Dems Admit: No Evidence of Trump/Russia Conspiracy
 

It's time to put this fake issue to rest. Dems, Liberals, the msm (especially pMSNBC and specifically Rachel Maddow) have spent hundreds of programming hours claiming there was some conspiracy involving Trump and the Russians.

Finally, after stoking the fake issue into a raging, partisan inferno, some Dems are beginning to make the rounds to try and " tamp them down."

"""The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton’s most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, “In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to “cast doubt” on “allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.” “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all,” he said, adding, “There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”""

This is huge. But Morell isn't the only one backpedaling:

"""Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally. Unlike Morell, who left his official CIA position in 2013 but remains very integrated into the intelligence community, Clapper was Obama’s DNI until just seven weeks ago, leaving on January 20."""

It goes on:

""""Perhaps most revealing of all are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — charged with investigating these matters — who recently told BuzzFeed how petrified they are of what the Democratic base will do if they do not find evidence of collusion, as they now suspect will likely be the case. “There’s a tangible frustration over what one official called ‘wildly inflated’ expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation,” BuzzFeed’s Ali Watkins wrote.

Moreover, “several committee sources grudgingly say, it feels as though the investigation will be seen as a sham if the Senate doesn’t find a silver bullet connecting Trump and Russian intelligence operatives.” One member told Watkins: “I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations.”"""

Are you reading this, Aquila? JD?

Speaking of our resident libs, I remember one in particular speaking out against Congress's investigation of Clinton, and how it was just a GOP witch hunt. I wonder if he will apply his strong condemnation to his own party now. Doubtful. Because it's all politics, as Aquila previously posted. While JD believed the GOP was being partisan in its investigation of Clinton, I doubt he believes the same of the Dems.

What is becoming clear is the Dems are worried they have opened Pandora's box and have done and become what they spent years condemning.

There was no Trump/Russia conspiracy. And finally the Dems are beginning to admit it.

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/...sia-collusion/

Re: Dems Admit: No Evidence of Trump/Russia Conspi
 

If there is anything to the accusations made against Trump and the Trump Administration we're not going to see any real legal action taken on it until just before the midterm elections. Until then, the debate will swing back and forth in and out of Trump's favor.

Re: Dems Admit: No Evidence of Trump/Russia Conspi
 

Isn't that convenient.

Like certain eschatologies or so called prophets with their failed prophecies, dates are moved up to strengthen an argument. Always an answer can be provided so the cognitive dissonance is kept intact.

Re: Dems Admit: No Evidence of Trump/Russia Conspi
 

So, what? It appears you're unsure of what you were recently so sure about.

The Dems and libs sound a lot like Trump. Both made wild accusations; neither had any evidence to prove it. Trump claimed obama wiretapped his tower, no proof; Dems claim Trump and Russia conspired to win the election, no proof.

Re: Dems Admit: No Evidence of Trump/Russia Conspi
 

Yesterday, FBI Director James Comey confirmed that Donald Trump remains under active criminal investigation for alleged conspiracy, yet even as Comey was testifying live on national television Trump was busy tweeting yet another lie – falsely claiming that FBI Director James Comey and National Security Director Michael Rogers told Congress “that Russia did not influence the electoral process.” Trump is an idiot. Trump doesn't understand English well enough to understand that these men just explained that he's is still under investigation. lol

Re: Dems Admit: No Evidence of Trump/Russia Conspi
 

That's a bit dishonest. Ironic how you bash Trump for tweeting a lie, yet you completely twist what Comey said. Trump isn't under an "active criminal investigation." The FBI is investigating "the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russia's efforts."

That's a direct quote from Comey. Later on, Comey is asked "If this committee or anyone else for that matter, someone from the public, comes with information to you about the Hillary Clinton campaign or their associates or someone from the Clinton Foundation, will you add that to your investigation? They have ties to Russian intelligence services, Russian agents, would that be something of interest to you?"

Comey's answer: "People bring us information about what they think is improper unlawful activity of any kind, we will evaluate it. Not just in -- not just in this context. Folk send us stuff all the time."



1) Comey and Rogers both stated the election results were not hacked, contrary to what was going around a while back. Yes, they believe the Russians gave information to Wikileaks to damage Hillary, but as far as the election being compromised, there is no evidence it was.

2) Again, I'm not sure you understand the FBI investigation. You post as though there's a criminal investigation focused on Trump. That's misleading, because it's not a criminal investigation and also because it's an investigation on Russian interference and whether anyone from Trump's campaign conspired unlawfully.

Re: Dems Admit: No Evidence of Trump/Russia Conspi
 

Re: Dems Admit: No Evidence of Trump/Russia Conspi
 

True, there is an ongoing investigation relating to Russia's efforts to interfere and any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russia's efforts. :thumbsup

I don't remember hearing that Russia hacked "election results". In fact, it would be virtually impossible to do so. However, it does look as though the Russians illegally hacked into the servers belonging to Democrats, gained information, and used that information to politically damage Trump's political opponents - thereby swaying the electorate with information gained illegally.

You are correct, there is an ongoing investigation regarding the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russia's efforts. :thumbsup

P.S.
Investigating any possible links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign who might have links to Russia and Russia's illegal efforts includes Trump himself.

Re: Dems Admit: No Evidence of Trump/Russia Conspi
 

A Ukrainian lawmaker released financial documents today showing that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort laundered payments from the party of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych -- who enjoyed Moscow’s backing while he was in power and has been in hiding in Russia since being overthrown by pro-Western protesters in 2014.

Manafort resigned from Trump’s campaign in August after his name surfaced in connection with some of those payments.

The documents were released just hours after the House Intelligence Committee questioned FBI Director James B. Comey about possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

I don’t think we’re going to get to the bottom of this until the investigation is headed by a bi-partisan select committee of Congress, and run by an independent special prosecutor.

Re: Dems Admit: No Evidence of Trump/Russia Conspi
 

Yes, but your posts are misleading. This is not a criminal investigation into Donald J. Trump. This is an investigation into Russia and whether anyone in the campaign (yes, including Trump) broke any laws.


The libs big whine was that the Russians hacked the election and Trump won because the Russians hacked the election.

This is hilarious, because both parties are in the thick of it. On one hand, you have Gowdy going on and on about how the leakers and reporters should get up to 10 years in federal prison for espionage. He was angry about the leakers and not the alleged content of the leak, which could be just as serious (if proven to be true).

On the other hand, you have libs more upset that the DNC was exposed by Wikileaks than they are that the DNC conducted a fraudulent primary and purposefully and intentionally swayed the primary so Hillary would win.

Hilarious!

What's worse, Aquila -- Wikileaks publishing an email showing Donna Brazille helping Clinton cheat in a debate or that Brazille actually did help Clinton cheat in a debate and just recently admitted to lying about it?

What's worse -- Wikileaks publishing an email from the DNC heads exposing their fraudulent actions, or that the DNC actually committed fraud in its primary?

Also, please tell me the difference here:

A) The Wikileaks obtains an email about the DNC committing fraud and publishes it.

B) The NYTimes obtains an email about the DNC committing fraud and publishes it.

The NYTimes itself printed this 12/13/16: "Though Mr. Assange did not say so, WikiLeaks’ best defense may be the conduct of the mainstream American media. Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the D.N.C. and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence."

So tell me again how bad Wikileaks was for publishing emails when "every major publication" and news network ran stories and headlines using the very same emails?