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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

Hillary still singing those bitter blues about 2016 and Russiagate

---

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.

---

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/

---

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?

---