JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[old salt]

The rational wing of the GOP was diffused across many candidates, never coalesced around one clear, moderate candidate, while the idiots and chumps and the haters were attracted immediately to Trump's celebrity and rhetorical anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim flourishes. As he gathered momentum, other haters who had backed candidates like Cruz rallied to Trump rather than oppose him. So, Trump kept winning primaries with less than a majority of GOP voters, until all others became irrelevant.

2016 was a 'change election', with any of the reasonable moderate R candidates who could win the national popular vote, eg Jeb or Kasich, left behind. Indeed these candidates would very likely have won both the popular vote and the Electoral College versus the Dem candidate Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton was uniquely capable of losing to Trump, someone who a majority of the country thought was not qualified, dishonest, disgusting. She brought unique baggage of her own, though was undoubtedly 'qualified'...voters cared far less about qualifications than simply "change" and disruption of the status quo.

But now they're faced with 4 years of demonstrated corruption and incompetence in governance.

You still don't get it. In 2016, it was the message, not the messenger(s). Bannon was right.
Your globalist, free trading, new world order, global cop, GOP is gone & it's not coming back.

[a fan]

Your globalist, free trading, new world order, GOP is gone & it's not coming back.

Not even REMOTELY true.

We're exactly where we were when we started, outside of Trump's fake Trade War.

A trade war that is royally F-ing businesses like mine for absolutely no discernible goal. In the middle of a pandemic with millions out of work.

[6ftstick]

Devastating article on Russiagate.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-spies ... ed-america

Might be a tad too long for the birdbrains here but such is life.

Amazing sone of these NATSEC people aren’t in jail right now.

They'll dismiss it as just another tin foil hat conspiracy, without even reading it

Sometimes we forget that only you and Pete get to dismiss what our government has done.

Because few things are funnier than TrumpApologists lecturing their fellow Americans about ethics in American governance, and how important they are.

So sure, go ahead and tell us about ethical behavior in governance more.....we're just at the edge of our seats. Next thing you'll tell us, it's unethical to profit off of one's position in the Federal Government, right?

Here we go again, the ultimate whataboutism excuse maker. Nothing that Trump did justifies the DoJ, FBI & IC abuses of power marshaled against Flynn, Papadop, Page, Trump & his campaign.

a fan positioning himself to be wrong. It's all just SOP for our political parties these days

a fan, could it be you're just another cog in the resistance machine? The end justifies the means...

The part that you and your fellow DeepStaters don't want to hear is: YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY PROVE WHAT YOU ARE ALLEGING.

You need to pay attention.

In congressional testimony under oath EVERY WITNESS said there was No evidence of any Russian Collusion. NONE

But those same people Along with Adam Schiff and committee democrats, would go out in front of the cameras and say Trump was a Russian Agent and they had ample evidence to prove it.

Durham is collecting the indictable parts of the Deepstate conspiracy but I would think the 4 years of proven lies might convince you of the truth.

This is patently false, yet again a repetition of the false narrative 6ft.
I don't think you are stupid and simply don't understand the difference between the testimony and what you and your right wing media sources keep spouting. So, it's on purpose.

Patently false?

Playing that game?

https://nypost.com/2020/05/11/obamas-to ... nder-oath/
Obama’s top brass contradict public statements about ‘collusion’ under oath

https://nypost.com/2020/05/07/transcrip ... nd-russia/
House Intel Committee’s Russia transcripts reaffirm no collusion findings

Two years after the conclusion of the House Intelligence Committee-led investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, transcripts of interviews from the probe that have been cleared for release still remain sealed. Reports are emerging that the transcripts show top law enforcement and intelligence officials affirming they had no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016.

2016. Thats before the election in 2018 and before Mueller started his investigation.

In his letter to Schiff Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell revealed that 43 of the 53 transcripts had been approved for the public since June 2019.

NBC News' intelligence and national security reporter Ken Dilanian reports that the Senate Intelligence Committee has come to a bipartisan conclusion that there is no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Former Obama administration defense official Evelyn Farkas testified under oath that she lied during an MSNBC interview when she claimed to have evidence of alleged collusion, a newly declassified congressional transcript of her testimony shows. Farkas testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on June 26, 2017

[dislaxxic]

In congressional testimony under oath EVERY WITNESS said there was No evidence of any Russian Collusion. NONE

But those same people Along with Adam Schiff and committee democrats, would go out in front of the cameras and say Trump was a Russian Agent and they had ample evidence to prove it.

Durham is collecting the indictable parts of the Deepstate conspiracy but I would think the 4 years of proven lies might convince you of the truth.

This is patently false, yet again a repetition of the false narrative 6ft.
I don't think you are stupid and simply don't understand the difference between the testimony and what you and your right wing media sources keep spouting. So, it's on purpose.

Correct. FLAT LIE. Obstruction of Justice kept Trump himself and other fact witnesses (McGahn & others) from testifying.

Flat lie, meant to allow Trumpist rightwingnuts to sleep at night.

..

[6ftstick]

In congressional testimony under oath EVERY WITNESS said there was No evidence of any Russian Collusion. NONE

But those same people Along with Adam Schiff and committee democrats, would go out in front of the cameras and say Trump was a Russian Agent and they had ample evidence to prove it.

Durham is collecting the indictable parts of the Deepstate conspiracy but I would think the 4 years of proven lies might convince you of the truth.

This is patently false, yet again a repetition of the false narrative 6ft.
I don't think you are stupid and simply don't understand the difference between the testimony and what you and your right wing media sources keep spouting. So, it's on purpose.

Correct. FLAT LIE. Obstruction of Justice kept Trump himself and other fact witnesses (McGahn & others) from testifying.

Flat lie, meant to allow Trumpist rightwingnuts to sleep at night.

..

prove it.

[a fan]

Patently false?

Playing that game?

https://nypost.com/2020/05/11/obamas-to ... nder-oath/

Yes. Playing that game.

Serious question: how do we know that there was no direct evidence of Trump and collusion with Russia, Six?

How do we know? Answer that question, and you'll see why FoxNation is playing a stupid game, and you're buying it.

[old salt]

Former Obama administration defense official Evelyn Farkas testified under oath that she lied during an MSNBC interview when she claimed to have evidence of alleged collusion, a newly declassified congressional transcript of her testimony shows. Farkas testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on June 26, 2017

If you've been missing Dr GooglyEyes from your MSNBC screen, she's been busy losing her (D) Congressional primary race.

[6ftstick]

In congressional testimony under oath EVERY WITNESS said there was No evidence of any Russian Collusion. NONE

But those same people Along with Adam Schiff and committee democrats, would go out in front of the cameras and say Trump was a Russian Agent and they had ample evidence to prove it.

Durham is collecting the indictable parts of the Deepstate conspiracy but I would think the 4 years of proven lies might convince you of the truth.

This is patently false, yet again a repetition of the false narrative 6ft.
I don't think you are stupid and simply don't understand the difference between the testimony and what you and your right wing media sources keep spouting. So, it's on purpose.

Correct. FLAT LIE. Obstruction of Justice kept Trump himself and other fact witnesses (McGahn & others) from testifying.

Flat lie, meant to allow Trumpist rightwingnuts to sleep at night.

..

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has emerged as a staunch Trump critic and paid-CNN contributor since leaving his government role, told the committee during a July 2017 interview that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan testified on Tuesday that after viewing all of the evidence that was available to him on the Russia probe he is not aware of any collusion between Russia and members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that investigators had not been able to verify claims made in the Steele dossier. “Well, as I tried to explain before, there is a lot of information in the Steele reporting. We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information,” he answered.

Pressed further to confirm that he did not know if Christopher Steele’s dossier was true, McCabe said, “That’s correct.”

When asked under oath by House investigators if he had any evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, Ben Rhodes said he did not.

“Every day @realDonaldTrump finds new ways to compensate Vladimir Putin for his election interference. And every day Putin gains additional incentive to interfere again on Trump’s behalf in 2020,” she wrote on Twitter in November of last year. But when speaking under oath to House investigators, Samantha Powers sang a different tune. Asked whether she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything.

Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen evidence proving then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election. “I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior…to my departure,” she said when being questioned by former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

[6ftstick]

Patently false?

Playing that game?

https://nypost.com/2020/05/11/obamas-to ... nder-oath/

Yes. Playing that game.

Serious question: how do we know that there was no direct evidence of Trump and collusion with Russia, Six?

How do we know? Answer that question, and you'll see why FoxNation is playing a stupid game, and you're buying it.

Because every Obama administration/intelligence officer says so under oath. Open your eyes and ears hear and see that

[Typical Lax Dad]

In congressional testimony under oath EVERY WITNESS said there was No evidence of any Russian Collusion. NONE

But those same people Along with Adam Schiff and committee democrats, would go out in front of the cameras and say Trump was a Russian Agent and they had ample evidence to prove it.

Durham is collecting the indictable parts of the Deepstate conspiracy but I would think the 4 years of proven lies might convince you of the truth.

This is patently false, yet again a repetition of the false narrative 6ft.
I don't think you are stupid and simply don't understand the difference between the testimony and what you and your right wing media sources keep spouting. So, it's on purpose.

Correct. FLAT LIE. Obstruction of Justice kept Trump himself and other fact witnesses (McGahn & others) from testifying.

Flat lie, meant to allow Trumpist rightwingnuts to sleep at night.

..

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has emerged as a staunch Trump critic and paid-CNN contributor since leaving his government role, told the committee during a July 2017 interview that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan testified on Tuesday that after viewing all of the evidence that was available to him on the Russia probe he is not aware of any collusion between Russia and members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that investigators had not been able to verify claims made in the Steele dossier. “Well, as I tried to explain before, there is a lot of information in the Steele reporting. We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information,” he answered.

Pressed further to confirm that he did not know if Christopher Steele’s dossier was true, McCabe said, “That’s correct.”

When asked under oath by House investigators if he had any evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, Ben Rhodes said he did not.

“Every day @realDonaldTrump finds new ways to compensate Vladimir Putin for his election interference. And every day Putin gains additional incentive to interfere again on Trump’s behalf in 2020,” she wrote on Twitter in November of last year. But when speaking under oath to House investigators, Samantha Powers sang a different tune. Asked whether she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything.

Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen evidence proving then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election. “I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior…to my departure,” she said when being questioned by former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

What does this mean: Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen “evidence proving” then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election.

What piece of “evidence”’would that be? Give me an example of a piece of evidence that “proves” something?

[6ftstick]

In congressional testimony under oath EVERY WITNESS said there was No evidence of any Russian Collusion. NONE

But those same people Along with Adam Schiff and committee democrats, would go out in front of the cameras and say Trump was a Russian Agent and they had ample evidence to prove it.

Durham is collecting the indictable parts of the Deepstate conspiracy but I would think the 4 years of proven lies might convince you of the truth.

This is patently false, yet again a repetition of the false narrative 6ft.
I don't think you are stupid and simply don't understand the difference between the testimony and what you and your right wing media sources keep spouting. So, it's on purpose.

Correct. FLAT LIE. Obstruction of Justice kept Trump himself and other fact witnesses (McGahn & others) from testifying.

Flat lie, meant to allow Trumpist rightwingnuts to sleep at night.

..

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has emerged as a staunch Trump critic and paid-CNN contributor since leaving his government role, told the committee during a July 2017 interview that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan testified on Tuesday that after viewing all of the evidence that was available to him on the Russia probe he is not aware of any collusion between Russia and members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that investigators had not been able to verify claims made in the Steele dossier. “Well, as I tried to explain before, there is a lot of information in the Steele reporting. We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information,” he answered.

Pressed further to confirm that he did not know if Christopher Steele’s dossier was true, McCabe said, “That’s correct.”

When asked under oath by House investigators if he had any evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, Ben Rhodes said he did not.

“Every day @realDonaldTrump finds new ways to compensate Vladimir Putin for his election interference. And every day Putin gains additional incentive to interfere again on Trump’s behalf in 2020,” she wrote on Twitter in November of last year. But when speaking under oath to House investigators, Samantha Powers sang a different tune. Asked whether she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything.

Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen evidence proving then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election. “I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior…to my departure,” she said when being questioned by former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

What does this mean: Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen “evidence proving” then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election.

What piece of “evidence”’would that be? Give me an example of a piece of evidence that “proves” something?

Jeezus H ..........

Evidence. PROOF. After years of investigation by Trump hating investigators prosecutors and Press—NO EVIDENCE

I don't have to show you what evidence is you need to produce it.

FN TDS

[Typical Lax Dad]

In congressional testimony under oath EVERY WITNESS said there was No evidence of any Russian Collusion. NONE

But those same people Along with Adam Schiff and committee democrats, would go out in front of the cameras and say Trump was a Russian Agent and they had ample evidence to prove it.

Durham is collecting the indictable parts of the Deepstate conspiracy but I would think the 4 years of proven lies might convince you of the truth.

This is patently false, yet again a repetition of the false narrative 6ft.
I don't think you are stupid and simply don't understand the difference between the testimony and what you and your right wing media sources keep spouting. So, it's on purpose.

Correct. FLAT LIE. Obstruction of Justice kept Trump himself and other fact witnesses (McGahn & others) from testifying.

Flat lie, meant to allow Trumpist rightwingnuts to sleep at night.

..

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has emerged as a staunch Trump critic and paid-CNN contributor since leaving his government role, told the committee during a July 2017 interview that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan testified on Tuesday that after viewing all of the evidence that was available to him on the Russia probe he is not aware of any collusion between Russia and members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that investigators had not been able to verify claims made in the Steele dossier. “Well, as I tried to explain before, there is a lot of information in the Steele reporting. We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information,” he answered.

Pressed further to confirm that he did not know if Christopher Steele’s dossier was true, McCabe said, “That’s correct.”

When asked under oath by House investigators if he had any evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, Ben Rhodes said he did not.

“Every day @realDonaldTrump finds new ways to compensate Vladimir Putin for his election interference. And every day Putin gains additional incentive to interfere again on Trump’s behalf in 2020,” she wrote on Twitter in November of last year. But when speaking under oath to House investigators, Samantha Powers sang a different tune. Asked whether she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything.

Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen evidence proving then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election. “I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior…to my departure,” she said when being questioned by former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

What does this mean: Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen “evidence proving” then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election.

What piece of “evidence”’would that be? Give me an example of a piece of evidence that “proves” something?

Jeezus H ..........

Evidence. PROOF. After years of investigation by Trump hating investigators prosecutors and Press—NO EVIDENCE

I don't have to show you what evidence is you need to produce it.

FN TDS

Evidence = Proof? How does the statement that “I saw no evidence that proves” work? You had some English and grammar, I am sure. If the two words are synonymous, how does that statement work?

[6ftstick]

In congressional testimony under oath EVERY WITNESS said there was No evidence of any Russian Collusion. NONE

But those same people Along with Adam Schiff and committee democrats, would go out in front of the cameras and say Trump was a Russian Agent and they had ample evidence to prove it.

Durham is collecting the indictable parts of the Deepstate conspiracy but I would think the 4 years of proven lies might convince you of the truth.

This is patently false, yet again a repetition of the false narrative 6ft.
I don't think you are stupid and simply don't understand the difference between the testimony and what you and your right wing media sources keep spouting. So, it's on purpose.

Correct. FLAT LIE. Obstruction of Justice kept Trump himself and other fact witnesses (McGahn & others) from testifying.

Flat lie, meant to allow Trumpist rightwingnuts to sleep at night.

..

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has emerged as a staunch Trump critic and paid-CNN contributor since leaving his government role, told the committee during a July 2017 interview that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan testified on Tuesday that after viewing all of the evidence that was available to him on the Russia probe he is not aware of any collusion between Russia and members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that investigators had not been able to verify claims made in the Steele dossier. “Well, as I tried to explain before, there is a lot of information in the Steele reporting. We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information,” he answered.

Pressed further to confirm that he did not know if Christopher Steele’s dossier was true, McCabe said, “That’s correct.”

When asked under oath by House investigators if he had any evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, Ben Rhodes said he did not.

“Every day @realDonaldTrump finds new ways to compensate Vladimir Putin for his election interference. And every day Putin gains additional incentive to interfere again on Trump’s behalf in 2020,” she wrote on Twitter in November of last year. But when speaking under oath to House investigators, Samantha Powers sang a different tune. Asked whether she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything.

Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen evidence proving then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election. “I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior…to my departure,” she said when being questioned by former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

What does this mean: Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen “evidence proving” then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election.

What piece of “evidence”’would that be? Give me an example of a piece of evidence that “proves” something?

Jeezus H ..........

Evidence. PROOF. After years of investigation by Trump hating investigators prosecutors and Press—NO EVIDENCE

I don't have to show you what evidence is you need to produce it.

FN TDS

Evidence = Proof? How does the statement that “I saw no evidence that proves” work? You had some English and grammar, I am sure. If the two words are synonymous, how does that statement work?

In March 2017, two months after Trump's inauguration, Schiff told NBC's Meet the Press, “I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now." Chairman Schiff repeatedly claimed that his committee had uncovered “plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy.”

Committee member Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said, "In our investigation, we saw strong evidence of collusion," and claimed that President Trump was “working on behalf of the Russians.”

Any of that evidence!

[Typical Lax Dad]

In congressional testimony under oath EVERY WITNESS said there was No evidence of any Russian Collusion. NONE

But those same people Along with Adam Schiff and committee democrats, would go out in front of the cameras and say Trump was a Russian Agent and they had ample evidence to prove it.

Durham is collecting the indictable parts of the Deepstate conspiracy but I would think the 4 years of proven lies might convince you of the truth.

This is patently false, yet again a repetition of the false narrative 6ft.
I don't think you are stupid and simply don't understand the difference between the testimony and what you and your right wing media sources keep spouting. So, it's on purpose.

Correct. FLAT LIE. Obstruction of Justice kept Trump himself and other fact witnesses (McGahn & others) from testifying.

Flat lie, meant to allow Trumpist rightwingnuts to sleep at night.

..

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has emerged as a staunch Trump critic and paid-CNN contributor since leaving his government role, told the committee during a July 2017 interview that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan testified on Tuesday that after viewing all of the evidence that was available to him on the Russia probe he is not aware of any collusion between Russia and members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that investigators had not been able to verify claims made in the Steele dossier. “Well, as I tried to explain before, there is a lot of information in the Steele reporting. We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information,” he answered.

Pressed further to confirm that he did not know if Christopher Steele’s dossier was true, McCabe said, “That’s correct.”

When asked under oath by House investigators if he had any evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, Ben Rhodes said he did not.

“Every day @realDonaldTrump finds new ways to compensate Vladimir Putin for his election interference. And every day Putin gains additional incentive to interfere again on Trump’s behalf in 2020,” she wrote on Twitter in November of last year. But when speaking under oath to House investigators, Samantha Powers sang a different tune. Asked whether she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything.

Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen evidence proving then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election. “I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior…to my departure,” she said when being questioned by former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

What does this mean: Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen “evidence proving” then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election.

What piece of “evidence”’would that be? Give me an example of a piece of evidence that “proves” something?

Jeezus H ..........

Evidence. PROOF. After years of investigation by Trump hating investigators prosecutors and Press—NO EVIDENCE

I don't have to show you what evidence is you need to produce it.

FN TDS

Evidence = Proof? How does the statement that “I saw no evidence that proves” work? You had some English and grammar, I am sure. If the two words are synonymous, how does that statement work?

In March 2017, two months after Trump's inauguration, Schiff told NBC's Meet the Press, “I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now." Chairman Schiff repeatedly claimed that his committee had uncovered “plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy.”

Committee member Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said, "In our investigation, we saw strong evidence of collusion," and claimed that President Trump was “working on behalf of the Russians.”

Any of that evidence!

So evidence does not equal proof? I am confused.

[6ftstick]

In congressional testimony under oath EVERY WITNESS said there was No evidence of any Russian Collusion. NONE

But those same people Along with Adam Schiff and committee democrats, would go out in front of the cameras and say Trump was a Russian Agent and they had ample evidence to prove it.

Durham is collecting the indictable parts of the Deepstate conspiracy but I would think the 4 years of proven lies might convince you of the truth.

This is patently false, yet again a repetition of the false narrative 6ft.
I don't think you are stupid and simply don't understand the difference between the testimony and what you and your right wing media sources keep spouting. So, it's on purpose.

Correct. FLAT LIE. Obstruction of Justice kept Trump himself and other fact witnesses (McGahn & others) from testifying.

Flat lie, meant to allow Trumpist rightwingnuts to sleep at night.

..

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has emerged as a staunch Trump critic and paid-CNN contributor since leaving his government role, told the committee during a July 2017 interview that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan testified on Tuesday that after viewing all of the evidence that was available to him on the Russia probe he is not aware of any collusion between Russia and members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that investigators had not been able to verify claims made in the Steele dossier. “Well, as I tried to explain before, there is a lot of information in the Steele reporting. We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information,” he answered.

Pressed further to confirm that he did not know if Christopher Steele’s dossier was true, McCabe said, “That’s correct.”

When asked under oath by House investigators if he had any evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, Ben Rhodes said he did not.

“Every day @realDonaldTrump finds new ways to compensate Vladimir Putin for his election interference. And every day Putin gains additional incentive to interfere again on Trump’s behalf in 2020,” she wrote on Twitter in November of last year. But when speaking under oath to House investigators, Samantha Powers sang a different tune. Asked whether she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything.

Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen evidence proving then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election. “I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior…to my departure,” she said when being questioned by former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

What does this mean: Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen “evidence proving” then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election.

What piece of “evidence”’would that be? Give me an example of a piece of evidence that “proves” something?

Jeezus H ..........

Evidence. PROOF. After years of investigation by Trump hating investigators prosecutors and Press—NO EVIDENCE

I don't have to show you what evidence is you need to produce it.

FN TDS

Evidence = Proof? How does the statement that “I saw no evidence that proves” work? You had some English and grammar, I am sure. If the two words are synonymous, how does that statement work?

In March 2017, two months after Trump's inauguration, Schiff told NBC's Meet the Press, “I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now." Chairman Schiff repeatedly claimed that his committee had uncovered “plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy.”

Committee member Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said, "In our investigation, we saw strong evidence of collusion," and claimed that President Trump was “working on behalf of the Russians.”

Any of that evidence!

So evidence does not equal proof? I am confused.

You certainly are.

[a fan]

Patently false?

Playing that game?

https://nypost.com/2020/05/11/obamas-to ... nder-oath/

Yes. Playing that game.

Serious question: how do we know that there was no direct evidence of Trump and collusion with Russia, Six?

How do we know? Answer that question, and you'll see why FoxNation is playing a stupid game, and you're buying it.

Because every Obama administration/intelligence officer says so under oath.

Correct.

Next question: How does US intel know that they didn't find direct evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump?

[Typical Lax Dad]

In congressional testimony under oath EVERY WITNESS said there was No evidence of any Russian Collusion. NONE

But those same people Along with Adam Schiff and committee democrats, would go out in front of the cameras and say Trump was a Russian Agent and they had ample evidence to prove it.

Durham is collecting the indictable parts of the Deepstate conspiracy but I would think the 4 years of proven lies might convince you of the truth.

This is patently false, yet again a repetition of the false narrative 6ft.
I don't think you are stupid and simply don't understand the difference between the testimony and what you and your right wing media sources keep spouting. So, it's on purpose.

Correct. FLAT LIE. Obstruction of Justice kept Trump himself and other fact witnesses (McGahn & others) from testifying.

Flat lie, meant to allow Trumpist rightwingnuts to sleep at night.

..

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has emerged as a staunch Trump critic and paid-CNN contributor since leaving his government role, told the committee during a July 2017 interview that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan testified on Tuesday that after viewing all of the evidence that was available to him on the Russia probe he is not aware of any collusion between Russia and members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that investigators had not been able to verify claims made in the Steele dossier. “Well, as I tried to explain before, there is a lot of information in the Steele reporting. We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information,” he answered.

Pressed further to confirm that he did not know if Christopher Steele’s dossier was true, McCabe said, “That’s correct.”

When asked under oath by House investigators if he had any evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, Ben Rhodes said he did not.

“Every day @realDonaldTrump finds new ways to compensate Vladimir Putin for his election interference. And every day Putin gains additional incentive to interfere again on Trump’s behalf in 2020,” she wrote on Twitter in November of last year. But when speaking under oath to House investigators, Samantha Powers sang a different tune. Asked whether she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything.

Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen evidence proving then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election. “I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior…to my departure,” she said when being questioned by former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

What does this mean: Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen “evidence proving” then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election.

What piece of “evidence”’would that be? Give me an example of a piece of evidence that “proves” something?

Jeezus H ..........

Evidence. PROOF. After years of investigation by Trump hating investigators prosecutors and Press—NO EVIDENCE

I don't have to show you what evidence is you need to produce it.

FN TDS

Evidence = Proof? How does the statement that “I saw no evidence that proves” work? You had some English and grammar, I am sure. If the two words are synonymous, how does that statement work?

In March 2017, two months after Trump's inauguration, Schiff told NBC's Meet the Press, “I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now." Chairman Schiff repeatedly claimed that his committee had uncovered “plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy.”

Committee member Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said, "In our investigation, we saw strong evidence of collusion," and claimed that President Trump was “working on behalf of the Russians.”

Any of that evidence!

So evidence does not equal proof? I am confused.

You certainly are.

I wonder how people are found not guilty when evidence is introduced into trial?

[6ftstick]

Patently false?

Playing that game?

https://nypost.com/2020/05/11/obamas-to ... nder-oath/

Yes. Playing that game.

Serious question: how do we know that there was no direct evidence of Trump and collusion with Russia, Six?

How do we know? Answer that question, and you'll see why FoxNation is playing a stupid game, and you're buying it.

Because every Obama administration/intelligence officer says so under oath.

Correct.

Next question: How does US intel know that they didn't find direct evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump?

your being as ridiculous as TLD

Because when given the opportunity to say so under oath they would have said they knew. Instead of there wasn't any

[Typical Lax Dad]

Patently false?

Playing that game?

https://nypost.com/2020/05/11/obamas-to ... nder-oath/

Yes. Playing that game.

Serious question: how do we know that there was no direct evidence of Trump and collusion with Russia, Six?

How do we know? Answer that question, and you'll see why FoxNation is playing a stupid game, and you're buying it.

Because every Obama administration/intelligence officer says so under oath.

Correct.

Next question: How does US intel know that they didn't find direct evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump?

your being as ridiculous as TLD

Because when given the opportunity to say so under oath they would have said they knew. Instead of there wasn't any

What has been ridiculous? What types of evidence = proof? You walk outside and see a wet driveway....is that proof it rained? You are supposed to take an 11:00 train, you arrive on the platform at 10:59.....is that proof the train was early and you missed it?

[a fan]

Patently false?

Playing that game?

https://nypost.com/2020/05/11/obamas-to ... nder-oath/

Yes. Playing that game.

Serious question: how do we know that there was no direct evidence of Trump and collusion with Russia, Six?

How do we know? Answer that question, and you'll see why FoxNation is playing a stupid game, and you're buying it.

Because every Obama administration/intelligence officer says so under oath.

Correct.

Next question: How does US intel know that they didn't find direct evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump?

your being as ridiculous as TLD

No. I'm not. You just don't want to hear what you're complaining about is absurd.

The REASON that US intel knows that they didn't find direct evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump?

Is that they ran an investigation. Do you see the problem now?

1. You're complaining that US intel investigated Russian ties with the Trump Campaign
2. The "evidence" that the investigation should not have take place at all is (drumroll)
3. US intel telling you that they investigated TeamTrump, and didn't find direct evidence of collusion.

So after this, what's your complaint?

Your complaint is: why did US Intel investigate TeamTrump if there was no direct evidence of collusion?

Do you REALLY not understand how logically absurd your complaint is, 6ft?

To my point: How the F is US intel supposed to not find direct evidence of collusion without investigating TeamTrump?

Magic 8 Ball? Tea leaves? Ask Sean Hannity?