Posted by wylie715 on 8/20/2020 3:52:00 PM (view original):
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.
NO, I am NOT making any assumptions at all. That's the entire point. Nobody has posted any definite line of connection that is in the report, but that doesn't mean it's not there. That is why I keep asking if it's there. I can't seem to get a simple yes or no. Wonder why.