Posted by laramiebob on 8/19/2020 12:35:00 PM (view original):
The "Proof's" in the 1000 page report. What there is of it.

But I gotta tell ya' all3. Your continued defense of Trump against "any and all" allegations, particularly allegations bordering on the selling out of OUR Country, to me, seem kinda like railing on and on about how "bad" Hitler is/was and then naming your firstborn Adolph.

Just saying.

The report says there is proof of manafort colluding with Russians about the campaign while head of the campaign and stone colluding with Wikileaks about the campaign and stolen docements to help the campaign.

says proven.
thus campaign trump collusion.

says trump lies under oath about talking to stone in direct context of timeline of stone connected with Wikileaks.

thats evidence of obstruction of justice and evidence of knowledge of leaks coming when coupled with yrump’s Own statements foretelling leaks.
he would take a leak and report it before it happened and was talking with stone but lied about it.

this could be evidence in court for some charges.
just like a mob boss he would be charged after legal conclusions reached.

One of the arguments always was the campaign did not collide or cooperate.

A differnt conclusion was reached and trump lied under oath and a little worse then consensual sex under the table.

all3, just out of curiosity, what would constitute proof in your eyes? Trump admitting it was true? Well, he's a pathological liar, so how would we know he was telling the truth? So, what, in your view, would be proof?

Isnt proof of covering up and refusing to investigate proof of enough when talking about the president.
no one proved Nixon was planning watergate.

Don’t get bamboozled into a phony discussion of what trump knew. In real time.

Posted by all3 on 8/19/2020 11:54:00 AM (view original):
Where is the proof bob? You can have all the pieces in the World, but if you can't put them together, you don't have a puzzle. I certainly haven't read that report, but from what I understand it doesn't prove Trump knew anything. If that's true, you're again rushing to make assumptions based on personal dislike instead of facts. Not a good habit to be in.

"I haven't read the report, but the propaganda networks I consume assure me what it exonerates Trump"

On a related note, all3 thinks it's perfectly OK for a campaign to collude with a foreign government to influence the election as long as the candidate cannot be proven to have been a part of it.

Either Trump knew, and he's complicit, or he didn't, and he doesn't know what's actually going on in his own campaign or why things are happening, and unintentionally hired criminal traitors, which is even worse.

Well said but we do know that he obstructed investigations into the proven campaign collusion. He lied under oath about conversations with a person associated with his campaign proven to have colluded.

enough was proven to convict trump out of office and bring criminal charges.

enough.

Posted by wylie715 on 8/19/2020 6:10:00 PM (view original):
all3, just out of curiosity, what would constitute proof in your eyes? Trump admitting it was true? Well, he's a pathological liar, so how would we know he was telling the truth? So, what, in your view, would be proof?

IF the report links Trump to Putin or the activities, and there is surrounding documentation/support of those links, then I would say that is proof.
If the report says person A did this, person B did that and Trump did something else, and people are making their own assumptions about how those 3 seperate things are related, then that is NOT proof. Again, haven't seen the report, but from what others are posting here, I think it's case 2, which is NOT proof. Proof does not include assumptions.

Damn......... that made ME laugh.

Maybe bags has lots of pictures with pink penises he can share with you, since it seems you like them so much.

Posted by all3 on 8/20/2020 10:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 8/19/2020 6:10:00 PM (view original):
all3, just out of curiosity, what would constitute proof in your eyes? Trump admitting it was true? Well, he's a pathological liar, so how would we know he was telling the truth? So, what, in your view, would be proof?

IF the report links Trump to Putin or the activities, and there is surrounding documentation/support of those links, then I would say that is proof.
If the report says person A did this, person B did that and Trump did something else, and people are making their own assumptions about how those 3 seperate things are related, then that is NOT proof. Again, haven't seen the report, but from what others are posting here, I think it's case 2, which is NOT proof. Proof does not include assumptions.

so, you haven't seen the report and are just basing this on what people have posted here? In other words, you are making assumptions based on no proof.

If I ever commit a crime I pray all3 is on my jury, it's like a Chappelle sketch, video proof with everyone holding IDs or bust!

lol Uofa, he does remind me of that Chappelle sketch.

Imagine doubting the guilt of Trump after pretty much everyone who's worked for him has been arrested or implicated in some corrupt BS. That Trump still has supporters says a lot about the collective IQ of this poor, pathetic country