2020 Election - Catch-all Thread

132,193 Views | 2435 Replies | Last: 15 days ago by Unit2Sucks
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Every time that Captain Catastrophe opens his pie hole more and more people who voted for him put their faces in the palm of their hands and exasperated say "ugh, what was I thinking". There is still hope that America hasn't gone so far down the rabbit hole that it can't find its way out.
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
The electors cast their votes the way the American people told them to. The people elected the president. He earned his victory.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

AunBear89 said:

Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
The electors cast their votes the way the American people told them to. The people elected the president. He earned his victory.
With a little help from his friend Puty.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

AunBear89 said:

Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
The electors cast their votes the way the American people told them to. The people elected the president. He earned his victory.

...then the same philosophy will apply to 2020 Election outcome and...

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

AunBear89 said:

Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
The electors cast their votes the way the American people told them to. The people elected the president. He earned his victory.
With a little help from his friend Puty.
Russians spreading information vs. Americans spreading misinformation. It's all misinformation.

In terms of conspiracy, zero. None. Nada.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

AunBear89 said:

Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
The electors cast their votes the way the American people told them to. The people elected the president. He earned his victory.
With a little help from his friend Puty.
Russians spreading information vs. Americans spreading misinformation. It's all misinformation.

In terms of conspiracy, zero. None. Nada.
And yet the U.S. Intelligence Agencies affirmed the belief that Russia did things to help their preferred candidate, Congress investigated and indicated that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections, and Mueller's investigation also said Russia had a clear choice on who they wanted to win and acted in ways to help that choice.
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

AunBear89 said:

Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
The electors cast their votes the way the American people told them to. The people elected the president. He earned his victory.
With a little help from his friend Puty.
Russians spreading information vs. Americans spreading misinformation. It's all misinformation.

In terms of conspiracy, zero. None. Nada.
And yet the U.S. Intelligence Agencies affirmed the belief that Russia did things to help their preferred candidate, Congress investigated and indicated that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections, and Mueller's investigation also said Russia had a clear choice on who they wanted to win and acted in ways to help that choice.
Yes. But that still doesn't equal conspiracy.

And that's the part that keeps tripping you up.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

AunBear89 said:

Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
The electors cast their votes the way the American people told them to. The people elected the president. He earned his victory.
With a little help from his friend Puty.
Russians spreading information vs. Americans spreading misinformation. It's all misinformation.

In terms of conspiracy, zero. None. Nada.
And yet the U.S. Intelligence Agencies affirmed the belief that Russia did things to help their preferred candidate, Congress investigated and indicated that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections, and Mueller's investigation also said Russia had a clear choice on who they wanted to win and acted in ways to help that choice.
Yes. But that still doesn't equal conspiracy.

And that's the part that keeps tripping you up.
I'm okay with making that leap given Captain Catastrophe's herculean efforts to prevent the truth from coming out. Innocent people don't prevent information from seeing the light of day.
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

AunBear89 said:

Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
The electors cast their votes the way the American people told them to. The people elected the president. He earned his victory.
With a little help from his friend Puty.
Russians spreading information vs. Americans spreading misinformation. It's all misinformation.

In terms of conspiracy, zero. None. Nada.
And yet the U.S. Intelligence Agencies affirmed the belief that Russia did things to help their preferred candidate, Congress investigated and indicated that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections, and Mueller's investigation also said Russia had a clear choice on who they wanted to win and acted in ways to help that choice.
Yes. But that still doesn't equal conspiracy.

And that's the part that keeps tripping you up.
I'm okay with making that leap given Captain Catastrophe's herculean efforts to prevent the truth from coming out. Innocent people don't prevent information from seeing the light of day.
But he didn't. Mueller completed and released his report and it was rather thorough.

He established that Stone had no prior knowledge of any Wikileaks material.

He established that most of the meetings between Trump officials and Russian representatives were about Trump Tower in Moscow, with a few (Flynn in particular) being about lifting of sanctions.

What you continually establish is that you've never read the report.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

AunBear89 said:

Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
The electors cast their votes the way the American people told them to. The people elected the president. He earned his victory.
With a little help from his friend Puty.
Russians spreading information vs. Americans spreading misinformation. It's all misinformation.

In terms of conspiracy, zero. None. Nada.
And yet the U.S. Intelligence Agencies affirmed the belief that Russia did things to help their preferred candidate, Congress investigated and indicated that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections, and Mueller's investigation also said Russia had a clear choice on who they wanted to win and acted in ways to help that choice.
Yes. But that still doesn't equal conspiracy.

And that's the part that keeps tripping you up.
I'm okay with making that leap given Captain Catastrophe's herculean efforts to prevent the truth from coming out. Innocent people don't prevent information from seeing the light of day.
But he didn't. Mueller completed and released his report and it was rather thorough.

He established that Stone had no prior knowledge of any Wikileaks material.

He established that most of the meetings between Trump officials and Russian representatives were about Trump Tower in Moscow, with a few (Flynn in particular) being about lifting of sanctions.

What you continually establish is that you've never read the report.


You guys keep saying that about Stone. Where does it come from? The only place I can tell it came from is taking Stone at his word.
An old white dude
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/mueller-report-june-2020-release/9d99a85a117e945a/full.pdf

Page 36: Mueller Report.

The Trump Campaign showed interest in the WikiLeaks releases and, in the summer and fall of 2016 Roger Stone tried to connect with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange through intermediaries. Stone boasted to senior Campaign officials about his access to Assange. After Stone's prediction of WikiLeaks's Clinton - related release proved true, the Trump Campaign stayed in contact with Stone about WikiLeaks's activities. The investigation was unable to resolve whether Stone played a role in WikiLeaks's release of the stolen Podesta emails on October 7 , 2016 , the same day a video from years earlier was published of Trump using graphic language about women.

Page 9: Mueller Report.

Section V of the report provides detailed explanations of the Office's charging decisions, which contain three main components.

First, the Office determined that Russia's two principal interference operations in the 2016
U.S. presidential election, the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations,
violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media
campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by
undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign
influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft. See United States v. Internet
Research Agency, et al., No. 18-cr-32 (D.D.C.). Separately, Russian intelligence officers who
carried out the hacking into Democratic Party computers and the personal email accounts of
individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign conspired to violate, among other federal laws,
the federal computer-intrusion statute, and they have been so charged.

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to

the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was
not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to
charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian
principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked
materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence
was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with
representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump

Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated
individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian
election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about
his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George
Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to
investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the
professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of
thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to
making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

AunBear89 said:

Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
The electors cast their votes the way the American people told them to. The people elected the president. He earned his victory.
With a little help from his friend Puty.
Russians spreading information vs. Americans spreading misinformation. It's all misinformation.

In terms of conspiracy, zero. None. Nada.
And yet the U.S. Intelligence Agencies affirmed the belief that Russia did things to help their preferred candidate, Congress investigated and indicated that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections, and Mueller's investigation also said Russia had a clear choice on who they wanted to win and acted in ways to help that choice.
Yes. But that still doesn't equal conspiracy.

And that's the part that keeps tripping you up.
I'm okay with making that leap given Captain Catastrophe's herculean efforts to prevent the truth from coming out. Innocent people don't prevent information from seeing the light of day.
But he didn't. Mueller completed and released his report and it was rather thorough.

He established that Stone had no prior knowledge of any Wikileaks material.

He established that most of the meetings between Trump officials and Russian representatives were about Trump Tower in Moscow, with a few (Flynn in particular) being about lifting of sanctions.

What you continually establish is that you've never read the report.
I'm willing to wait till the next POTUS gets his hands on Assange and all the information comes out. There was information missing that will come to light. By the way, I read the report when it was released to the public.

The New York Times:

April 29, 2020:

WASHINGTON One of the enduring mysteries left unsolved by the Mueller inquiry was whether Roger J. Stone Jr., President Trump's longtime friend and political adviser, ever communicated during the 2016 presidential campaign with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Federal investigators chased the question for months to figure out who, if anyone, in Mr. Trump's world knew that WikiLeaks was going to release a trove of damaging Democratic emails in an effort to bolster his chances of winning.

Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the response of the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to the special counsel's inquiry. He did not refuse to cooperate; his lawyers said that investigators on that team never contacted him.

Seems to me that we still have some unanswered questions that were never asked so again, I'll wait till we get our hands on Assange.

calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

AunBear89 said:

Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
The electors cast their votes the way the American people told them to. The people elected the president. He earned his victory.
With a little help from his friend Puty.
Russians spreading information vs. Americans spreading misinformation. It's all misinformation.

In terms of conspiracy, zero. None. Nada.
And yet the U.S. Intelligence Agencies affirmed the belief that Russia did things to help their preferred candidate, Congress investigated and indicated that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections, and Mueller's investigation also said Russia had a clear choice on who they wanted to win and acted in ways to help that choice.
Yes. But that still doesn't equal conspiracy.

And that's the part that keeps tripping you up.
I'm okay with making that leap given Captain Catastrophe's herculean efforts to prevent the truth from coming out. Innocent people don't prevent information from seeing the light of day.
But he didn't. Mueller completed and released his report and it was rather thorough.

He established that Stone had no prior knowledge of any Wikileaks material.

He established that most of the meetings between Trump officials and Russian representatives were about Trump Tower in Moscow, with a few (Flynn in particular) being about lifting of sanctions.

What you continually establish is that you've never read the report.
I'm willing to wait till the next POTUS gets his hands on Assange and all the information comes out. There was information missing that will come to light. By the way, I read the report when it was released to the public.
Is there anyone who was the hero and villain of extremists on both sides faster than Assange? Anyone more self-deluded?
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

AunBear89 said:

Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
The electors cast their votes the way the American people told them to. The people elected the president. He earned his victory.
With a little help from his friend Puty.
Russians spreading information vs. Americans spreading misinformation. It's all misinformation.

In terms of conspiracy, zero. None. Nada.
And yet the U.S. Intelligence Agencies affirmed the belief that Russia did things to help their preferred candidate, Congress investigated and indicated that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections, and Mueller's investigation also said Russia had a clear choice on who they wanted to win and acted in ways to help that choice.
Yes. But that still doesn't equal conspiracy.

And that's the part that keeps tripping you up.
I'm okay with making that leap given Captain Catastrophe's herculean efforts to prevent the truth from coming out. Innocent people don't prevent information from seeing the light of day.
But he didn't. Mueller completed and released his report and it was rather thorough.

He established that Stone had no prior knowledge of any Wikileaks material.

He established that most of the meetings between Trump officials and Russian representatives were about Trump Tower in Moscow, with a few (Flynn in particular) being about lifting of sanctions.

What you continually establish is that you've never read the report.
I'm willing to wait till the next POTUS gets his hands on Assange and all the information comes out. There was information missing that will come to light. By the way, I read the report when it was released to the public.
It's blatantly obvious that you never read the report.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

AunBear89 said:

Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
The electors cast their votes the way the American people told them to. The people elected the president. He earned his victory.
With a little help from his friend Puty.
Russians spreading information vs. Americans spreading misinformation. It's all misinformation.

In terms of conspiracy, zero. None. Nada.
And yet the U.S. Intelligence Agencies affirmed the belief that Russia did things to help their preferred candidate, Congress investigated and indicated that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections, and Mueller's investigation also said Russia had a clear choice on who they wanted to win and acted in ways to help that choice.
Yes. But that still doesn't equal conspiracy.

And that's the part that keeps tripping you up.
I'm okay with making that leap given Captain Catastrophe's herculean efforts to prevent the truth from coming out. Innocent people don't prevent information from seeing the light of day.
But he didn't. Mueller completed and released his report and it was rather thorough.

He established that Stone had no prior knowledge of any Wikileaks material.

He established that most of the meetings between Trump officials and Russian representatives were about Trump Tower in Moscow, with a few (Flynn in particular) being about lifting of sanctions.

What you continually establish is that you've never read the report.
I'm willing to wait till the next POTUS gets his hands on Assange and all the information comes out. There was information missing that will come to light. By the way, I read the report when it was released to the public.

The New York Times:

April 29, 2020:

WASHINGTON One of the enduring mysteries left unsolved by the Mueller inquiry was whether Roger J. Stone Jr., President Trump's longtime friend and political adviser, ever communicated during the 2016 presidential campaign with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Federal investigators chased the question for months to figure out who, if anyone, in Mr. Trump's world knew that WikiLeaks was going to release a trove of damaging Democratic emails in an effort to bolster his chances of winning.

Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the response of the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to the special counsel's inquiry. He did not refuse to cooperate; his lawyers said that investigators on that team never contacted him.

Seems to me that we still have some unanswered questions that were never asked so again, I'll wait till we get our hands on Assange.
Is there anyone who was the hero and villain of extremists on both sides faster than Assange? Anyone more self-deluded?
He is an interesting figure during the last few years and may be asked to explain his complete involvement in the 20!6 election. Will we ever know the absolute truth?
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:


The New York Times:

April 29, 2020:

WASHINGTON One of the enduring mysteries left unsolved by the Mueller inquiry was whether Roger J. Stone Jr., President Trump's longtime friend and political adviser, ever communicated during the 2016 presidential campaign with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Federal investigators chased the question for months to figure out who, if anyone, in Mr. Trump's world knew that WikiLeaks was going to release a trove of damaging Democratic emails in an effort to bolster his chances of winning.

Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the response of the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to the special counsel's inquiry. He did not refuse to cooperate; his lawyers said that investigators on that team never contacted him.

Seems to me that we still have some unanswered questions that were never asked so again, I'll wait till we get our hands on Assange.
Two things that are hilarious.

The first is that you quote the New York Times while I'm quoting the actual report that looked into the whole question, like it somehow matters at all.

The second is that you think that Assange will finally give you the answers you want to hear since you didn't get them from Mueller's team.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment#:~:text=Assange%20is%20currently%20detained%20in,request%20from%20the%20United%20States.

What are you hoping to get here?
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

calbear93 said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

AunBear89 said:

Nooo, they didn't. As you wrote earlier, the Electoral College did - and that is NOT the American People, no matter how you slice or spin.

The American people voted 48.2% to 46.1% Clinton over Trump. 2.9 million votes.

See, logic and facts aren't that hard - you should try some with your knee-jerk emotions.
The electors cast their votes the way the American people told them to. The people elected the president. He earned his victory.
With a little help from his friend Puty.
Russians spreading information vs. Americans spreading misinformation. It's all misinformation.

In terms of conspiracy, zero. None. Nada.
And yet the U.S. Intelligence Agencies affirmed the belief that Russia did things to help their preferred candidate, Congress investigated and indicated that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections, and Mueller's investigation also said Russia had a clear choice on who they wanted to win and acted in ways to help that choice.
Yes. But that still doesn't equal conspiracy.

And that's the part that keeps tripping you up.
I'm okay with making that leap given Captain Catastrophe's herculean efforts to prevent the truth from coming out. Innocent people don't prevent information from seeing the light of day.
But he didn't. Mueller completed and released his report and it was rather thorough.

He established that Stone had no prior knowledge of any Wikileaks material.

He established that most of the meetings between Trump officials and Russian representatives were about Trump Tower in Moscow, with a few (Flynn in particular) being about lifting of sanctions.

What you continually establish is that you've never read the report.
I'm willing to wait till the next POTUS gets his hands on Assange and all the information comes out. There was information missing that will come to light. By the way, I read the report when it was released to the public.

The New York Times:

April 29, 2020:

WASHINGTON One of the enduring mysteries left unsolved by the Mueller inquiry was whether Roger J. Stone Jr., President Trump's longtime friend and political adviser, ever communicated during the 2016 presidential campaign with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Federal investigators chased the question for months to figure out who, if anyone, in Mr. Trump's world knew that WikiLeaks was going to release a trove of damaging Democratic emails in an effort to bolster his chances of winning.

Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the response of the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to the special counsel's inquiry. He did not refuse to cooperate; his lawyers said that investigators on that team never contacted him.

Seems to me that we still have some unanswered questions that were never asked so again, I'll wait till we get our hands on Assange.
Is there anyone who was the hero and villain of extremists on both sides faster than Assange? Anyone more self-deluded?
He is an interesting figure during the last few years and may be asked to explain his complete involvement in the 20!6 election. Will we ever know the absolute truth?

He is a self-deluded, entitled narcissist who colluded with the Russians to hack and release e-mail designed and timed to interfere with our election. While there may be debate on whether Trump was involved, Assange's involvement is not in doubt. He went from being a far left's hero with Wikileaks to being the self-serving ass who smeared crap on the walls of the embassy kind enough to protect him because he didn't get everything he wants.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/mueller-report-june-2020-release/9d99a85a117e945a/full.pdf

Page 36: Mueller Report.

The Trump Campaign showed interest in the WikiLeaks releases and, in the summer and fall of 2016 Roger Stone tried to connect with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange through intermediaries. Stone boasted to senior Campaign officials about his access to Assange. After Stone's prediction of WikiLeaks's Clinton - related release proved true, the Trump Campaign stayed in contact with Stone about WikiLeaks's activities. The investigation was unable to resolve whether Stone played a role in WikiLeaks's release of the stolen Podesta emails on October 7 , 2016 , the same day a video from years earlier was published of Trump using graphic language about women.

Page 9: Mueller Report.

Section V of the report provides detailed explanations of the Office's charging decisions, which contain three main components.

First, the Office determined that Russia's two principal interference operations in the 2016
U.S. presidential election, the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations,
violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media
campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by
undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign
influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft. See United States v. Internet
Research Agency, et al., No. 18-cr-32 (D.D.C.). Separately, Russian intelligence officers who
carried out the hacking into Democratic Party computers and the personal email accounts of
individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign conspired to violate, among other federal laws,
the federal computer-intrusion statute, and they have been so charged.

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to

the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was
not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to
charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian
principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked
materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence
was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with
representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump

Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated
individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian
election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about
his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George
Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to
investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the
professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of
thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to
making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project.


That does not say what you purport it to say. It does not clear anyone of these actions. It says there was not enough evidence to bring criminal conspiracy charges.

We know Stone got information from WikiLeaks because of all the evidence that came out in the Stone trial. Most of that evidence was omitted from the Mueller Report so as not to influence the impending Stone trial.

An old white dude
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Biden warns of foreign election interference, puts the Kremlin 'on notice'

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-warns-of-foreign-election-interference-puts-the-kremlin-on-notice/ar-BB16YPqe?li=BB141NW3

Was that so hard?

BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:


The New York Times:

April 29, 2020:

WASHINGTON One of the enduring mysteries left unsolved by the Mueller inquiry was whether Roger J. Stone Jr., President Trump's longtime friend and political adviser, ever communicated during the 2016 presidential campaign with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Federal investigators chased the question for months to figure out who, if anyone, in Mr. Trump's world knew that WikiLeaks was going to release a trove of damaging Democratic emails in an effort to bolster his chances of winning.

Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the response of the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to the special counsel's inquiry. He did not refuse to cooperate; his lawyers said that investigators on that team never contacted him.

Seems to me that we still have some unanswered questions that were never asked so again, I'll wait till we get our hands on Assange.
Two things that are hilarious.

The first is that you quote the New York Times while I'm quoting the actual report that looked into the whole question, like it somehow matters at all.

The second is that you think that Assange will finally give you the answers you want to hear since you didn't get them from Mueller's team.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment#:~:text=Assange%20is%20currently%20detained%20in,request%20from%20the%20United%20States.

What are you hoping to get here?
Mueller never asked Assange according to his lawyers, so there is information that Assange has that could be relevant, so what's the harm in asking him. I hope to get the "TRUTH" that's all nothing more nothing less.
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Matthew Patel said:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/mueller-report-june-2020-release/9d99a85a117e945a/full.pdf

Page 36: Mueller Report.

The Trump Campaign showed interest in the WikiLeaks releases and, in the summer and fall of 2016 Roger Stone tried to connect with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange through intermediaries. Stone boasted to senior Campaign officials about his access to Assange. After Stone's prediction of WikiLeaks's Clinton - related release proved true, the Trump Campaign stayed in contact with Stone about WikiLeaks's activities. The investigation was unable to resolve whether Stone played a role in WikiLeaks's release of the stolen Podesta emails on October 7 , 2016 , the same day a video from years earlier was published of Trump using graphic language about women.

Page 9: Mueller Report.

Section V of the report provides detailed explanations of the Office's charging decisions, which contain three main components.

First, the Office determined that Russia's two principal interference operations in the 2016
U.S. presidential election, the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations,
violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media
campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by
undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign
influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft. See United States v. Internet
Research Agency, et al., No. 18-cr-32 (D.D.C.). Separately, Russian intelligence officers who
carried out the hacking into Democratic Party computers and the personal email accounts of
individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign conspired to violate, among other federal laws,
the federal computer-intrusion statute, and they have been so charged.

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to

the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was
not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to
charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian
principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked
materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence
was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with
representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump

Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated
individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian
election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about
his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George
Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to
investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the
professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of
thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to
making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project.


That does not say what you purport it to say. It does not clear anyone of these actions. It says there was not enough evidence to bring criminal conspiracy charges.

We know Stone got information from WikiLeaks because of all the evidence that came out in the Stone trial. Most of that evidence was omitted from the Mueller Report so as not to influence the impending Stone trial.
I look forward to your details of all that you discovered that was true from the Stone trial.
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:


The New York Times:

April 29, 2020:

WASHINGTON One of the enduring mysteries left unsolved by the Mueller inquiry was whether Roger J. Stone Jr., President Trump's longtime friend and political adviser, ever communicated during the 2016 presidential campaign with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Federal investigators chased the question for months to figure out who, if anyone, in Mr. Trump's world knew that WikiLeaks was going to release a trove of damaging Democratic emails in an effort to bolster his chances of winning.

Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the response of the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to the special counsel's inquiry. He did not refuse to cooperate; his lawyers said that investigators on that team never contacted him.

Seems to me that we still have some unanswered questions that were never asked so again, I'll wait till we get our hands on Assange.
Two things that are hilarious.

The first is that you quote the New York Times while I'm quoting the actual report that looked into the whole question, like it somehow matters at all.

The second is that you think that Assange will finally give you the answers you want to hear since you didn't get them from Mueller's team.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment#:~:text=Assange%20is%20currently%20detained%20in,request%20from%20the%20United%20States.

What are you hoping to get here?
The "TRUTH" that's all nothing more nothing less.
You already got the truth, but you didn't like what you got.
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Matthew Patel said:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/mueller-report-june-2020-release/9d99a85a117e945a/full.pdf

Page 36: Mueller Report.

The Trump Campaign showed interest in the WikiLeaks releases and, in the summer and fall of 2016 Roger Stone tried to connect with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange through intermediaries. Stone boasted to senior Campaign officials about his access to Assange. After Stone's prediction of WikiLeaks's Clinton - related release proved true, the Trump Campaign stayed in contact with Stone about WikiLeaks's activities. The investigation was unable to resolve whether Stone played a role in WikiLeaks's release of the stolen Podesta emails on October 7 , 2016 , the same day a video from years earlier was published of Trump using graphic language about women.

Page 9: Mueller Report.

Section V of the report provides detailed explanations of the Office's charging decisions, which contain three main components.

First, the Office determined that Russia's two principal interference operations in the 2016
U.S. presidential election, the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations,
violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media
campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by
undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign
influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft. See United States v. Internet
Research Agency, et al., No. 18-cr-32 (D.D.C.). Separately, Russian intelligence officers who
carried out the hacking into Democratic Party computers and the personal email accounts of
individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign conspired to violate, among other federal laws,
the federal computer-intrusion statute, and they have been so charged.

Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to

the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was
not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to
charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian
principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked
materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence
was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with
representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.

Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump

Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated
individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian
election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about
his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George
Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to
investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the
professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of
thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to
making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project.
That does not say what you purport it to say.
It says exactly what it says. And you can't contradict it. Just like you can't contradict the reality that Trump won the 2016 Presidential election without changing what the vote count was.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:


The New York Times:

April 29, 2020:

WASHINGTON One of the enduring mysteries left unsolved by the Mueller inquiry was whether Roger J. Stone Jr., President Trump's longtime friend and political adviser, ever communicated during the 2016 presidential campaign with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Federal investigators chased the question for months to figure out who, if anyone, in Mr. Trump's world knew that WikiLeaks was going to release a trove of damaging Democratic emails in an effort to bolster his chances of winning.

Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the response of the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to the special counsel's inquiry. He did not refuse to cooperate; his lawyers said that investigators on that team never contacted him.

Seems to me that we still have some unanswered questions that were never asked so again, I'll wait till we get our hands on Assange.
Two things that are hilarious.

The first is that you quote the New York Times while I'm quoting the actual report that looked into the whole question, like it somehow matters at all.

The second is that you think that Assange will finally give you the answers you want to hear since you didn't get them from Mueller's team.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment#:~:text=Assange%20is%20currently%20detained%20in,request%20from%20the%20United%20States.

What are you hoping to get here?
The "TRUTH" that's all nothing more nothing less.
You already got the truth, but you didn't like what you got.
When the key witness does not testify or testify truthfully you can't say you got the truth, make sense?
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:


The New York Times:

April 29, 2020:

WASHINGTON One of the enduring mysteries left unsolved by the Mueller inquiry was whether Roger J. Stone Jr., President Trump's longtime friend and political adviser, ever communicated during the 2016 presidential campaign with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Federal investigators chased the question for months to figure out who, if anyone, in Mr. Trump's world knew that WikiLeaks was going to release a trove of damaging Democratic emails in an effort to bolster his chances of winning.

Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the response of the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to the special counsel's inquiry. He did not refuse to cooperate; his lawyers said that investigators on that team never contacted him.

Seems to me that we still have some unanswered questions that were never asked so again, I'll wait till we get our hands on Assange.
Two things that are hilarious.

The first is that you quote the New York Times while I'm quoting the actual report that looked into the whole question, like it somehow matters at all.

The second is that you think that Assange will finally give you the answers you want to hear since you didn't get them from Mueller's team.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment#:~:text=Assange%20is%20currently%20detained%20in,request%20from%20the%20United%20States.

What are you hoping to get here?
The "TRUTH" that's all nothing more nothing less.
You already got the truth, but you didn't like what you got.
When the key witness does not testify or testify truthfully you can't say you got the truth, make sense?
And you think the key is going to be new information from Assange when there's plenty of detail already in the report about what Wikileaks did and what the Russian government actually did themselves?
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:


The New York Times:

April 29, 2020:

WASHINGTON One of the enduring mysteries left unsolved by the Mueller inquiry was whether Roger J. Stone Jr., President Trump's longtime friend and political adviser, ever communicated during the 2016 presidential campaign with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Federal investigators chased the question for months to figure out who, if anyone, in Mr. Trump's world knew that WikiLeaks was going to release a trove of damaging Democratic emails in an effort to bolster his chances of winning.

Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the response of the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to the special counsel's inquiry. He did not refuse to cooperate; his lawyers said that investigators on that team never contacted him.

Seems to me that we still have some unanswered questions that were never asked so again, I'll wait till we get our hands on Assange.
Two things that are hilarious.

The first is that you quote the New York Times while I'm quoting the actual report that looked into the whole question, like it somehow matters at all.

The second is that you think that Assange will finally give you the answers you want to hear since you didn't get them from Mueller's team.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment#:~:text=Assange%20is%20currently%20detained%20in,request%20from%20the%20United%20States.

What are you hoping to get here?
The "TRUTH" that's all nothing more nothing less.
You already got the truth, but you didn't like what you got.
When the key witness does not testify or testify truthfully you can't say you got the truth, make sense?
And you think the key is going to be new information from Assange when there's plenty of detail already in the report about what Wikileaks did and what the Russian government actually did themselves?
What would it hurt to have Assange answer some questions, unless they're hiding something? It couldn't be that, Roger Stone, Captain Catastrophe, Bill Barr, and Puty would never do that.
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:

Matthew Patel said:

BearNIt said:


The New York Times:

April 29, 2020:

WASHINGTON One of the enduring mysteries left unsolved by the Mueller inquiry was whether Roger J. Stone Jr., President Trump's longtime friend and political adviser, ever communicated during the 2016 presidential campaign with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

Federal investigators chased the question for months to figure out who, if anyone, in Mr. Trump's world knew that WikiLeaks was going to release a trove of damaging Democratic emails in an effort to bolster his chances of winning.

Correction: May 14, 2020
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the response of the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to the special counsel's inquiry. He did not refuse to cooperate; his lawyers said that investigators on that team never contacted him.

Seems to me that we still have some unanswered questions that were never asked so again, I'll wait till we get our hands on Assange.
Two things that are hilarious.

The first is that you quote the New York Times while I'm quoting the actual report that looked into the whole question, like it somehow matters at all.

The second is that you think that Assange will finally give you the answers you want to hear since you didn't get them from Mueller's team.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-charged-superseding-indictment#:~:text=Assange%20is%20currently%20detained%20in,request%20from%20the%20United%20States.

What are you hoping to get here?
The "TRUTH" that's all nothing more nothing less.
You already got the truth, but you didn't like what you got.
When the key witness does not testify or testify truthfully you can't say you got the truth, make sense?
And you think the key is going to be new information from Assange when there's plenty of detail already in the report about what Wikileaks did and what the Russian government actually did themselves?
What would it hurt to have Assange answer some questions, unless they're hiding something? It couldn't be that, Roger Stone, Captain Catastrophe, Bill Barr, and Puty would never do that.
I'm sure he has useful information to share, but if you think that he's going to be the key that unlocks everything you think is true, I think you're going to be very disappointed.

If I were you, I'd put more faith into the criminal investigations awaiting Trump on January 21.
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hillary still singing those bitter blues about 2016 and Russiagate
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

Hillary still singing those bitter blues about 2016 and Russiagate


So what? Trumpers are still yelling "lock her up" over emails. Also, the Russians are still at it.
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS said:

Matthew Patel said:

Hillary still singing those bitter blues about 2016 and Russiagate


So what? Trumpers are still yelling "lock her up" over emails. Also, the Russians are still at it.
She can't accept that she lost because she's a shytty person who ran a shytty campaign for a shytty party that is now going to have anti-abortion anti-LGBTQ Republican John Kasich speak at the Democratic National Convention. Because all the Democratic Party stands for anymore is just "not being Trump."

https://www.rt.com/usa/495300-kasich-democrats-convention-biden-compromise/
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

NYCGOBEARS said:

Matthew Patel said:

Hillary still singing those bitter blues about 2016 and Russiagate


So what? Trumpers are still yelling "lock her up" over emails. Also, the Russians are still at it.
She can't accept that she lost because she's a shytty person who ran a shytty campaign for a shytty party that is now going to have anti-abortion anti-LGBTQ Republican John Kasich speak at the Democratic National Convention. Because all the Democratic Party stands for anymore is just "not being Trump."

https://www.rt.com/usa/495300-kasich-democrats-convention-biden-compromise/


Couldn't find anything better than Russia Today?
An old white dude
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Matthew Patel said:

NYCGOBEARS said:

Matthew Patel said:

Hillary still singing those bitter blues about 2016 and Russiagate


So what? Trumpers are still yelling "lock her up" over emails. Also, the Russians are still at it.
She can't accept that she lost because she's a shytty person who ran a shytty campaign for a shytty party that is now going to have anti-abortion anti-LGBTQ Republican John Kasich speak at the Democratic National Convention. Because all the Democratic Party stands for anymore is just "not being Trump."

https://www.rt.com/usa/495300-kasich-democrats-convention-biden-compromise/

That's not true about the Democratic Party. There are plenty of progressives shaping policy now. Rightfully, beating Trump and taking control of Congress is the goal. Not being Trump is a great place to start.
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Matthew Patel said:

NYCGOBEARS said:

Matthew Patel said:

Hillary still singing those bitter blues about 2016 and Russiagate


So what? Trumpers are still yelling "lock her up" over emails. Also, the Russians are still at it.
She can't accept that she lost because she's a shytty person who ran a shytty campaign for a shytty party that is now going to have anti-abortion anti-LGBTQ Republican John Kasich speak at the Democratic National Convention. Because all the Democratic Party stands for anymore is just "not being Trump."

https://www.rt.com/usa/495300-kasich-democrats-convention-biden-compromise/


Couldn't find anything better than Russia Today?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-kasich-may-speak-at-the-dnc-much-to-some-democrats-e2-80-99-chagrin-capitol-letter/ar-BB1711Ft
Yogi2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/kasich-convention-biden/?utm_campaign=SproutSocial&utm_content=thenation&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.