Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My evidence includes the page you cited me to and various Seymour Hersh articles and statements and the sources discussed by Justin Raimondo some time back and, above all, the fact that the victim destroyed the server in question.
But I don't need any evidence to be able point out that your conspiracy theory has no evidence supporting it other than Mueller's say-so.
I have, you refuse to read it. As I’ve already said, follow the superscripts noted in the report. Assange made numerous false statements on public media, evidence which was publicly available on Twitter and Fox News.
The evidence is there in it, and it was enough to indict a group that is composed of six former Trump advisers, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Seven of these people (including five of the six former Trump advisers) have pleaded guilty.
Some of the evidence is redacted, as it deals with matters of national security.
Never forget that Russian interference in our election was the only reason why Mueller was hired. It was what he investigated. Any of the other charges that came out of the investigation were secondary, but they were all connected in some way to the hacking.
He mentioned other charges that he had insufficient evidence to prove, so he never tried to indict those charges. But he indicted all other charges he could prove.
Does indictment indicate guilt? Only if it is judged in our courts and found so. Since the 3 Russian companies and most of the 26 Russians charged are very unlikely to ever be exradicted to stand trial here, we'll never know how many of them are guilty or not.
But the 7 guilty pleas Mueller got from those he could take to trial shows clearly his evidence is quite strong and solid. No one pleads guilty if the evidence against them is weak or nonexistent.
The evidence is there in it, and it was enough to indict a group that is composed of six former Trump advisers, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Seven of these people (including five of the six former Trump advisers) have pleaded guilty.
Some of the evidence is redacted, as it deals with matters of national security.
Never forget that Russian interference in our election was the only reason why Mueller was hired. It was what he investigated. Any of the other charges that came out of the investigation were secondary, but they were all connected in some way to the hacking.
He mentioned other charges that he had insufficient evidence to prove, so he never tried to indict those charges. But he indicted all other charges he could prove.
Does indictment indicate guilt? Only if it is judged in our courts and found so. Since the 3 Russian companies and most of the 26 Russians charged are very unlikely to ever be exradicted to stand trial here, we'll never know how many of them are guilty or not.
But the 7 guilty pleas Mueller got from those he could take to trial shows clearly his evidence is quite strong and solid. No one pleads guilty if the evidence against them is weak or nonexistent.
Judging from the contents of posts written by Trump supporters the percentage who actually read the report are zero to none. Or...they decided to stick with the "alternative facts" in a lame attempt to save face. So much integrity...not!
Kudos to all of you who are so persistently correcting the uninformed, refuse-to-download-and-read-anything-that-doesn't-comport-with-my-view-is-made-up-bs-witchhunt-coup motivated. I no longer have the energy or patience, but realize it is necessary to persistently refute baseless statements or the internet would be overrun - more than it already is - with lies, misinformation, conspiracy/alternate universe "facts" and outright character defamation and slander.
Mercifully for the Rich family, the lying, despicable, self-serving Assange insinuations and innuendos are finally, once and for all, debunked. The family has tried to sue - but one case was thrown out because Seth is deceased and therefore no longer perceived to be "harmed."
The unfairness and pain visited on the innocent - it really makes you wonder sometimes - about everything.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 04-22-2019 at 12:22 AM..
Kudos to all of you who are so persistently arguing with the uninformed, refuse-to-download-and-read-anything-that-doesn't-comport-with-my-view-is-made-up-bs-witchhunt-coup motivated people long on my ignore list. I no longer have the patience, but realize it is necessary to persistently refute baseless statements or the internet would be overrun - more than it already is - with lies, misinformation and conspiracy/alternate universe "facts."
Thank heaven for the Rich family that the lying and self-serving Assange insinuations and innuendos are finally, once and for all, debunked. The family has tried to sue - but one case was thrown out because Seth is deceased and therefore no longer perceived to be "harmed."
It really makes you wonder sometimes - about everything.
So true. And sadly truth has been desecrated ever since Trump was given a bully pulpit like it never has before. I too lost patience and TOS prevents one from forcing some folks to view their own backsides in a mirror.
You did not read the report therefore there is nothing you can add in an informed way and will waste the time of posters that have read the report. Everything you have stated on the subject thus far makes no sense to someone that actually read the report and instead reveals willful ignorance...which is the most pathetic and disdainful kind.
It's a simple matter of put up or shut up.
No charges related to collusion with Russia = exoneration.
Now, all that is left to do is investigate the vermin that started all this and send them to prison for the rest of their natural lives.
I have, you refuse to read it. As I’ve already said, follow the superscripts noted in the report. Assange made numerous false statements on public media, evidence which was publicly available on Twitter and Fox News.
I read it, and all the evidence supports the theory that Rich was the source. There is no reference (on page 48) to any evidence supporting your version of events. Page 48 provides no basis for thinking any of the Wkileaks statements are false. It does not refer to any other section of the report where the truth or falsity of the Tweets is discussed. It simply presumes them to be false.
But the fact remains, the only evidence on the one solitary page you cited me to contradicts your narrative.
I read it, and all the evidence supports the theory that Rich was the source. There is no reference (on page 48) to any evidence supporting your version of events. Page 48 provides no basis for thinking any of the Wkileaks statements are false. It does not refer to any other section of the report where the truth or falsity of the Tweets is discussed. It simply presumes them to be false.
But the fact remains, the only evidence on the one solitary page you cited me to contradicts your narrative.
Stop acting like I'm lying when you're too confused to read your own cite. Stop calling me a liar, and paste the so-called "evidence" into your post. You can't do that because there isn't any evidence supporting your claims in the page of the Mueller Report you pointed to.
Last edited by hbdwihdh378y9; 04-22-2019 at 11:37 AM..
Stop acting like I'm klying when you're too confused to read your own cite. You cited ONE PAGE. All the evidence on that page contradicts your conclusion.
I’m not confused; you’re repeatedly lying. And I cited more than one page, and the evidence contradicts the entirety of your statements. Deal with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
