An ex-bartender in New York should be privy to information that a chemist can't see, because she got unopposed votes? Ludicrous!
A bunch of Ivy League prima-donnas are smarter than you and I? Do you think that Bill Clinton is some genius? Do you think he earned his education or did he 'earn' it by privilege? What about George Bush or any other of those elitists? Do you really think their families didn't game the system the same way as those morons that got caught? I don't think so.
Who questions the Democrats' motives in the media?
It should be the Republicans. Much like when people called out Trump for always picking Fox News during media breifings because they will lob a softball question at him.
If it is determined that Democrats have I’ll motives by using the media, then their opposition should call them out for it.
But media is there to inform. That is it. The Democrats are using it to inform voters in what their motives are or why their platforms would be better alternative than the ones being brought forth by the Republicans.
Who questioned when Hillary was given a Senate seat despite never having lived in New York? Anybody?
The people of New York who elected her questioned if she was worthy of having a Senate seat. Obviously they thought she was. Feel free to disagree with their choice, but since you do not live there, you personally do not have a say in the matter.
The question then has to be asked if this is an issue? During her time as Senator of New York, did she do anything that hindered that state? Of the answer is No, then it doesn’t matter if she lived there prior or not. She had the citizens she represented in mind in every decision she made.
Everybody should be questioning everything or our education system is a failure. Republicans will oppose Democrat opinions regardless of whether they're good for the country and vice-versa just to hold or gain power. The only thing that can stop that is an electorate that knows what the Hell is going on!
Who questions the Democrats' motives in the media?
It should be the Republicans. Much like when people called out Trump for always picking Fox News during media breifings because they will lob a softball question at him.
If it is determined that Democrats have I’ll motives by using the media, then their opposition should call them out for it.
But media is there to inform. That is it. The Democrats are using it to inform voters in what their motives are or why their platforms would be better alternative than the ones being brought forth by the Republicans.
Who questioned when Hillary was given a Senate seat despite never having lived in New York? Anybody?
The people of New York who elected her questioned if she was worthy of having a Senate seat. Obviously they thought she was. Feel free to disagree with their choice, but since you do not live there, you personally do not have a say in the matter.
The question then has to be asked if this is an issue? During her time as Senator of New York, did she do anything that hindered that state? Of the answer is No, then it doesn’t matter if she lived there prior or not. She had the citizens she represented in mind in every decision she made.
Yeah, I'm sure a majority of New York voters were ever going to vote in a Republican. Are you telling me there weren't any worthy Democratic Party New Yorkers who deserved it more than the 'chosen one' who was being groomed? You were swindled. Sorry...
Edit: She didnt give a rat's ass about New York except as a stepping-stone to the presidency. At least in Michigan we had Carl Levin. I didn't always like his politics but I knew he cared about my state.
Everybody should be questioning everything or our education system is a failure. Republicans will oppose Democrat opinions regardless of whether they're good for the country and vice-versa just to hold or gain power. The only thing that can stop that is an electorate that knows what the Hell is going on!
A healthy bit of skepticism is good. Too much and it isn’t.
And as long as you do not draw conclusions from your skepticism and you ask the proper questions to address it does making it healthy.
It seems that Mueller laid out evidence on both sides on whether Trump obstructed justice, and William Barr alone has made the determination that he hasn't. Trump's hand-picked AG. In a summary shorter than some of my posts. The fix is in.
Everybody should be questioning everything or our education system is a failure. Republicans will oppose Democrat opinions regardless of whether they're good for the country and vice-versa just to hold or gain power. The only thing that can stop that is an electorate that knows what the Hell is going on!
A healthy bit of skepticism is good. Too much and it isn’t.
And as long as you do not draw conclusions from your skepticism and you ask the proper questions to address it does making it healthy.
True skepticism is in short supply in this country. It seems to me that most people are one-sidedly skeptical. Both parties are as corrupt as Hell and I'd like to see both go down in flames. Changing the guard isn't going to fix anything, despite what most of you in this thread think. We've been down that road before.
Who questions the Democrats' motives in the media?
It should be the Republicans. Much like when people called out Trump for always picking Fox News during media breifings because they will lob a softball question at him.
If it is determined that Democrats have I’ll motives by using the media, then their opposition should call them out for it.
But media is there to inform. That is it. The Democrats are using it to inform voters in what their motives are or why their platforms would be better alternative than the ones being brought forth by the Republicans.
Who questioned when Hillary was given a Senate seat despite never having lived in New York? Anybody?
The people of New York who elected her questioned if she was worthy of having a Senate seat. Obviously they thought she was. Feel free to disagree with their choice, but since you do not live there, you personally do not have a say in the matter.
The question then has to be asked if this is an issue? During her time as Senator of New York, did she do anything that hindered that state? Of the answer is No, then it doesn’t matter if she lived there prior or not. She had the citizens she represented in mind in every decision she made.
Yeah, I'm sure a majority of New York voters were ever going to vote in a Republican. Are you telling me there weren't any worthy Democratic Party New Yorkers who deserved it more than the 'chosen one' who was being groomed? You were swindled. Sorry...
Edit: She didnt give a rat's ass about New York except as a stepping-stone to the presidency. At least in Michigan we had Carl Levin. I didn't always like his politics but I knew he cared about my state.
Maybe the Republicans instead of throwing in the towel could have led with that: Our candidate is from New York and knows what problems you face. Our opponent is just being groomed for a higher office and will forget about this state in 4 years.
Why didn’t they? Why just throw in the towel just because it’s New York?
New York has imbraced Republicans politicans before. Rudi was mayor of New York and credited with removing a lot of its crime.
I posted the actual appointment letter yesterday. As I said the appointment was for an intelligence investigation "to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election". The letter does goes on to clarify that "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" should be covered by the investigation, but that does not change the fact that it was set up as:
a) an investigation of Russian interference; and
b) an intelligence and not a criminal investigation.
No, not really. We can look at the letter right here and easily determine what the scope and goal of the investigation was.
Relevant sections circled for emphasis.
It's pretty clear that
A ) It was an investigation of the Donald Trump campaign, and
B ) It was about prosecution.
Sure, he says that this will help ensure a more thorough investigation of the Russians, but let's not pretend that the directly stated scope of the investigation wasn't the directly stated scope of the investigation, which was to investigate the Trump campaign, not the Russians.
As for zero evidence, there has already been evidence made public about links between the campaign and the Russians. That covers things like information about leaks being passed to the campaign before the leaks are made public, meetings between Russians and campaign members, lies told by Trump about his financial relations with Russia and demographic information passed by the campaign to the Russians. Whether or not those links approached the level required for a criminal conspiracy was not the main thrust of the investigation - that was the implications for national security of a foreign power influencing a US election.
The fact that we're still rehashing tired old media headlines as though they have an ounce of credibility left even after a full investigation shows why we are in full blown conspiracy territory.
There is no falsifying it, there will never be an acceptance that maybe these dots we are just *so sure* are connected are just wrong, even after there isn't any denying it anymore.
If this is evidence of collusion as you say, where are the indictments?
Are you saying they ignored these obvious leads? Based on what?
If they didn't, and they investigated them only to conclude there is no evidence worthy of an indictment, that more or less settles it doesn't it.
But of course it won't, because conspiracies aren't settled by evidence or by investigations or by anything rational.
At this stage in the game, half assed circumstantial cases based on conjecture and assumption just don't cut it.
People, including the media, are allowed to question the actions of individuals and that does not make it a conspiracy theory:
Don Jr, what was discussed at the hotel meeting that was brought up through these unearthed emails?
President Trump, a few days before this meeting you referenced that you were about to get dirt on your opponent Clinton, what were you specificly referencing when you made those comments?
Mr Manafort, it has come to the public’s attention that you handed polling data on the American election over to the Russians. For what purpose was this done?
President Trump, why when meeting with Russian officials, you do not have any other staff present with you including translators?
President Trump, why do you confiscate notes regarding these meetings from your staff if they do attend?
These questions, even if the generic response is “WITCH-HUNT” does not equate a conspiracy theory. They are answers that the public should know and speculating on the reasons, after an answer is not given or that person is caught in a lie does not make a person less credible.
The media can question whatever it wants, sure. But when it systemically promotes an ideologically-driven narrative for two years as the gospel truth and as though American democracy itself rests on the shoulders of this investigation and major leaders were outright accusing someone of bribery and treason, and it turns out to have no basis in fact, saying "we were just questioning things" strikes me as a lackluster post-hoc rationalization.
Instead of indulging in their own fantasies and confirmation bias, maybe they should care about truth, and the facts.
And yeah, if the below news is true, big blow to the conspiracy mongers. Idk how much more thoroughly this can be discredited.
Who questions the Democrats' motives in the media?
It should be the Republicans. Much like when people called out Trump for always picking Fox News during media breifings because they will lob a softball question at him.
If it is determined that Democrats have I’ll motives by using the media, then their opposition should call them out for it.
But media is there to inform. That is it. The Democrats are using it to inform voters in what their motives are or why their platforms would be better alternative than the ones being brought forth by the Republicans.
Who questioned when Hillary was given a Senate seat despite never having lived in New York? Anybody?
The people of New York who elected her questioned if she was worthy of having a Senate seat. Obviously they thought she was. Feel free to disagree with their choice, but since you do not live there, you personally do not have a say in the matter.
The question then has to be asked if this is an issue? During her time as Senator of New York, did she do anything that hindered that state? Of the answer is No, then it doesn’t matter if she lived there prior or not. She had the citizens she represented in mind in every decision she made.
Yeah, I'm sure a majority of New York voters were ever going to vote in a Republican. Are you telling me there weren't any worthy Democratic Party New Yorkers who deserved it more than the 'chosen one' who was being groomed? You were swindled. Sorry...
Edit: She didnt give a rat's ass about New York except as a stepping-stone to the presidency. At least in Michigan we had Carl Levin. I didn't always like his politics but I knew he cared about my state.
Maybe the Republicans instead of throwing in the towel could have led with that: Our candidate is from New York and knows what problems you face. Our opponent is just being groomed for a higher office and will forget about this state in 4 years.
Why didn’t they? Why just throw in the towel just because it’s New York?
New York has imbraced Republicans politicans before. Rudi was mayor of New York and credited with removing a lot of its crime.
Trump is hated in New York with good reason. Reagan won California against all odds. Trump had approximately 0% chance of winning New York. That speaks to me of his character btw. For the record, Al Gore didn't win Tennessee either...
Everybody should be questioning everything or our education system is a failure. Republicans will oppose Democrat opinions regardless of whether they're good for the country and vice-versa just to hold or gain power. The only thing that can stop that is an electorate that knows what the Hell is going on!
A healthy bit of skepticism is good. Too much and it isn’t.
And as long as you do not draw conclusions from your skepticism and you ask the proper questions to address it does making it healthy.
True skepticism is in short supply in this country. It seems to me that most people are one-sidedly skeptical. Both parties are as corrupt as Hell and I'd like to see both go down in flames. Changing the guard isn't going to fix anything, despite what most of you in this thread think. We've been down that road before.
We’ll also remember I’m Canadian where we do question our politicans daily and hold them accountable.
The SNC-Lavin issue I brought up Before has cost Trudeau two cabinet ministers (both resigning over principle about it, not being forced to resign) and one MP who went Independent.
Hell, we questioned a former prime minister about buying golf balls for hours to make sure it wasn’t about giving advertising companies pushbacks.
Who questions the Democrats' motives in the media?
It should be the Republicans. Much like when people called out Trump for always picking Fox News during media breifings because they will lob a softball question at him.
If it is determined that Democrats have I’ll motives by using the media, then their opposition should call them out for it.
But media is there to inform. That is it. The Democrats are using it to inform voters in what their motives are or why their platforms would be better alternative than the ones being brought forth by the Republicans.
Who questioned when Hillary was given a Senate seat despite never having lived in New York? Anybody?
The people of New York who elected her questioned if she was worthy of having a Senate seat. Obviously they thought she was. Feel free to disagree with their choice, but since you do not live there, you personally do not have a say in the matter.
The question then has to be asked if this is an issue? During her time as Senator of New York, did she do anything that hindered that state? Of the answer is No, then it doesn’t matter if she lived there prior or not. She had the citizens she represented in mind in every decision she made.
Yeah, I'm sure a majority of New York voters were ever going to vote in a Republican. Are you telling me there weren't any worthy Democratic Party New Yorkers who deserved it more than the 'chosen one' who was being groomed? You were swindled. Sorry...
Edit: She didnt give a rat's ass about New York except as a stepping-stone to the presidency. At least in Michigan we had Carl Levin. I didn't always like his politics but I knew he cared about my state.
Maybe the Republicans instead of throwing in the towel could have led with that: Our candidate is from New York and knows what problems you face. Our opponent is just being groomed for a higher office and will forget about this state in 4 years.
Why didn’t they? Why just throw in the towel just because it’s New York?
New York has imbraced Republicans politicans before. Rudi was mayor of New York and credited with removing a lot of its crime.
Trump is hated in New York with good reason. Reagan won California against all odds. Trump had approximately 0% chance of winning New York. That speaks to me of his character btw. For the record, Al Gore didn't win Tennessee either...
I meant when she was a Senator, not during the presidential race.
It seems that Mueller laid out evidence on both sides on whether Trump obstructed justice, and William Barr alone has made the determination that he hasn't. Trump's hand-picked AG. In a summary shorter than some of my posts. The fix is in.
Who questions the Democrats' motives in the media?
It should be the Republicans. Much like when people called out Trump for always picking Fox News during media breifings because they will lob a softball question at him.
If it is determined that Democrats have I’ll motives by using the media, then their opposition should call them out for it.
But media is there to inform. That is it. The Democrats are using it to inform voters in what their motives are or why their platforms would be better alternative than the ones being brought forth by the Republicans.
Who questioned when Hillary was given a Senate seat despite never having lived in New York? Anybody?
The people of New York who elected her questioned if she was worthy of having a Senate seat. Obviously they thought she was. Feel free to disagree with their choice, but since you do not live there, you personally do not have a say in the matter.
The question then has to be asked if this is an issue? During her time as Senator of New York, did she do anything that hindered that state? Of the answer is No, then it doesn’t matter if she lived there prior or not. She had the citizens she represented in mind in every decision she made.
Yeah, I'm sure a majority of New York voters were ever going to vote in a Republican. Are you telling me there weren't any worthy Democratic Party New Yorkers who deserved it more than the 'chosen one' who was being groomed? You were swindled. Sorry...
Edit: She didnt give a rat's ass about New York except as a stepping-stone to the presidency. At least in Michigan we had Carl Levin. I didn't always like his politics but I knew he cared about my state.
Maybe the Republicans instead of throwing in the towel could have led with that: Our candidate is from New York and knows what problems you face. Our opponent is just being groomed for a higher office and will forget about this state in 4 years.
Why didn’t they? Why just throw in the towel just because it’s New York?
New York has imbraced Republicans politicans before. Rudi was mayor of New York and credited with removing a lot of its crime.
Trump is hated in New York with good reason. Reagan won California against all odds. Trump had approximately 0% chance of winning New York. That speaks to me of his character btw. For the record, Al Gore didn't win Tennessee either...
I meant when she was a Senator, not during the presidential race.
I doubt it would have worked any better for them than it did for you.
Everybody should be questioning everything or our education system is a failure. Republicans will oppose Democrat opinions regardless of whether they're good for the country and vice-versa just to hold or gain power. The only thing that can stop that is an electorate that knows what the Hell is going on!
A healthy bit of skepticism is good. Too much and it isn’t.
And as long as you do not draw conclusions from your skepticism and you ask the proper questions to address it does making it healthy.
True skepticism is in short supply in this country. It seems to me that most people are one-sidedly skeptical. Both parties are as corrupt as Hell and I'd like to see both go down in flames. Changing the guard isn't going to fix anything, despite what most of you in this thread think. We've been down that road before.
We’ll also remember I’m Canadian where we do question our politicans daily and hold them accountable.
The SNC-Lavin issue I brought up Before has cost Trudeau two cabinet ministers (both resigning over principle about it, not being forced to resign) and one MP who went Independent.
Hell, we questioned a former prime minister about buying golf balls for hours to make sure it wasn’t about giving advertising companies pushbacks.
Yeah, you're fortunate enough to have a parliamentary system. If only we could be so lucky. We have to pick between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dummer in most of our elections...
This is a complete disaster for the democratic party and the credibility of the media, and anyone claiming otherwise is living in fantasy land.
The entire narrative has fallen apart and the justifications won't convince.
Now they're going with "oh, the entire story we've been telling for two years was just debunked but Trump might have committed a process crime!"
Anything to hold on to that last shred of credibility, that last vestige of swiftly vanishing relevance as the truth begins to come out, the truth that you simply can not trust the media to do anything but parrot the propaganda of the democrats.
Also, if you actually read the report, they did not believe he had any intent to obstruct justice primarily due to the fact that they found no evidence of the underlying crime. Why would you try to obstruct an investigation that you know you are innocent of? It sounds like it makes perfect sense, but I guess some have to cling to something.
That the report is apparently inconclusive is concrete evidence of Republican obstruction and a cover up more than any kind of exoneration of Trump.
It means the investigation was not allowed to find the truth. A cover-up.
Trump fired Sessions and Comey and installed Whitaker first then Barr to get this result. This is a destruction of justice by Republicans in coordination with right wing media and Russian intelligence.
That the report is apparently inconclusive is concrete evidence of Republican obstruction and a cover up than any kind of exoneration of Trump. It means the investigation was not allowed to find the truth. A cover-up.
Of course it was. It doesn't agree with your preconceived notions. Must be a conspiracy...
I personally will still wait for the Manafort/Russian investigation to conclude (but will probably be forgotten about by the time it does conclude, if it doesn’t get buried in the mean time when people are no longer looking).
I will also wait for the full report to be released (if ever):but one thing that can be said:
Are people really angry that it was determined that the President of the United States did not conspire with a foreign government?
Just move on to his next alleged crime or be hypocritical in the same way that Republicans are about Hilary’s emails.
I personally will still wait for the Manafort/Russian investigation to conclude (but will probably be forgotten about by the time it does conclude, if it doesn’t get buried in the mean time when people are no longer looking).
I will also wait for the full report to be released (if ever):but one thing that can be said:
Are people really angry that it was determined that the President of the United States did not conspire with a foreign government?
Just move on to his next alleged crime or be hypocritical in the same way that Republicans are about Hilary’s emails.
I'm not a Republican and couldn't care less about Hillary's e-mails anymore. She's yesterday's news. The Republicans need a foil to trick people into voting for them, just like the Democrats do. At least the Democrats are picking on somebody that actually has power rather than a has-been and a nobody from New York...
Edit: Am I the only one here who thinks our pathetic voter turn-out is maybe because our two-party system sucks balls???
Also, if you actually read the report, they did not believe he had any intent to obstruct justice primarily due to the fact that they found no evidence of the underlying crime. Why would you try to obstruct an investigation that you know you are innocent of? It sounds like it makes perfect sense, but I guess some have to cling to something.
What was released is not the report, which you DAMN well know and are implying anyway.
I will also wait for the full report to be released (if ever):but one thing that can be said:
Are people really angry that it was determined that the President of the United States did not conspire with a foreign government?
That is not the conclusion. He is not cleared. The report is inconclusive because it was not allowed to reach a conclusion. Trump fired Sessions, Comey and installed Whitaker and Barr to get this outcome.
He still could have worked with Russia we just don't know for sure because of his obstruction of the investigation.
“Attorney General William Barr said he intends to release as much as possible from the report. Special counsel Robert Mueller will be involved in the scrubbing of the report to remove secret grand jury material and any content related to ongoing investigations before it could be made public.”
The reasoning why the full report is not being released yet (or ever). As I said, Manafort/Russia investigation is still on going.
I am most curious about Don Jr. hotel meeting (as I said before). Is there no charges because it would be difficult to make a case out of it, or do they know that nothing transpired illegally there. That has always been the biggest red flag in the investigation IMO.
Tin-foil hat please. It's only a wacky conspiracy theory if it's on the other side apparently. Bush conspired to blow up the World Trade Center. Bush 'knew' there were no WMD in Iraq even though they had used them on their own people. That's because he's an evil war-monger who wanted to slaughter thousands of innocents. But Pizzagate is total fantasy because it involves somebody on 'my' side. Everybody is so full of shit these days I'm starting to wonder why I bother posting anymore...
Btw - For the record, Pizzagate is BS but so is the fantasy that Bush is a mass-murderer.
Comments
A bunch of Ivy League prima-donnas are smarter than you and I? Do you think that Bill Clinton is some genius? Do you think he earned his education or did he 'earn' it by privilege? What about George Bush or any other of those elitists? Do you really think their families didn't game the system the same way as those morons that got caught? I don't think so.
It should be the Republicans. Much like when people called out Trump for always picking Fox News during media breifings because they will lob a softball question at him.
If it is determined that Democrats have I’ll motives by using the media, then their opposition should call them out for it.
But media is there to inform. That is it. The Democrats are using it to inform voters in what their motives are or why their platforms would be better alternative than the ones being brought forth by the Republicans.
The people of New York who elected her questioned if she was worthy of having a Senate seat. Obviously they thought she was. Feel free to disagree with their choice, but since you do not live there, you personally do not have a say in the matter.
The question then has to be asked if this is an issue? During her time as Senator of New York, did she do anything that hindered that state? Of the answer is No, then it doesn’t matter if she lived there prior or not. She had the citizens she represented in mind in every decision she made.
hah what? I agree to most of these, but the right is FAR more anti semitic than the left.
Yeah, I'm sure a majority of New York voters were ever going to vote in a Republican. Are you telling me there weren't any worthy Democratic Party New Yorkers who deserved it more than the 'chosen one' who was being groomed? You were swindled. Sorry...
Edit: She didnt give a rat's ass about New York except as a stepping-stone to the presidency. At least in Michigan we had Carl Levin. I didn't always like his politics but I knew he cared about my state.
A healthy bit of skepticism is good. Too much and it isn’t.
And as long as you do not draw conclusions from your skepticism and you ask the proper questions to address it does making it healthy.
True skepticism is in short supply in this country. It seems to me that most people are one-sidedly skeptical. Both parties are as corrupt as Hell and I'd like to see both go down in flames. Changing the guard isn't going to fix anything, despite what most of you in this thread think. We've been down that road before.
Maybe the Republicans instead of throwing in the towel could have led with that: Our candidate is from New York and knows what problems you face. Our opponent is just being groomed for a higher office and will forget about this state in 4 years.
Why didn’t they? Why just throw in the towel just because it’s New York?
New York has imbraced Republicans politicans before. Rudi was mayor of New York and credited with removing a lot of its crime.
The media can question whatever it wants, sure. But when it systemically promotes an ideologically-driven narrative for two years as the gospel truth and as though American democracy itself rests on the shoulders of this investigation and major leaders were outright accusing someone of bribery and treason, and it turns out to have no basis in fact, saying "we were just questioning things" strikes me as a lackluster post-hoc rationalization.
Instead of indulging in their own fantasies and confirmation bias, maybe they should care about truth, and the facts.
And yeah, if the below news is true, big blow to the conspiracy mongers. Idk how much more thoroughly this can be discredited.
Trump is hated in New York with good reason. Reagan won California against all odds. Trump had approximately 0% chance of winning New York. That speaks to me of his character btw. For the record, Al Gore didn't win Tennessee either...
We’ll also remember I’m Canadian where we do question our politicans daily and hold them accountable.
The SNC-Lavin issue I brought up Before has cost Trudeau two cabinet ministers (both resigning over principle about it, not being forced to resign) and one MP who went Independent.
Hell, we questioned a former prime minister about buying golf balls for hours to make sure it wasn’t about giving advertising companies pushbacks.
Not the Evangelicals. I swear most of them would love us to depopulate that entire region and give it to Israel. No, I'm not kidding...
I meant when she was a Senator, not during the presidential race.
So it's Republican treason and a cover up then.
I doubt it would have worked any better for them than it did for you.
Yeah, you're fortunate enough to have a parliamentary system. If only we could be so lucky. We have to pick between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dummer in most of our elections...
The entire narrative has fallen apart and the justifications won't convince.
Now they're going with "oh, the entire story we've been telling for two years was just debunked but Trump might have committed a process crime!"
Anything to hold on to that last shred of credibility, that last vestige of swiftly vanishing relevance as the truth begins to come out, the truth that you simply can not trust the media to do anything but parrot the propaganda of the democrats.
It means the investigation was not allowed to find the truth. A cover-up.
Trump fired Sessions and Comey and installed Whitaker first then Barr to get this result. This is a destruction of justice by Republicans in coordination with right wing media and Russian intelligence.
Of course it was. It doesn't agree with your preconceived notions. Must be a conspiracy...
I will also wait for the full report to be released (if ever):but one thing that can be said:
Are people really angry that it was determined that the President of the United States did not conspire with a foreign government?
Just move on to his next alleged crime or be hypocritical in the same way that Republicans are about Hilary’s emails.
I'm not a Republican and couldn't care less about Hillary's e-mails anymore. She's yesterday's news. The Republicans need a foil to trick people into voting for them, just like the Democrats do. At least the Democrats are picking on somebody that actually has power rather than a has-been and a nobody from New York...
Edit: Am I the only one here who thinks our pathetic voter turn-out is maybe because our two-party system sucks balls???
What was released is not the report, which you DAMN well know and are implying anyway.
That is not the conclusion. He is not cleared. The report is inconclusive because it was not allowed to reach a conclusion. Trump fired Sessions, Comey and installed Whitaker and Barr to get this outcome.
He still could have worked with Russia we just don't know for sure because of his obstruction of the investigation.
The reasoning why the full report is not being released yet (or ever). As I said, Manafort/Russia investigation is still on going.
I am most curious about Don Jr. hotel meeting (as I said before). Is there no charges because it would be difficult to make a case out of it, or do they know that nothing transpired illegally there. That has always been the biggest red flag in the investigation IMO.
Btw - For the record, Pizzagate is BS but so is the fantasy that Bush is a mass-murderer.
Come one, come all!!! Tinfoil hats!!! 3 for 10 shekels!!! or 6 for 10 Drachmas!!!