Senate Intel Dems Admit There May Be ZERO Evidence Of Collusion Between Russians And Trump Campaign

More RW hypocrisy again

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roger-stone-guccifer_us_58c320c9e4b0d1078ca6dbf8
Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of President Donald Trump’s and a former consultant on his 2016 campaign, told the Washington Times on Friday that his conversation with Guccifer 2.0, the person or persons believed to be responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee, was “completely innocuous.”

Now we have a direct link to the hacking. Let the investigation continue, if RW Trump supporters are so sure of themselves, then they should have no qualms about it, but I doubt it.

 

Question - if there will be no evidence of RF involvement in USA elections found - will USA ex-president give his official apology to 35 deported RF diplomats generally, or to each of them personally?

 

You have a link to the hacker, not a link to the hacking. Important caveat to point out there. And as far as an investigation, sure, waste your time. The Left noted Benghazi was a waste of time, so now they can have their own Benghazi. Trumpgate shows how delirious the Left's become.

The Russians had a conspiracy to place a puppet as government and the FBI only noticed AFTER the election lol.

 

On the one hand we have a bevy of lefties & media "talent" throwing around Trump + Russia accusations despite zero evidence & on the other we have documented proof of corruption within the DNC & collusion between the media & the Clinton campaign. We also have documentation of Hillary's & Obama's nefarious dealings with the Russian's, none of which seemed terribly troubling to the same overtly bias "Trump + Russia" players now soooooooo troubled & concerned about Russian influence. The hypocrisies so so thick you can cut it with a knife.

 

Go back and reread the underlined section in the OP.

Now understand the phrase "plausible deniability."

All that's been said is that they may not be able to demonstrate a direct link. That does not mean the links are not there.

 

I find this rather ironic, and very hypocritical coming from the party of birthers, BENGAZI!!! and all the other made up nonsense republicans come up,with.

 

The parrot is dead. Liberals just can't admit it.

 

Like I said above: This is your Benghazi moment. Take a lesson from the Right: Just drop it, apologize to AG Sessions and work with the POTUS.

 

Rush Limbaugh was spot-on ALL ALONG about this.Plus the way
Obama cavalierly dismissed it Before the Election.Figuring IF Hillary
won it could become a problem for the Dems.So Obama came out and
dispensed with any concerns about Russia and our upcoming Election.
Till Trump won,of course.Then a whole new ball game emerged.
How were the Dems gonna take it.They weren't.They were gonna pull out
all the stops.Make every case possible that the Election was rigged in favor
of Trump and that Russia aided him.Then the Jill Stein flak about election
results.No way could Trump have taken the rust belt or Wisconsin.
Forgetting that Scott Walker overcame The Dem Machine in THREE
Governorship election { one a Recall in 2012 }.
Limbaugh is right to conclude the Dems used a Talking Pt. Meme
that Trump and Russia were behind his winning.Of course Trump was
behind his winning.But Not Russia.That was the MEME. The New
Narrative used essentially by ALL Democrats.
Because that is what the Democrat Party does.They use MEME's
and words like " Obstructionist " and " Far-right " and " Extreme ".
Focus group tested words and phrases that seem to have an instant
impact on the Populace.No matter if Total ... Projection.
The use of which is to Blame and name-call your opposition as
if they are guilty.When it is Fact that the Democrats are guilty.
Of being " Extreme " , " Obstructionist " and " Far-LEFT ".
Their gig is almost up.There is such a thing as getting Too cute by Half.
Obama still thinks he can play that game.In his height he got so cute
he thought it ok for weeks to pin the Benghazi Attack on some
Muhammad Video.Going so far as to push the claim at the United
Nations 6 times.

 

The difference here is that there is actually evidence of wrongdoing/collusion.

 

There isn't evidence of CRAP. There's been "connections"(more like conversations, but I'll play along) and these connections haven't proven anything. This is more whining that the worst candidate in Democrat history, worse than Humphrey in 1968 was nominated. The irony is that Humphrey's nomination was the reason for the closed primary concept. So TWICE in Democrat history, once pre-reform and once after reform, it doomed them.

Maybe they should keep an open primary and actually support the more popular Democrat. That's just a thought of course.

 

LOL Are you kidding? There's no evidence of Obama's people secretly admitted they knew it wasn't about a video? There's no evidence of eye witness testimony that they were told to stand down instead of rescuing the men under attack? What planet have you been living on?

 

Present the evidence.

 

Huh? No, there is no evidence anyone was told to stand down.

 

Search through any of the dozens of threads on the topic.

 

It was obvious that the Benghazi witchunt was just that. Even the most circumstantial of facts regarding the incident did not support the right wing narrative.

This is not the case with regard to the Russian effort to influence American domestic politics or to aid the Trump campaign. There is not doubt about either, at this point.

The only question is whether Trump, his accolades or campaign were directly involved. A growing body of circumstantial evidence points to the probability that they were that stupid (stupd and arrogant being Trump traits).

One other critical difference. While the GOP led Congress was all to eager to investigate Benghazi over and over again, the same people are having to be shamed into investigating whether a foreign government influenced a US election. I sincerely doubt that either of the intelligence committees will do any sort of honest investigation, and their chairs will use their power to avoid calling imporatant witnesses, try and limit questions and draw conclusions that defy the available evidence. This is what the GOP congress did when called on to investigate the Iraq war. However, the facts emerged none the less.

So it will be this time. Enjoy your smug self assurance while it lasts. You don't have much longer to do so.

Indeed, the Benghazi witchunt isn't the approporiate analogy. Watergate is.

As someone who watched that scandal evolve over the course of two years, the similarity in the evolution of the public's understanding and the steady revalation of the facts is very similar, Of course, we are only in the beginning stages now. The next step is for the GOP to try and supress the evidence. That won't work in the long run. It never does.

 

You bringed that into topic - present the evidence.

 

My evidence is.......the dozens of other threads covering this topic.

 

No, you said, I quote:

So stop trying to slip in demagogedry and present that evidence. Here and now, and a solid, reliable, trustworthy one.

 

Just the eye witnesses who said they were. Do you need to see the video?

 

There is not, and never was, any such thing as an open presidential primary election.

And there never will be.

 

This is not good. If Trump didn't collude with the Russians that means that he won fair and square.

 

I was of course referring to the miserable Democratic nomination process (see: the word "Nominated".) Had all of the primaries been open, we might have a president Bernie Sanders. Instead, the irony of the closed primary ended up delivering the same result as Humphrey, which they were intended to prevent!

It was truly oxymoronic at its finest. I simply suggest to my former party that since 'closed primaries' don't do any better in getting good nominees, reopening it might actually do some good.

 

Search through any of the dozens of threads on the topic

 

Lol, is it a YouTube video?