “He should pause and think about what he’s saying, not just an advocate for a president who he claims was exonerated in the report. The idea that it is okay — separate and apart from it being a criminal offense — we should be telling future candidates in the run-up to an election in 2020 if a foreign adversary is offering information against a political opponent, that it’s okay and right and proper and American and patriotic, to take that information? That’s an extraordinary statement and I would hope he would retract it.”
Click to expand...
 
snakestretcher said:
Yes, I know. I was responding to a claim that Mueller lied.
Click to expand...

You were responding to a quote in the middle of a conversation haymarket and I were exchanging. I didn't accuse Mueller of lying, but for what haymarket is claiming Mueller haa to be lying.
 
snakestretcher said:
Yes, I know. I was responding to a claim that Mueller lied.
Click to expand...

Mueller did not lie. He admitted there was no evidence of any Trump/Russian collusion. It was democrats like Schitff and Brennan who lied when they claimed they had clear damning evidence of Trump/Russian collusion.
 
hanger4 said:
The complete sentence did not change the independent clause in that sentence.
Click to expand...

Yes, it changes the complete meaning quite a bit which is why you ignore it.

But then you knew that as it has already been repeatedly explained to you and you still pretend otherwise.
 
snakestretcher said:
Yes, keep fooling yourself, that's the ticket. Meanwhile in reality-land:
Presidential Approval Ratings -- Donald Trump
Click to expand...

Actually it was all of you libruls who have been fooling yourself, especially in the 2016 race when the pollsters assured you that Hillary Von Pantsuit could not lose. Unlike you, while I am entertained by polls, I do not take them seriously without observing anything to back them up. For instance in the 2016 race, I saw massive crowds of supporters showing up at Trump rallies, while at the same time, Hillary had to bus in college students to make it look like she could fill a high school gymnasium. I attended two Trump rallies that drew over 20,000 supporters. Your opinion polls ofcourse missed out on the Trump surge.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Explain that in great detail. I am calling your bluff. It's Rasmussen that usually gets it right and is always close.
Click to expand...

It does not matter how many other polls they get right as their methodology is wrong and scorned for polls on presidential popularity among the American people since their audiences IS NOT the American people.

Can you comprehend that important distinction?
 
ObamacareFail said:
Who cares about the polling companies? The one that counts is on election day where voters physically go to the polls and vote.
Click to expand...

BBBBBZZZZTTTTT!!!!!!! It is not a poll about who wins on election day. No wonder you cannot understand. :doh:roll:
 
haymarket said:
Did you read the Mueller report?
Click to expand...

It is filled with evidence of anti-Trump bias from beginning to end. That should surprise nobody who is aware of the rabid political bias of Mueller's Hillary-supporter team.
 
haymarket said:
Yes, it changes the complete meaning quite a bit which is why you ignore it.

But then you knew that as it has already been repeatedly explained to you and you still pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

You've explained nothing, just posted the entire sentence and upon reading, doesn't change the meaning of the quote.

If the complete meaning was changed then Mueller did find evidence of a Trump Campaign Russian conspiracy yet that's not what he said. Therefore in order for your claim to be true, Mueller lied.
 
marke said:
It is filled with evidence of anti-Trump bias from beginning to end. That should surprise nobody who is aware of the rabid political bias of Mueller's Hillary-supporter team.
Click to expand...

Specifically?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom