There is no proof she said it at all. But thanks for equating it to her. You would know this if you read the fucking link provided.
- - - Updated - - -
Considering the Trump Tower meeting happened in June, on the premise that they had information on Hillary Clinton, and the DNC emails were already hacked by then, yes, it was based on hacking. Fucking ignorance is bliss isn't it?
Kamala Harris leaping on the impeachment, as well as Kirsten Gillibrand
Meanwhile, Trump rage tweets about the fallout after claiming that he's not worried.
It's like he has something to hide.
Oh, sorry, I'm quoting his longtime lawyer Cohen.
- - - Updated - - -In an official statement issued through his attorney, Lanny Davis, Cohen asserted, “We trust that the courts will deal with all issues fairly on the merits. We won’t dignify the personal accusations in the filings except to say that frivolous things said by frivolous people don’t deserve a serious response. The reasons for Mr. Trump’s desperate attempt to prevent his tax returns from being made public, like all prior presidents, is no mystery. Does anyone doubt he has something to hide?”
*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*
Oh, sorry, Roger Stone did. Hey, isn't he going to trial for exactly this? Oh, right, it's all over the news. Funny how you missed it Since you get different news in Russia, I've linked a summary article that should catch you back up, so you can catch up with the full and correct information before posting again.
Yes, Trump colluded with Russia, even though 2 years of heavy investigation can't prove it, he even flaunted it by not making a joke, he asked in public because he is a Russian spy all along!
You know conspiracy theories are against the forum rules, right?
Hey, who funded the Russian Spy report that was targeted Trump, was that Trump too?
There is no legal view on this planet that isn't technically an opinion. This is evidenced by the very existence of federal courts, which interpret law. What you are arguing now is purely fallacy, because you're stating that a topic which is comprised solely of what could be classified as opinions is faulty because you have been provided an "opinion." It's like saying the hershey bar you gave me is bad because it's made of chocolate.
However, as this guy - and others, who he has linked - have shown, it's hard to come to any other conclusion from Mueller's report. I've yet to find a rightwing legal mind that has come to an opposite conclusion and bothered to post similar breakdowns. Probably because it can't be backed up without deliberately butchering Mueller's words.
The guy linked provides his reasoning for his conclusions. He's pretty strict in that he doesn't use his own interpretation of the evidence for these conclusions - he ranks the words Mueller used to describe it, and how these statements correspond to statements of evidence in the real legal world. Mueller said X "strongly supports" Y, and that's meaningful in the legal world where they don't throw words around like our president does.
Yes, because Republican top dogs (not the voters) hated Trump
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...steele-n897506
Steele, a former MI6 operative who opened a private firm, compiled the Trump dossier during the 2016 presidential campaign under contract to the U.S. research firm Fusion GPS.
Fusion had been hired to get information on Trump during the primaries by a Republican media firm, Washington Free Beacon. When Trump became the Republican nominee, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party began picking up the tab for the Fusion research. Fusion owner Glenn Simpson hired Steele, a Russia expert, to gather information from his sources in Russia.
Totally unbiased research right there.
*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*
What we have is Cohen, testifying under oath, that they did talk. Also Stone told Bannon he had in emails that Mueller now has. We'll see them in trial, and find out if he was "joking".
Stone, by the way, faces charges of lying to Mueller about talking to WikiLeaks. Saying "we know he didn't" before the trial/evidence/arguments sounds awfully presumptuous. Because I don't think he'd be going to trial on such charges, unless there was evidence of such charges.
Basically, I have evidence and you have denial. Did you read that article I linked? Most of this was in there.
Seriously, the sooner you and everyone else with more than two brain cells to rub together puts him on ignore the better. He has never once contributed anything worthwhile to any discussions here and is always just regurgitating the same (false) talking points regardless of the truth. The more you guys respond to him, the more he posts his bullshit and the more ACTUAL discussion gets buried. It's the same tact most Trump supporters use when trying to defend the indefensible: lie, deflect and misdirect.
Really? So they weren't reporting the hack happened on June 14th? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/u...dnc-trump.html
That was the first reporting of it.
Russian bots push 'Russiagate Hoax' on Twitter right about the same time Trump declines cybersecurity again.
Hold on, I could have sworn I saw something about this...
THERE it was. Yes, Trump is complaining about having few followers, and apparently, thousands of them are Russian bots. I don't think having Congress involved will replace those thousands of Russian bots.