What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

JazzyFresh said:
I feel I have provided plenty of proof.

Obama officials admit there was zero evidence. Zero. So where did this evidence come from? If Obama officials had no evidence? Who did?

The FBI
Ohhh you mean the evidence vwe now know is Russian propaganda? Why was Hillary warned by the FBI but not Trump? Hmmm...

Why did the FBI have to straight faced lie to get said FISA warrant? Why did they fabricate evidence? If the Trump campaign really colluded then there would be no reason to lie

Then Mueller, you know, the main investigator admits he found that Russia meddled(under Obama) but Trump nor his campaign were guilty of collusion.

This is the FBI that on record stated they would not allow Trump to be president Strzok and Page via text.

Then I provided proof in your own article that stated nobody was indicted for colluding.

Nobody was ever indicted for collision and even the people indicted like Flynn we now have proof that the FBI extorted him by saying they were going to either get him fired or force him to lie

This is all 100% fact. There is absolutely no disputing any of this this is 100% proof that Trump didn't collude.
Click to expand...
So again, assumptions. You following the other sheep apparently. Blowing smoke, no proof.
 
JazzyFresh said:
"Much of that information was inconsistent with, or undercut, the assertions contained in the FISA applications that were used to support probable cause and, in some instances, resulted in inaccurate information being included in the applications," the report stated.

So... If something is inaccurate, how does it become that way? Was it fabricated? Yes. It was false information. False information just doesn't randomly make itself, someone else made it.

Off topic but let's also remember we have known of meddling since 2014 and nothing was done. I have no facts as to why worthless Obama didn't stop it then but according to some in his own cabinet he allowed them to meddle in return for Putin to sign onto his Iran deal. Again his staffs words, not mine. His own intelligence even admits to being told to stand down. So its weird how you all blame Trump for Obama allowing meddling under HIS presidency. He should've stopped it in 2014 but he didn't. He sold America for Iran.

The same guy who told Russia on a hot mic "once I'm re-elected I can give you more leeway". Giving the people meddling in our own elections leeway. Wtf is that supposed to mean?
Click to expand...
So now "inaccurate in some cases" = "admitting" it was all fabricated. Man are you ever working up a sweat pushing those goal posts. Keep going, eventually you'll convince your other sheep buddies of something they already believe.
 
gandalfe said:
“While this report does not conclude that the President committed crime.” - Robert Mueller
Click to expand...
Thanks! The second part is absolutely irrelevant. Also the ghost crime would not be collusion, the ghost crime after contradicting himself would be obstruction(zero to do with collusion). By your own post he couldn't say whether or not that happened. By any SANE and lawful standards that's being innocent.

After...3...years... The best he got was there was no obstruction but I'm(Mueller) not going to say that even though I(Mueller) just said it the sentence before..
 
Last edited:
Personally, Im all for the first amendment but I think something should be done about an obvious hit piece, 60 days before an election, that has zero evidence, zero real witnesses and is nothing but he said she said. It's insanely dangerous and it's mind boggling that actual adults don't even question it.

If you're going to make such a radical claim against a running official, no matter the party, it should have actual witnesses and substance behind it. I'm not saying it should be illegal but it should have a label on the piece, something like "manufactured hearsay" or "no evidence behind claim but".. in the headline. Kind of like an opinion piece states it's an opinion.

Especially when this happened in 2018 but just randomly pops up out of thin air. 60 days before an election. Obviously fluff and they accuse others of election meddling.
 
Last edited:
JazzyFresh said:
Thanks! The second part is absolutely irrelevant. Also the ghost crime would not be collusion, the ghost crime after contradicting himself would be obstruction(zero to do with collusion). By your own post he couldn't say whether or not that happened. By any SANE and lawful standards that's being innocent.

After...3...years... The best he got was there was no obstruction but I'm(Mueller) not going to say that even though I(Mueller) just said it the sentence before..
Click to expand...
It's IRRELEVANT that it does not exonerate him?

You're an ideologue, a fanatic, pure and simple.
 
JazzyFresh said:
Personally, Im all for the first amendment but I think something should be done about an obvious hit piece, 60 days before an election, that has zero evidence, zero real witnesses and is nothing but he said she said. It's insanely dangerous and it's mind boggling that actual adults don't even question it.

If you're going to make such a radical claim against a running official, no matter the party, it should have actual witnesses and substance behind it. I'm not saying it should be illegal but it should have a label on the piece, something like "manufactured hearsay" or "no evidence behind claim but".. in the headline. Kind of like an opinion piece states it's an opinion.

Especially when this happened in 2018 but just randomly pops up out of thin air. 60 days before an election. Obviously fluff and they accuse others of election meddling.
Click to expand...
You don't even have the tiniest little idea how journalism works, do you?

Or the real world, for that matter?
 
gandalfe said:
It's IRRELEVANT that it does not exonerate him?

You're an ideologue, a fanatic, pure and simple.
Click to expand...
It's irrelevant because he says that he couldn't find no crime. Duh dude. It's basic law that if you can't find no crime you are innocent. Do they not teach this in indoctrination classes anymore?
 
JazzyFresh said:
Thanks! The second part is absolutely irrelevant. Also the ghost crime would not be collusion, the ghost crime after contradicting himself would be obstruction(zero to do with collusion). By your own post he couldn't say whether or not that happened. By any SANE and lawful standards that's being innocent.

After...3...years... The best he got was there was no obstruction but I'm(Mueller) not going to say that even though I(Mueller) just said it the sentence before..
Click to expand...
You are truly a Trump acolyte. Keep the part that supports your case, throw out anything that doesn't, attack attack attack. Trump's battle-sheep.
 
JazzyFresh said:
It's irrelevant because he says that he couldn't find no crime. Duh dude. It's basic law that if you can't find no crime you are innocent. Do they not teach this in indoctrination classes anymore?
Click to expand...
This has to be a troll right? Right? No one is really this stupid are they?
 
C'mon dudes this should be easy

I did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
-Robert Mueller

"I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election,”
-James Clapper

“I am not in possession of anything—I am not in possession and didn’t read or absorb information that came from out of the intelligence community.”
-Samantha Power

“To the best of my recollection, there wasn’t anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause,”
-Susan Rice
 
JazzyFresh said:
What crime was committed?
Click to expand...
One night looking out your window you see someone open the door of your car and take something. You know it was your neighbor, you recognize him. You call the police. They take your statement then go talk to your neighbor. He says "no I didn't". They ask you for more evidence, like video or something. You don't have any. So they say "there is not sufficient evidence to say a crime was committed." Question: was a crime committed?
 
Not finding enough evidence does not equal innocent, which is why he worded it like he did.
 
All of this typing, all of this work, all of these facts, with actual witnesses, quotes from investigators to prove my point and the return intelligence I get is void. Not one of you have provided an intelligent response and resort to childish memes, whataboutisms, and just flat out stupidity like" my wife and a dog", a 30 second video years old, and some sort of stupid anogolgy about getting your house broken into. These are not answers, well they are cowardly answers.


This is why I left in the first place and am leaving again. I'm part of other boards where a simple yes or no is answered. Where people can use their words to explain their idealism. Where people can explain what law was broken. You guys are not smart plain an simple. I am embarrassed that I wasted my time but I admittedly forgot that the intelligence here is to not answer a simple question and resort to "look over there" tactics. A staple in the party.

Peace you worthless conversationalist. Be ready to lose again because the average American sees through your indoctrinating and ask the same questions I do.

Asking for evidence is not rocket science m
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top