Epstein Files | WSJ releases 50th bday letter from Trump to Epstein

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 995
  • Views: 26K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
Polling....

From the Mueller Report:

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

For many Dems, this is borderline shocking information (because of the aforementioned brainwashing), as I'm sure is the case with many Republicans who get all the news from Fox News, read Breitbart, Daily Wire etc ...
Click to expand...
While you have it open, can you remind us why Don Jr wasn’t charged related to his Trump tower meeting?
 
ZenMode said:
My reading is just fine, thanks.

If the most powerful and investigative body on the planet could not establish that the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russia, what do you think the opinion of informed and reasonable people should be as it relates to the Trump campaign colluding or conspiring with Russia?

I'm not saying anything about 100% certainty. I'm saying, if you are going to lean one way or the other and express an opinion one way or the other, which way should you lean? Should you lean toward The campaign conspiring / colluding or should you lean toward the campaign not conspiring or colluding?
Click to expand...
Conspiring. "Does not establish" means less than a reasonable doubt.
 
ZenMode said:
So, you don't understand the difference between Russia interfering
Click to expand...
There is nothing that you understand that other posters cannot.

If you are typing a sentence that includes a phrase like, "you don't understand . . . " then you should probably check yourself because 99% probability it's you who fail to understand.
 
superrific said:
Conspiring. "Does not establish" means less than a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
Again....

(Copy/Paste)

If the most powerful and investigative body on the planet could not establish that the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russia, what do you think the opinion of informed and reasonable people should be as it relates to the Trump campaign colluding or conspiring with Russia?

I'm not saying anything about 100% certainty. I'm saying, if you are going to lean one way or the other and express an opinion one way or the other, which way should you lean? Should you lean toward The campaign conspiring / colluding or should you lean toward the campaign not conspiring or colluding?
 
ZenMode said:
Again....

(Copy/Paste)

If the most powerful and investigative body on the planet could not establish that the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russia, what do you think the opinion of informed and reasonable people should be as it relates to the Trump campaign colluding or conspiring with Russia?

I'm not saying anything about 100% certainty. I'm saying, if you are going to lean one way or the other and express an opinion one way or the other, which way should you lean? Should you lean toward The campaign conspiring / colluding or should you lean toward the campaign not conspiring or colluding?
Click to expand...
I answered the question. Colluding/conspiring.

You seem to think "failing to establish" is informative. It's not. It just means they can't make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. There could be a 75% chance of collusion that would have been "failure to establish."

Once again, you confuse your own ignorance with the state of the world. Just because you don't know what it means for the FBI or DOJ to "fail to establish" doesn't make it so.
 
superrific said:
I answered the question. Colluding/conspiring.

You seem to think "failing to establish" is informative. It's not. It just means they can't make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. There could be a 75% chance of collusion that would have been "failure to establish."

Once again, you confuse your own ignorance with the state of the world. Just because you don't know what it means for the FBI or DOJ to "fail to establish" doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
Thanks for confirming your brainwashing.
 
ZenMode said:
Polling....

From the Mueller Report:

Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

For many Dems, this is borderline shocking information (because of the aforementioned brainwashing), as I'm sure is the case with many Republicans who get all the news from Fox News, read Breitbart, Daily Wire etc ...
Click to expand...
Why do you think they shared it with Russia? do you think Putin asked for it or they just volunteered it?What do you think Putin did with the info?
 
ZenMode said:
My reading is just fine, thanks.

If the most powerful and investigative body on the planet could not establish that the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russia, what do you think the opinion of informed and reasonable people should be as it relates to the Trump campaign colluding or conspiring with Russia?

I'm not saying anything about 100% certainty. I'm saying, if you are going to lean one way or the other and express an opinion one way or the other, which way should you lean? Should you lean toward The campaign conspiring / colluding or should you lean toward the campaign not conspiring or colluding?
Click to expand...
Knowing Donald Trump?

You lean toward the worst possible answer. Every time. Hes earned that.
 
ZenMode said:
I think the investigation established a lot of things, but collusion/conspiracy with the Russian government are not among them.
Click to expand...
They couldn't prove the back/forth to establish the standard for that investigation. Information was shared.

But do you mind answering the questions?

Why do you think they sent it?

How do you think it was used?
 
ZenMode said:
Again....

(Copy/Paste)

If the most powerful and investigative body on the planet could not establish that the Trump campaign colluded or conspired with Russia, what do you think the opinion of informed and reasonable people should be as it relates to the Trump campaign colluding or conspiring with Russia?

I'm not saying anything about 100% certainty. I'm saying, if you are going to lean one way or the other and express an opinion one way or the other, which way should you lean? Should you lean toward The campaign conspiring / colluding or should you lean toward the campaign not conspiring or colluding?
Click to expand...
This campaign? Colluding/cheating and lying about it for sure. Trump has always been that guy.
 
ZenMode said:
Brainwashing.
Click to expand...
Oh stop with the bullshit. What is your counterpoint to show that Trump deserves the benefit of any doubt?

If a teenage boy went missing in Chicago in the 70s after talking to a contractor about a job, should John Wanyne Gacy be considered the likely culprit? Damned right he should.

When a person shows you over and over who they are, then there is no reason to believe they are something else.
 
wmheel1287 said:
Oh stop with the bullshit. What is your counterpoint to show that Trump deserves the benefit of any doubt?

If a teenage boy went missing in Chicago in the 70s after talking to a contractor about a job, should John Wanyne Gacy be considered the likely culprit? Damned right he should.

When a person shows you over and over who they are, then there is no reason to believe they are something else.
Click to expand...
Wow. Really specific pull.

Haunting.

Effective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top