The verdict is in: the Trump slandering is a pack of lies

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  152 comments

By:   Hillary Clinton (New York Post)

The verdict is in: the Trump slandering is a pack of lies
John Durham revealed that claims a secret Donald Trump communication with a Russian bank claim is not true, like other allegations.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



In case you need more proof that the conspiracy theory about Donald Trump that obsessed the press and congressional Democrats for four years was made up by Hillary Clinton and her campaign, here comes another piece of evidence: John Durham reveals that the "a secret Trump server is communicating with a Russian bank" claim is bunk.

In a new filing, Durham reveals that the CIA concluded that cellphone data and Internet traffic provided by Clinton attorney Michael Sussmann was "not technically plausible" and "user created." Just like the Christopher Steele dossier, they made it all up. Wish the CIA could have told us that.

Robert Mueller said as much, yet many on the left continued to ignore his absolution, just as they will likely ignore or paper over the special counsel's conclusions. Clinton's team invented a story, forged evidence, and then presented it to the FBI and CIA as if it was something worth pursuing, derailing a presidency for years.

Let's review:

ALLEGATION: Trump had a secret computer server in communication with a Russian bank, and a Russian-made phone followed him wherever he went.

VERDICT: False. The CIA concluded the data, presented by Clinton lawyer Sussmann, who lied to agents that he was working independently, wasn't plausible. Many computer experts have since dismissed it as baloney.

ALLEGATION: Trump used "moles in the DNC" to hack Hillary Clinton's e-mails.

VERDICT: False. Mueller found no evidence of this, nor did anyone else. The e-mails were hacked, likely by a Russian group, and the Trump campaign had no knowledge it was going to happen, reporting has found.

Clinton's team invented a story in an effort to make Trump appear to be colluding with Russia.Andrew Schwartz / SplashNews.com

ALLEGATION: The Russians had "kompromat" on Trump, including videos of him with prostitutes.

VERDICT: False. Agents and reporters found no evidence. Nothing was ever released. Trump denied it and there was no support for the allegation. In fact, Durham alleges a Democratic operative was the source for Steele, meaning it was rumor-fueled, and likely made up, by people in Clinton's orbit.

ALLEGATION: Trump will help lift sanctions and boost Russia because he is compromised.

VERDICT: False. Trump increased sanctions as president and, though he wanted to forge a new relationship with Russia, gave Vladimir Putin nothing that he wanted.

ALLEGATION: Trump officials regularly met with Russian officials secretly.

VERDICT: False. The dossier says that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with Russian agents in Prague. That was denied repeatedly by Cohen and others and debunked by the Mueller report. After the election, Russian officials tried to contact Trump and inquire about top aide positions, information they should know about if Trump was really compromised.

We could go on and on, but much of the dossier and DNC allegations against Trump are "he likes Russia." Trump never made his ambitions to try to warm Russian-American relations secret. If he was naive, it wasn't compromised — it's called political differences.

Yet, "not technically plausible" and "user created" became the bywords of the day. Durham is chipping away at the conspiracy. And it is a conspiracy. The evidence is obvious.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago
In a new filing, Durham reveals that the CIA concluded that cellphone data and Internet traffic provided by Clinton attorney Michael Sussmann was "not technically plausible" and "user created." 


 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
cellphone data and Internet traffic provided by Clinton attorney Michael Sussmann was "not technically plausible" and "user created." 

Planting false/made up  information with the FBI/CIA  seems to be the go to plan for Democrats. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1    one month ago

It only worked for about 4 years.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

The people that created these lies are morally evil and despicable human beings.  Their crimes are the biggest scandal in US history.  They would have been treated exactly in that manner had Trump been the one who did these crimes against the other side.  Since it was directed at Trump by the democrat party, the media will down play it and try to minimize its impact.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2    one month ago

I think that's a fair assessment.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2    one month ago
"The people that created these lies are morally evil and despicable human beings."

Sounds like you're describing the #45 criminal enterprise of an 'administration'.

1/6/21 is the biggest scandal in US history and these endless articles on the Durham 'investigations' are just a mere deflection.  

Still waiting on all those indictments on the Obama administration!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

gee, I wonder if durham has ever talked to the other alleged perps?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.3    one month ago

It's called "too smart by half."

Now nobody gets it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Sussman is going to trial.

FQUH3N2XwAogPfK?format=png&name=small

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    one month ago

Hillary isn't worried.  How many years has this been going on now?  How many more years do you think this will go on?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.1    one month ago

Not much longer Tess. We need only wait until Sussman's trial is over.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    one month ago

So you think he is going to start the trial then be done with his report? Or continue...

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
2.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    one month ago

Why wait, you have already arrived at your verdict ...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.2    one month ago
So you think he is going to start the trial then be done with his report?

I didn't say anything like like that.


Or continue...

I believe a Sussman conviction may escalate the investigation.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @2.1.3    one month ago

Why wait, you would want to end this investigation.....

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    one month ago

Just curious as to how long you think it should continue. It has been three years.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.6    one month ago

"The wheels of justice  turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine."

Oh since I'm the only member obliged to do it:


 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.7    one month ago

So he should just keep on going, like the energizer bunny. Just curious as to what would ever be your cut off point. Five years? Ten?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.8    one month ago

You think it should be stopped?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.9    one month ago

I didn't say that. Just curious as to how long it should continue. At some point people need to clean up and move on.

Should it last ten years? All for some guy that lied to the FBI?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.10    one month ago
Should it last ten years?

A Special Counsel investigation has no time limits. How many times did we all say that the Mueller investigation needed to complete it's?  Remember when that was a litmus test?


All for some guy that lied to the FBI?

Oh, I think it's a bit more than that and I suspect you do too.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Ender @2.1.10    one month ago

In Vic's mind, the Trump campaign was completely innocent and is in fact the sole victim in the 2016 campaign. It is ridiculous, absurd and offensive, but it's his story and he's sticking to it. 

The "Russia hoax" allegation is gaslighting at the highest level. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.12    one month ago
In Vic's mind,

And in your mind, it was exactly as you once admitted:  You admitted that Mueller might have nothing but it would be good to get rid of Trump. Do you remember when you said that?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.11    one month ago

Actually I don't think it is much more than that.

The Mueller investigation was on average for these types of things. This investigation is already a year past that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.13    one month ago

One can think it is both a good idea to "get rid" of Trump , and understand the evidence. The investigation of Trump substantially precedes the effort by Sussman. 

You simply ignore all the conclusions, including by a republican led senate committee, which found that the Trump campaign was ready and willing to collude with Russia in 2016. And in fact they did collude with Russians. Manafort passed confidential polling material to a Russian spy, and Trump Jr met with people who he thought represented the Russian government in order to receive dirt on Hillary Clinton. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.16  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.14    one month ago
Actually I don't think it is much more than that.

Nothing more than a lie on a FISA application and another potential lie about whom a lawyer was working for is all it's about?  Two lawyers told whoppers and that's it?


The Mueller investigation was on average for these types of things.

How many Special Counsel investigations are you using to find your average time span?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.12    one month ago
In Vic's mind, the Trump campaign was completely innocent and is in fact the sole victim in the 2016 campaign.  It is ridiculous, absurd and offensive, but it's his story and he's sticking to it. 

So lets see the evidence of criminal wrong doing?  Been asking you to provide that for quite a while and you and your cronies provide nothing.  Meuller had what, 4 years and every asset available and come up empty.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.18  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.16    one month ago

Only one trial I see. Maybe Joe could pull a doanld and pardon him....

I was wrong. Actually Mueller was shorter than average.

A chart from Compass Point's Issac Boltansky and Lukas Davaz shows that the average length of special counsel investigations, dating back to Watergate, is 904 days.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.15    one month ago
One can think it is both a good idea to "get rid" of Trump

A bit of honesty is always refreshing.


You simply ignore all the conclusions, including by a republican led senate committee, which found that the Trump campaign was ready and willing to collude with Russia in 2016. And in fact they did collude with Russians. Manafort passed confidential polling material to a Russian spy, and Trump Jr met with people who he thought represented the Russian government in order to receive dirt on Hillary Clinton. 

The Mueller investigation was created in evil, with getting an AG to recuse himself in order to get a quisling to appoint a Special Prosecutor after framing the National Security advisor so the President wouldn't know he was the target of an investigation. If the duplicitous Andrew Weissmann could have dug up anything on Trump he would have nailed him. As it is, they knew from day 1 there was no collusion, yet they went on an a merry hunt which involved trying to frame people into giving false testimony and they prolonged the farce until they could hand off their "report" with implications, to a democrat controlled House. To most of the country, it looked bad.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.20  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.19    one month ago

Did you read the Mueller report?

I found an article the debunks all the myths about it. I think I should seed it.

Mueller specifically stated that according to Barr, a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. So he worded the report to lay out what he found and let congress take action as they sought fit (after he was out of office).

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.21  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.18    one month ago

So why not just post the chart?

Here is the chart from your link:

59428b9d688ad25f008b48b8?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp

So the shortest one was "Watergate?"  And what happened there?  Nixon resigned as I recall.

The longest was "Whitewater?"  And what happened there?  The evidence wasn't found....at least until after the investigation ended & the statute of limitations ran out.

Again, the same question you didn't want to answer:

So you want to end this one?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.22  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.17    one month ago
Meuller had what, 4 years and every asset available and come up empty.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report, released Thursday morning, sheds a little more light on why the president's eldest son was never indicted for his role in the infamous Trump Tower meeting in the summer of 2016.

Although the  Mueller report , covering the investigation of Russian interference in the last presidential election, acknowledges that Trump Jr. committed acts that might  look  a lot like brazen crimes, what ultimately saved him from prosecution is the fact that he didn't actually know that those acts might constitute crimes in the first place.

To recap: In June of that year,

Trump Jr. agreed to sit down with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian attorney who promised, in the words of the intermediary who set up the meeting, "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia" as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

Trump Jr. needed only minutes to respond. "If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer," he said—

" it", in this context, referring to the unambiguously-described efforts of a hostile foreign power to interfere directly in a U.S. presidential election.

Mueller Report: Donald Trump Jr. Saved by His Own Doofusness | GQ

Frankly, one would have to be a dumbass to not comprehend what that means. 

The Trump campaign colluded with Russians. And this predated both Steele and Sussman. 

You just dont know enough about this stuff to make it worthwhile to talk to you. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.23  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.20    one month ago
Mueller specifically stated that according to Barr, a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. So he worded the report to lay out what he found and let congress take action as they sought fit (after he was out of office).

We heard all that. That was the excuse for not filing charges. The obvious reason was that Weissmann had nothing.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.24  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.21    one month ago

I didn't post a chart because I was talking average.

I don't really care. Keep on keeping on. Just don't bitch about cost of things....

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.25  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.23    one month ago

You think Barr would have pressed charges?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.26  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.24    one month ago

Yes, you were talking average and this will clearly be the longest.  Thus the question is: does that justify ending it?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.25    one month ago
You think Barr would have pressed charges?

On what?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.28  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.27    one month ago

Well, who would have had to press charges against trump. Barr?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.29  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.22    one month ago
Frankly, one would have to be a dumbass to not comprehend what that means. 

One would have to either be dumb or a leftist to buy that shit. 

If they had anything they would have prosecuted the guy they hated.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.30  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.19    one month ago

You are hallucinating.  The Mueller investigation was ordered in response to James Comey being fired. Why was Comey fired? Because he would not promise Trump that he would be "loyal" to Trump in terms of ending the FBI investigation , an investigation which was begun long before Sussman or Steele. 

Donald Trump Jr was told, in the spring of 2016, that the Russian government had dirt on Clinton. What did he do? He met with people he thought represented the Russian government in order to get the dirt. 

That IS collusion Vic. The fact that Mueller didnt think he could send Trump Jr to prison for it is immaterial. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.31  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.28    one month ago
Well, who would have had to press charges against trump. Barr?

With what???  If Weissmann couldn't do it, how could Barr do it?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.32  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.31    one month ago

Didn't Weismann return to the private sector right after the report.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.33  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.30    one month ago
The Mueller investigation was ordered in response to James Comey being fired.

That wouldn't have been good enough if Sessions stayed on.


Why was Comey fired? 

The President doesn't need a reason, but the reason was that Comey repeatedly lied to Trump. He lied when he said he wasn't investigating Trump.


Donald Trump Jr was told, in the spring of 2016, that the Russian government had dirt on Clinton. What did he do? He met with people he thought represented the Russian government in order to get the dirt. 

So what?  As it turns out, he never got any info and the so-called Russians had a link to Fushion-GPS, which tells us what?


That IS collusion Vic. 

It's Bullshit and everyone knows it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.34  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.32    one month ago

He returned to Jenner & Block and as all discredited Trump haters do, he became a MSNBC analyst.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.35  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.34    one month ago

Point being, I would think then the role of indicting trump for anything would have been up to Barr?

There is no way he would have done it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.36  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.33    one month ago
As it turns out, he never got any info and the so-called Russians had a link to Fushion-GPS, which tells us what?

Trump Jr was told the dirt was coming from the Russian government. He agreed to receive the dirt, and in fact attempted to do so. 

He colluded with Russians who he thought represented the Russian government.

Mueller didnt describe it as collusion only because he wasnt going to indict Trump Jr, (because Mueller had concluded that Trump Jr was too stupid to realize that what he was doing was illegal. )

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.37  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @2.1.35    one month ago

You really don't have a point. You can't explain why Andrew Weissmann wouldn't prosecute Donald Trump when Robert Mueller had all the authority as a Special Counsel to do so. You imply the Durham investigation is taking too long, yet you won't say that you want it ended.  

When you are ready to make a point, let me know.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.38  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.36    one month ago
He colluded with Russians who he thought represented the Russian government.

He didn't.  End of story.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.39  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.38    one month ago

Of course he did. The fact that no material changed hands is immaterial. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1.40  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.39    one month ago

Point being, Barr had a directive that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
2.1.41  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.22    one month ago

Collusion is not a criminal offense and is not illegal in any way

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.42  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.39    one month ago
The fact that no material changed hands is immaterial. 

Oh, Really?  Then why wasn't the hated Trump charged?

Oh, let me guess....because the unscrupulous Andrew Weissmann wanted to honor some vague DOJ precedent?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.43  JohnRussell  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.41    one month ago

Thats not what Mueller said. He said he was not indicting Trump Jr because he didnt think he could get a conviction, mainly because he thought Trump Jr didnt realize what he was doing was illegal. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.44  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.43    one month ago

Oh....ignorance of the law?  That Weissmann is such a softie!

As for Mueller, you got to see and hear him in the end. He was a proxy in the same sense as Joe Biden is.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.45  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.41    one month ago

Collusion to commit crimes is not a crime?

Conspiring with a foreign government to hack the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign was criminal. All the lies told to investigators about that were crimes. Trump pardoned his co-conspirators Paul Manafort and Roger Stone before they could rat him out!

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
2.1.46  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.5    one month ago

The investigation has become as boring as the person conducting it and the person flogging it.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
2.1.47  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @2.1.45    one month ago

Do show where Trump had anything to do with the hacking of the DNC servers or the Clinton campaign. Legitimate and non-biased sources please 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.48  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.42    one month ago

I'm so tired of your endless nonsense on this topic. Trump was not investigated because of anything Hillary Clinton or this Sussman character did.  Period. The investigation was well underway already. 

Its a "free" forum though, so I guess you are allowed to spread this crap to your hearts desire. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.49  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @2.1.46    one month ago

I have a feeling it's going to get even more "boring."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.50  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.47    one month ago

I'm still looking for the crime called "collusion."

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.51  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.48    one month ago
I'm so tired of your endless nonsense on this topic.

Get some rest.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.52  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @2.1.45    one month ago
Collusion to commit crimes is not a crime?

Of course, collusion, or a conspiracy, to commit crimes is a crime. Since no one was indicted for that, what does that tell you??

 with a foreign government to hack the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign was criminal

The lies are flying fast and furious today!

 All the lies told to investigators about that were crimes

Quick! Tell Mueller. More crimes he missed that you caught!.. 

Why is it, do you think, so many progressives can't attack Trump using facts and have to resort to lying about him? 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
2.1.53  arkpdx  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.52    one month ago

Collusion and conspiracy are two different things. Collusion is not illegal but conspiracy is. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.54  Sean Treacy  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.53    one month ago

Mueller was charged with looking into collusion. As he explained in his report, collusion and conspiracy are essentially interchangeable  terms.  Since the particular statute he was focused on uses conspiracy, he used conspiracy in his report. It's hard to  imagine a situation where someone colluded with Russia but wouldn't be guilty of conspiracy.  The idea that Trump "colluded" with Russia but didn't "conspire" is a red herring. 

Per Mueller "even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute"

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
2.1.55  arkpdx  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.54    one month ago
 Mueller "even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy 

Largely synonymous but not entirely synonymous. The difference being conspiracy is illegal and collusion is not. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.56  Sean Treacy  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.55    one month ago

No, that's not what Mueller said. They describe the same behavior. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
2.1.57  arkpdx  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.56    one month ago

The Mueller quote I used came directly from your comment 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.58  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.22    one month ago
The Trump campaign colluded with Russians

I've ask you this several times and you dodge it every time but I'll ask it again - exactly what part of the USC is that a crime?  

When you finally find the answer to this you will realize why many laugh at you and your conspiracy theories.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.60  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.12    one month ago
"In Vic's mind, the Trump campaign was completely innocent and is in fact the sole victim in the 2016 campaign. It is ridiculous, absurd and offensive, but it's his story and he's sticking to it.  The "Russia hoax" allegation is gaslighting at the highest level."

Ya!  Indeed!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.61  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @2.1.20    one month ago

"Did you read the Mueller report?

I found an article the debunks all the myths about it. I think I should seed it.

Mueller specifically stated that according to Barr, a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. So he worded the report to lay out what he found and let congress take action as they sought fit (after he was out of office)."

Barr was #45's consigliere so isn't that a shocker!

You should seed that article. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.62  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.49    one month ago
"I have a feeling it's going to get even more "boring."

That's not possible.  All these years and this is all you got and you think more is coming?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.63  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.62    one month ago

We'll have to see, won't we Tess?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.64  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.63    one month ago

And away they go ......

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.65  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.63    one month ago

How many years is that going to take?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.66  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.65    one month ago

That depends on how many cooperate. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.67  Sean Treacy  replied to  arkpdx @2.1.57    one month ago

Mueller did not say one was a crime and one wasn't. That distinction doesn't exist.  One can conspire with his friends to skip a birthday party. That doesn't make skipping the party illegal. 

They, as Mueller said, describe the same behavior.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3  Jeremy Retired in NC    one month ago

It's odd that every allegation was used in a failed attempt to remove Trump from office.  Something that the left conveniently forgets when they go off on their tantrums about the "Big Lie".

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    one month ago

The "Big Lie" has nothing to do with Russia, or Hillary Clinton. Try and understand what you are talking about before you start. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago
The "Big Lie" has nothing to do with Russia, or Hillary Clinton.

And exactly where did I say it did?  You should really try to keep up and understand what you are talking about.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.1    one month ago

I am trying to help you make a little sense. But ignore it if you like. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    one month ago

So you figured you'd throw together some bullshit about me.  Looks like it's you who doesn't understand.  

Everything you, your ignorant cronies and the Democrats have done since 2016 has been exactly what you claim is Trump's "Big Lie", to reverse an election.  

Stand there, stomp your feet, cry, throw another tantrum, I don't care.  Nothing I said was false.  The Democrats attempted to reverse an election.  You are willfully ignoring that fact.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.3    one month ago

Your dependence on right wing media has left you unable to know what the hell you are talking about. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.4    one month ago

Can you refute the facts presented in the article? Of course you can't.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.5    one month ago

Im not even that interested in the "facts" presented in the article. They are not very important in general, and they certainly are not important to whether or not the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was justified. 

The FBI investigation of Trump was begun by the FBI in the first half of 2016, long before anything referred to in the seeded article above took place. The idea that Trump was framed and that is all there is to it is utter nonsense. 

Hillary Clinton did not instigate the investigation of Donald Trump. Yet garbage like the seeded article will lead morons on the right to believe that Clinton was the mastermind. Trump was investigated because people in his campaign were making strange statements about Russia having dirt on Clinton. 

The Mueller investigation began BECAUSE Trump fired James Comey, who was the head of the FBI at the time. Period. and the appearance was there that Trump thus had something to hide. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.6    one month ago

Since hunter Biden is under investigation at the moment, you have no problem with the republicans forging evidence and submitting it to the DOJ then?

and You think trump is a threat to democracy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.7    one month ago
"Since hunter Biden is under investigation at the moment"

For what?

"and You think trump is a threat to democracy"

He is, along with his supporters

278264388_540432160777999_616506141244137846_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p552x414&_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=0_pfF5XnvdoAX-D1y4J&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8WqYTnMNy84ykBX5h_5D5ZigvwS7KqjMzhWHREbUL0Uw&oe=62624546

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.8    one month ago
For what?

Brave of you to admit you don't pay any attention to the news you comment on. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.4    one month ago

So what you are saying by going after ME is you cannot refute a single fact in this article or what I said.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.10    one month ago

What facts?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.11    one month ago

Read the article.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.12    one month ago

What a waste of time that would be!
How many years do we have to hear about this?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.6    one month ago
Im not even that interested in the "facts" presented in the article. They are not very important in general,

No need to read any further.    This says it all.

SOSDD for you John.    [Deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.13    one month ago
What a waste of time that would be!

[Deleted]

How many years do we have to hear about this?

If you haven't noticed, there are a very select few who routinely seed articles about Trump and a select number of trolls that show up trying to deflect to Trump.  But how much longer do you have to hear about this?  It really depends you all on the left.  How many times are you all going to deflect to Trump?  How many more "smoking gun" articles are we going to see here from the left? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.16  Sparty On  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.14    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.17  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.14    one month ago

If you want to debate me on whether or not the investigations of Trump's 2016 campaign were justified, we can do that.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.18  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.13    one month ago

You mean that you come here and comment about stuff you never read?  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
3.1.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.18    one month ago

Please tell me you are actually surprised by that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    one month ago

IT'S NOT SLANDER IF IT'S TRUE.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @4    one month ago

Prove it's true. You can't.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1    one month ago

Durham can't either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.1    one month ago

We will let the courts and jury decide that…

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5  JBB    one month ago

Except that, and there is no doubt here, beginning by at least 2014 and continuing right up to election day 2016 Trump was in secret negotiations with clandestine agents of Russian State Intelligence Services to build Trump Tower in Moscow and then he lied about it...

Considering that Mrs Clinton retired from public service in January of 2013 it is inconceivable she caused the FBI and CIA to initiate the investigations into Trump's Russian connections between 2014 and 2016.

Trump got himself investigated on his own accord!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @5    one month ago

[deleted]

The IG Report makes clear what caused the investigation of Trump.

Moreover, it's batshit crazy to believe you can submit made up evidence to the FBI just because someone is being investigated. Did you read the story?  Why do you imagine your bs made up conpsiracy theory would be relevant to this, even if it was true? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.1  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1    one month ago

The predicates for FBI and CIA Investigations into Trump's Russian connections were standard operating procedures for those agencies. The same as anyone seeking out, communicating with and establishing relationships with known agents of Russian State Intelligence Services, as Trump did.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @5.1.1    one month ago
he predicates for FBI and CIA Investigations into Trump's Russian connections were standard operating procedures for those agencies. The same as anyone seeking out, communicating with and establishing relationships with known agents of Russian State Intelligence Services, as T

Trump was not under investigation until midway through 2016.  See John's post. He got it right it a couple posts above.

. You are lying . You've been asked to dozens of times to prove your claim and you never have. You just continue to spread misinformation.

I also notice you didn't defend your claim \ that you can submit forged evidence to the FBI if they've already started an investigation. A lie too far for you? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.3  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.2    one month ago

That in inaccurate. The CIA and FBI do not give out details but Trump was investigated by US and many other nation's espionage agencies beginning by 2014, which cannot be denied!

Still, Hillary retired from public service in January of 2013. How was she responsible for FBI and CIA investigations into Trump's Russian connections in 2016? Hum? Answer me that...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @5.1.3    one month ago
he CIA and FBI do not give out details but Trump was investigated by US and many other nation's espionage agencies beginning by 2014. That cannot even be denied!

Okay., sure.   You "know" this. And you "know"  Mueller Lied. And you "know" the IG Lied. And you "know" the Obama  admin spied on Trump without a warrant and apparently committed all sorts of crimes that no one knows about .  All this top secret information and you are the only one  who knows it.

Rejigger your tinfoil hat.  

um? Answer me that...

In your world, you  believe private citizens can't  get in trouble for lying to the FBI?  Who the hell believes only government officials can get in trouble for providing false information?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.5  JBB  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.4    one month ago

None of that alters the fact that Trump and Co sought out and met with about fifty different agents of Russian State Intelligence Services in the years leading up to the 2016 Presidential election. Nobody in the CIA or FBI has or ever will deny they were investigating the secret communications between Trump and Russia.. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.6  bugsy  replied to  JBB @5.1.5    one month ago
fifty different agents of Russian State Intelligence Services

Oh, they are just agents now?

You almost had us believing s/ they were "clandestine" agents with the amount of times you spewed that bs.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6  Sparty On    one month ago

Man .... it’s going to be fun watching the meltdowns, excuses, denials, redirects and outright lies that come from this.

Watching folks here impeach their own character and credibility is going to be a hoot.    Kinda anti-climatic though because we already know the score for most here but it’s like potato chips I suppose    It’s tough to eat just one.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
PhD Participates
6.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Sparty On @6    one month ago

Between years of the MSM's and Big Tech's disinformation about Hillary, Covid, and the Biden Syndicate, we've got a lot of entertainment ahead of us. Get the popcorn ready!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1    one month ago

"Between years of the MSM's and Big Tech's disinformation about Hillary, Covid, and the Biden Syndicate"

Projection, deflection, and denial regarding disinformation - the leader of the criminal enterprise of an administration waddled out of the White House on 1/20/21.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1    one month ago

Oh yeah ..... and it begins ....

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
6.1.3  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    one month ago
Projection, deflection, and denial regarding disinformation 

I am sure you and those of your ilk will continue to do just that

 
 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
8  Hallux    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
8.1  Ender  replied to  Hallux @8    one month ago

Hillary as the writer?   Hahaha

(In his defence, I have done that before. I have to go back and change it as the fetch function does that on its own sometimes)

 
 
 
Jasper2529
PhD Participates
8.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Hallux @8    one month ago
It would be nice if the seeder actually attributed the authorship of this article to the person who wrote it.

All you have to do is click on "Seeded Article" to learn that the article was written and published by the NY Post's Editorial Board.

The verdict is in: The Trump slandering is a pack of lies

By 
Post Editorial Board
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @8.2    one month ago

Don't worry, they know that.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
9  Thomas    one month ago

This is the byline in the POST

The verdict is in: The Trump slandering is a pack of lies

By
Post Editorial Board
This is the byline in Vic's article:
  Hillary Clinton (New York Post)
Vic, if you wish for people to take you seriously, you really shouldn't attribute a hit piece on a person to that person.......
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @9    one month ago

Take it up with TiG. 


 
 
 
Jasper2529
PhD Participates
9.1.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1    one month ago

I've found it odd that sometimes when I've seeded an article, the actual headline and byline and what appears on my seed aren't the same. Perhaps this is another example?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @9.1.1    one month ago

There are numerous glitches. I originally wanted another source for this article but it simply refused to accept the link.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9.1.3  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.2    one month ago

Then you typed in "Hillary Clinton" knowing that Mrs Clinton she was not the author...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @9.1.3    one month ago
Then you typed in "Hillary Clinton" knowing that Mrs Clinton she was not the author...

That's a big accusation. One that needs to be proved.

I demand that it be looked at. 

Get management to do it and then we'll all have a good talk.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.4    one month ago
I demand that it be looked at. 

Hasnt there been enough pointless moderation on this forum ? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.5    one month ago
Hasnt there been enough pointless moderation on this forum ? 

There is no place for false accusations here!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
9.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JBB @9.1.3    one month ago

Folks Vic didn't do that. This is a glitch. Vic used fetch and the glitch comes from the New York Post, which probably is unaware that it is in its coding. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.6    one month ago
There is no place for false accusations here!

You sound like someone who hasnt read his own seeds.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
Professor Quiet
9.1.9  Steve Ott  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1.7    one month ago

It is a glitch, and I noticed it only because I proof read my seeds before sending out.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.8    one month ago

It's because iv'e read yours.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Steve Ott @9.1.9    one month ago

That's why your listed as a professor!

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
10  bbl-1    one month ago

Durham is just trying to cover for Trump.  Trump is Russia dirty.  Trump has laundered Russian, Saudi and Chinese money for decades.  And this is what Durham is protecting and he knows it. 

And there is this too.  Why on earth did Trump say he, "Saved Mohamed bin Salman's ass."  Why did Trump say and do that?  What else is involved in this murder?  Is it possible that the 'ass saved' was Trump's?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  bbl-1 @10    one month ago
Durham is just trying to cover for Trump. 

Yup, no doubt/ S

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
10.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1    one month ago

Yep, no doubt.  "I saved Mohammed bin Salman's ass," Donald J. Trump.  Yep, no doubt.  The man you support is a traitor and perhaps an accomplice in a murder.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
10.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.1    one month ago
The man you support is a traitor and perhaps an accomplice in a murder.

And I will assume that you have absolute hard evidence that you will share with us all. Or are you just blowing smoke like usual

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
10.1.3  bbl-1  replied to  arkpdx @10.1.2    one month ago

That is what Trump said.  Why did he say it?  Or--------save his ass from what?

No smoke.  You guys are afraid of the truth even if your democracy hangs in the balance.  Why?  Why is that?  What are you protecting?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
10.1.4  arkpdx  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.3    one month ago

Where is proof of a treasonous act or that he was an accomplice to murder. Just because you say it does not make it so. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  arkpdx @10.1.4    one month ago
that he was an accomplice to murder. Just because you say it does not make it so. 

Just one more of dozens of smoking guns liberals always claim will really, really "get" Trump.

Isn't it tiresome?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
10.1.6  arkpdx  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.5    one month ago
Isn't it tiresome? 

Very. 

It is also is kind of sad to think that there are people who have Trump still living rent free in there heads and so completely dominate their thought processes. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
10.1.7  bbl-1  replied to  arkpdx @10.1.4    one month ago

I asked the question.  That is what Trump said.  What did he mean?  How did he 'save' bin Salman?  And what did he save the Saudi Crown Prince from?

You have an explanation?  If so, I will gladly have the discussion.  It is on you.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
10.1.8  arkpdx  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.7    one month ago

You'd have to ask him. I don't even know that he said that. I asked the question about what evidence do you have that he committed treason. So far all I have heard is crickets

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
10.1.9  bbl-1  replied to  arkpdx @10.1.8    one month ago

Understand.  If it is beyond a (Brandon Thing) your ability to correlate is limited.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
10.1.10  arkpdx  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.9    one month ago

So in reality you are telling me you got nothing. Just admit your treason statement was BS. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
10.1.11  bbl-1  replied to  arkpdx @10.1.10    one month ago

No.  Just waiting for your next Brandon thing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.2  Tessylo  replied to  bbl-1 @10    one month ago

Whathisname is a mobster since way back when!  A thug.  A grifter.  A conman.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
10.2.1  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @10.2    one month ago

Brandon is an incompetent fool that is destroying this country. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
10.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  bbl-1 @10    one month ago
Trump is Russia dirty.  Trump has laundered Russian, Saudi and Chinese money for decades. 

And yet after 4 years of investigating there is nothing to back up your claim.  Although that's no surprise.  The left has run off unfounded claims for a few years now.  

 

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
11  bbl-1    one month ago

Actual fact.  Everything and everybody Trump slanders are always based on lies.  Always.  And this from 'the man' that stated during an interview, with his daughter Ivanka seated beside him, that if, "She wasn't his daughter, he'd be dating her."

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
11.1  arkpdx  replied to  bbl-1 @11    one month ago

[deleted] If you are trying to boost Biden up by bringing up trump you are failing epically

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
11.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  arkpdx @11.1    one month ago

You for real?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
11.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  bbl-1 @11.1.1    one month ago

I am very much for real. Now are you going to  answer my question or are you going to duck it again?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  arkpdx @11.1    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 

Who is online

Vic Eldred
Ed-NavDoc
gooseisback


24 visitors