Pure political corruption or attempted coup?

[cubby]

The best thing about this whole controversy is it doesn't matter what the FBI thinks...Flynn's fate was always going to be in the hands of the DOJ.

Its funny because this whole situation was created because Barr used his ability to blur the truth so Trump didn't have to pardon Flynn because that would cause significant issues to his already shaky re-election campaign.

Exactly. Barr is the perfect tool for Team Deplorable.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Whilst in general they may be only largely synonymous, in this case they are just synonymous.

Ah, so you are sticking with your position of "I know more about US law than Mueller".

It's a bold strategy Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for him.

[Thepersona]

In control of house and senate for how long continues to blame opposition for unable to govern hmmmm?

Quack Quack goes the lame duck.

For fucks sake, mods, ban the conspiracy theorist ex-mod. AND CLOSE THIS DAMN THREAD.

[cubby]

Recently revealed details from the secret House intelligence committee show that pretty much all of the people in charge admit that they never saw or had any actual evidence of collusion, yet lied to the public about how much evidence there was. This whole thing was to be a distraction to Trump to minimize his ability to govern with a bonus if they could remove him from office.

Evidence or more of your conjecture?

[Acidbaron]

For fucks sake, mods, ban the conspiracy theorist ex-mod. AND CLOSE THIS DAMN THREAD.

Careful now, use kind words to express yourself a safe space has to be created for fragile individuals who feel they otherwise cannot post here.

[Thepersona]

Careful now, use kind words to express yourself a safe space has to be created for fragile individuals who feel they otherwise cannot post here.

Oh yea. I forgot that the fuckers that cry most about the librulz needing safe spaces are giant crybabies, the most unique snowflakes.

[Dezerte]

This is bizarre.

[Huehuecoyotl]

It says there was no collusion.

I linked quotes from that 448 page document that you pointed us to earlier, so how about you do the same. Link me an actual quote from the Mueller report that says, in some form of words "there was no collusion".

I showed you that he said he wasn't looking for collusion. That it wasn't a legal term in this instance. But you're saying that he actually said that there wasn't any. So do what I did; find the quote or quotes that support your claim. Or just admit you are making things up, with nothing factual to suppport them. Your choice.

Or throw your toys out of the pram again for someone suggesting that you are a liar. Not a choice I would make, but you seem to count it as a viable option.

[Acidbaron]

Nope it isn't. Might as well claim the report said there was collusion ... people here seem to fill the report with whatever suits their imagination. It says there was no collusion ... if there is no evidence of it then it is a conspiracy theory because that is what differentiate a conspiracy theory from factual events, one is a conspiracy based on wild speculation and what we "don't know but could have happened" while the other is based on evidence. That Russian collusion turned out to be nothing but a conspiracy theory pushed hard by the media.

Could you slown down a bit cause i am having issues following, where exactly do those aliens fit in this story? Or are you claiming them aliens are in control of the media?

[Edge-]

It says there was no collusion

The Mueller report says nothing of the sort, because "collusion" is not a crime and was not investigated. Y'all have had well over a year to read this shit and we've all been on lockdown for over a month in almost every state. You've had time.

As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the
collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of “collusion,” but through the lens
of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” appears in the
Acting Attorney General’s August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public
reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g., Brooke Group v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or
theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the
contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as
that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371. See Black’s Law
Dictionary 321 (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is “[a]n agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain
something forbidden by law”); 1 Alexander Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 311 (1871)
(“An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ
such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object.”); 1 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 352
180 U.S. Department of Justice Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
(1897) (“An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.”).

For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term “collusion.”

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Page 180-181.

[Edge-]

If it didn't even investigate it then it definitely didn't find it ... so it's no collusion unless we wanna believe in uninvestigated crimes.

Did you read why?

Regardless, what the probe told us was that the collusion was a conspiracy theory and nothing more.

100% incorrect. Again, read the Mueller Report. You've got time dude. I can't believe we're still going over the fucking basics of the report more than a year after it was released.

[Machismo]

I didn't say the report said "no collusion" with quotes ... I said it said no collusion.

And others are pointing out why it's bullshit, which is what I already covered hours ago.

[Lenonis]

I can't believe we're still going over the fucking basics of the report more than a year after it was released.

Well that is how confirmation bias works....and that's what fuels the Trump base these days.

[Edge-]

I didn't say the report said "no collusion" with quotes ... I said it said no collusion.

It doesn't say that, either. It didn't make a determination on conclusion. Which you were just told.

[Breccia]

This is the exact moment, this forum jumped the shark.

Neo-nazi ex-mod posts conspiracy and forces reversal of previous mod and rules decision.

Has he replied yet? Or was this a drive-by shitpost?

- - - Updated - - -

Evidence or more of your conjecture?

Hey @cubby in your experienced, professional opinion, was "the cops never found the smoking gun" a reason to sue the police when they arrest you for murder?

And also, how do you feel about leading questions?

[Acidbaron]

Has he replied yet? Or was this a drive-by shitpost?

Previous page.

[Belize]

This is bizarre.

Not really, this is pretty typical Trump-Supporter drivel.

Everything and anything is proof that their conspiracy is right, and any evidence against it or lack of physical proof is simply affirmation that the conspiracy runs deep enough for proof to be hidden.

[Huehuecoyotl]

I didn't say the report said "no collusion" with quotes ... I said it said no collusion.

I've tried parsing this a few times, and I can't make sense out of what you are trying to say. You made a statement about the report; "It says there was no collusion". Your words. If the report says that there was no collusion, then somewhere in that report it will say "there was no collusion" in some form of words. If it doesn't say that, then your statement "It says there was no collusion" is demonstrably a lie. Which makes you a liar. Which puts doubt over anything else you've said in this thread.

So, either back up your statement with an actual quote from the report. Or admit you were lying. Your call.

[Acidbaron]

So do you deny that the difference between a conspiracy theory and factual events is that the first is based on speculation and imagining what's behind the unknowns while the latter is based on evidence? When what the report left us with are speculations and unknowns and guesses and what could have happened it's pretty much telling us it's a conspiracy theory. You know some conspiracy theories might be true ... that's your silver lining I guess but for now, the collusion is nothing but a conspiracy theory based on wild speculations that even a 2 year probe couldn't change into facts.

Yeah, well so are we talking about whether the conspiracy theory exist or whether the crime actually happened? Cause yeah the conspiracy might still be valid I can't deny that ... conspiracy theories die hard but when it comes to crime of conspiring with a foreign nation there was no evidence, and that is what an innocent verdict is. If you go to court and say there is no evidence, that's exoneration, the accused is considered to not have committed the crime, and they can say "no crime done".

What i get from this post, you believe in conspiracy theories and you believe it is okay to put innocent people in jail?

[Felya]

What i get from this post, you believe in conspiracy theories and you believe it is okay to put innocent people in jail?

I don’t understand why people are not going along with the theme and posting what this theory is based in: