New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Bombshell: No collusion! This is getting better and better... LOL

Zam-Zam

Senator
Bombshell Update:

Woodward: No Evidence of Trump-Russia Collusion

Bob Woodward, whose bestselling anti-Trump book Fear has got Washington tongues wagging, told talk show host Hugh Hewitt on Friday that despite looking "hard" for two years, he could find no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians in the 2016 presidential election.

HH: So let’s set aside the Comey firing, which as a Constitutional law professor, no one will ever persuade me can be obstruction. And Rod Rosenstein has laid out reasons why even if those weren’t the president’s reasons. Set aside the Comey firing. Did you, Bob Woodward, hear anything in your research in your interviews that sounded like espionage or collusion?

BW: I did not, and of course, I looked for it, looked for it hard. And so you know, there we are. We’re going to see what Mueller has, and Dowd may be right. He has something that Dowd and the president don’t know about, a secret witness or somebody who has changed their testimony. As you know, that often happens, and that can break open or turn a case.

HH: But you’ve seen no collusion?

BW: I have not.

Woodward isn't the only one who couldn't find the pony under the pile of manure. Lisa Page told a House committee that the FBI also tried their best to find enough evidence of collusion to bring a case against Trump and his campaign and failed.

Complete text: https://pjmedia.com/trending/woodward-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion/


So, there's that.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
This:



Absolutely no evidence of this yet you keep repeating it as if it's gospel.
What are you irrationally denying?

That the meeting took place at all?

That emails prove it was a meeting at which Kremlin reps provided information to help Trump beat Hillary?

That Trump Jr. responded “I love it”?

What do you deny when calling the statement a “lie”?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I'm quoting Lisa Page's testimony, not FOX's.
Yes, out of context. Collusion and conspiracy are very difficult to prove. What is needed is one of the conspirators willing to testify against the others. To do that the prosecution will look for evidence of other crimes. Once you have a conviction for lying or fraud...flipping that person to testify becomes much easier.
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
Yes, out of context. Collusion and conspiracy are very difficult to prove. What is needed is one of the conspirators willing to testify against the others. To do that the prosecution will look for evidence of other crimes. Once you have a conviction for lying or fraud...flipping that person to testify becomes much easier.
That is how it works. Usually works better when you have an actual crime to investigate though.
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
What are you irrationally denying?

That the meeting took place at all?

That emails prove it was a meeting at which Kremlin reps provided information to help Trump beat Hillary?

That Trump Jr. responded “I love it”?

What do you deny when calling the statement a “lie”?
If that meeting was anything even remotely like what you hope and pray it is (and lie about every single day) this would be over by now.

Good luck with that.
 
Learn to read.

Page said: "No, I don't think so. I think it's a reflection of us still not knowing...It still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing, probably not nothing nothing, as we probably knew more than that by that point. But in the scheme of the possible outcomes, the most serious one obviously being crimes serious enough to warrant impeachment; but on the other scale that, you know, maybe an unwitting person was, in fact, involved in the release of information, but it didn't ultimately touch any senior, you know, people in the administration or on the campaign. And so the text just sort of reflects that spectrum."
No Wonder a Clown Could Manipulate This Dopey Broad

What a dizzy way to express herself. Her mind must be wandering somewhere else; she's gone too long without a stroke from Strzok.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Affirmative Negligence

Muzziphiles will yap anything to distract us from the fact that Dhimmis in high places left us helpless on 9/11.
Hmmmm....so Bush had been president for 8 months. The repubs were in control of both the House and the Senate and it was democrats that you blame for 911?
 

JackDallas

Senator
Supporting Member
The DOJ is obviously a joke, and needs to be thoroughly investigated by a truly impartial, independent counsel. I hope Republicans push this through.

If they don't, well then... we can safely assume you're right.
Rosenstein is a Leftist crook and Sessions is a cowardly snake. That is a recipe for trickery, deceit and lawlessness. Both should be fed to alligators.
 

EatTheRich

President
Rosenstein is a Leftist crook and Sessions is a cowardly snake. That is a recipe for trickery, deceit and lawlessness. Both should be fed to alligators.
Why would Trump appoint a “leftist crook” and a “cowardly snake” to office, along with several criminals? I thought he was only gonna hire “the best people.”
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
Have you missed the hack on the DNC email server...that was a crime. So were the hacks on 22 state election systems.
That's funny. Good boy.

Every time the Dems are pushed for facts on "Collusion" it is suddenly a investigation into "Russian interference" of the 2016 Election.

When it comes to collusion you guys are desperately hoping Mueller flips someone for a crime that was never committed.

Good luck with that.
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
Hmmmm....so Bush had been president for 8 months. The repubs were in control of both the House and the Senate and it was democrats that you blame for 911?
Easy case to be made considering Bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Easy case to be made considering Bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996.
Bush was sworn in January 2001....did you forget? His vacation in august 2001 was briefly interrupted by a PDB warning Bin Laden determined to strike in the US and even warning the plot would have to do with an airline hijacking.

Clinton was pretty sure Bin Laden had something to do with the attack in 1998 on our embassies in Africa. Any attempt that became public to kill Bin Laden was greeted by republican criticism that he was trying to distract people from the Lewinsky scandal.

In spite of that there numerous efforts to kill Bin Laden using Afghan fighters or US special forces. In the 8 months that Bush was in charge...what did he do? Did he even meet with his most senior anti-terror official? Nope.
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
Bush was sworn in January 2001....did you forget? His vacation in august 2001 was briefly interrupted by a PDB warning Bin Laden determined to strike in the US and even warning the plot would have to do with an airline hijacking.

Clinton was pretty sure Bin Laden had something to do with the attack in 1998 on our embassies in Africa. Any attempt that became public to kill Bin Laden was greeted by republican criticism that he was trying to distract people from the Lewinsky scandal.

In spite of that there numerous efforts to kill Bin Laden using Afghan fighters or US special forces. In the 8 months that Bush was in charge...what did he do? Did he even meet with his most senior anti-terror official? Nope.
Keep lying.

Again Good Boy.

George W. Bush was never given any actionable intelligence regarding Bin Laden. That is a Democratic myth and a lie you guys have perpetuated for years.

Bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996 and did absolutely nothing, even with the intelligence that Bin Laden with help from Iran had carried those bombings out as well as the one on Khobar Towers.

Lie some more below.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
That's funny. Good boy.

Every time the Dems are pushed for facts on "Collusion" it is suddenly a investigation into "Russian interference" of the 2016 Election.

When it comes to collusion you guys are desperately hoping Mueller flips someone for a crime that was never committed.

Good luck with that.
Somewhere between a wish and a hope...you guys keep trying to get people to agree with you that there should be no investigation. There was a crime. Whether or not that crime was committed because the Russians thought there would be more favorable policies from Trump is yet to be known.
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
Somewhere between a wish and a hope...you guys keep trying to get people to agree with you that there should be no investigation. There was a crime. Whether or not that crime was committed because the Russians thought there would be more favorable policies from Trump is yet to be known.
Way to stick with your talking points.

Here again in case you missed it the first time:

Every time the Dems are pushed for facts on "Collusion" it is suddenly a investigation into "Russian interference" of the 2016 Election.

When it comes to collusion you guys are desperately hoping Mueller flips someone for a crime that was never committed.

Good luck with that.
If you don't think people notice how completely full of shit you guys are, you are sadly mistaken.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Keep lying.

Again Good Boy.

George W. Bush was never given any actionable intelligence regarding Bin Laden. That is a Democratic myth and a lie you guys have perpetuated for years.

Bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996 and did absolutely nothing, even with the intelligence that Bin Laden with help from Iran had carried those bombings out as well as the one on Khobar Towers.

Lie some more below.

So Bush didn't know what Clinton knew in January 2001? Nobody told George about the embassies, Khobar or the USS Cole?

George W. Bush was never given any actionable intelligence regarding Bin Laden.
Glad to see you've still got your RNC talking points handy.
 
Top