Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Donald Trump offered Julian Assange a pardon if he would say Russia was not involved in leaking Democratic party emails, a court in London has been told. The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange's legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US.

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Assange's barrister, Edward Fitzgerald QC, referred to evidence alleging that the former US Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher had been to see Assange, now 48, while he was still in the Ecuadorian embassy in August 2017. ...

Rohrabacher told the Wall Street Journal that as part of the deal he was proposing, Assange would have to hand over a computer drive or other data storage device that would prove that Russia was not the source of the hacked emails.

"He would get nothing, obviously, if what he gave us was not proof," Rohrabacher said.

The report quoted an unnamed administration official as saying that Kelly had told Rohrabacher that the proposal "was best directed to the intelligence community". The same official said Kelly did not convey Rohrabacher's message to Trump, who was unaware of the details of the proposed deal.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Quelle surprise.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-19 02:13 PM | Reply

#1 | Posted by LampLighter

I agree. Of course the offer wasn't through official channels and there is no actual evidence the emails came from someone else - we all know the source.

#2 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-02-19 03:20 PM | Reply

Putin owns Rohrabacher. I have no doubt Trump would consider the bribe.

#3 | Posted by bored at 2020-02-19 03:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So Trump conspired with Russia.

Biden should ask Romania for help to find how Melania got an Einstein Visa.

#4 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2020-02-19 03:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Trump has also offered a posthumous pardon to Rasputin if his ghost will say that Russia was not involved in.... anything.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-19 04:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

In pre-Trump America, this would have the potential to bring down a president. But we left normal times behind the minute Trump entered the 2016 race.

#6 | Posted by cbob at 2020-02-19 04:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"The same official said Kelly did not convey Rohrabacher's message to Trump, who was unaware of the details of the proposed deal."

You mean Rohrabacher didn't tell anybody else besides Kelly? How about Devin Nunes or Lindsay Grahmam or Jared Kushner? You mean Assange didn't tell anybody? How about Roger Stone or Don Jr?

#7 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-19 04:50 PM | Reply

How can anyone be upset about this? The deal required actual proof that the Russians weren't involved - not a statement. Why are the Dems so afraid of anyone proving the Russians didn't hack Podesta's emails?

#8 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-02-19 05:57 PM | Reply

DemoKKKrats need the Russian hack to support all the Russian Hoax stuff.

If the Russians did not hack the emails then the whole predicate for the hoax is gone.

That is why there is such hysteria over this.

However the headline is Fake News.

*Trump never offered anything.*

Trump did not know about this.

Again, the lies and hysteria are because without the Russia hack, the whole Hoax falls apart.

#9 | Posted by sawdust at 2020-02-19 07:45 PM | Reply

What Hoax?
That Trump is Christian?
That Trump is a good businessman?
That Trump isn't funded by Russians?
That Trump didnt defraud investors, workers and Charities?

#10 | Posted by bored at 2020-02-19 08:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Again, the lies and hysteria are because without the Russia hack, the whole Hoax falls apart.
#9 | POSTED BY SAWDUST "

DING DING DING. We have a winner. That is why they are working feverishly to discredit Barr now prior to the Durham report. That will be one more nail in their coffin as to their dreams pinned to blaming everything on the Russians.

#11 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-02-20 12:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If the Russians did not hack the emails then the whole predicate for the hoax is gone.

The Mueller Report says, conclusively and unambiguously, that Russians did hack the emails.

But you're a -------- Trumper so I wouldn't expect you to know that.

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-20 12:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Mueller Report says, conclusively and unambiguously, that Russians did hack the emails.

But you're a -------- Trumper so I wouldn't expect you to know that.

#12 | POSTED BY JOE

To what extent did the Mueller Report conclude that members of Team Trump, Trump himself, or any other US citizens were complicit?

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 12:35 AM | Reply

"The Mueller Report says, conclusively and unambiguously, that Russians did hack the emails
#12 | POSTED BY JOE"

Yet they can provide zero evidence for it. They track 100% of the data transmissions in the undersea cables. With the full force of the US government,they can provide the actual data routing logs, yet they cannot actually do that for thus 'hack'as the transmission did not occur. This was downloaded via USB

#14 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-02-20 12:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

To what extent is that a response to my post in any way?

Guilty conscience?

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-20 01:04 AM | Reply

"To what extent is that a response to my post in any way?
#15 | POSTED BY JOE"

Because your post was an appeal to authority with zero evidence - and authority that has already admitted to fabricating evidence in support of its nonsense theory. You probably still believe Saddam had WMDs because the same douches told you that lie too.

#16 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-02-20 01:30 AM | Reply

To what extent did the Mueller Report conclude that members of Team Trump, Trump himself, or any other US citizens were complicit?

#13 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

In other words, how much wiggle room do I have to avoid admitting Trump is a POS and I'm a moron for believing that conman for three years...

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-20 02:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You probably still believe Saddam had WMDs because the same douches told you that lie too.

#16 | POSTED BY IRASCHITBERG

LOL you impotent windsock ----.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-20 02:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Julian, do me a favor and deny Russian involvement in e-mail leaks or else your pardon may have a delay.

#19 | Posted by LesWit at 2020-02-20 02:21 AM | Reply

LOL you impotent windsock
#18 | POSTED BY JPW

Whenever faced with facts, JPW's little T-Rex arms flap until dislocated.

#20 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-02-20 02:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"LOL you impotent windsock ----.

#18 | POSTED BY JPW "

Well, you really proved your point beyond the shadow of any doubt, big guy! LOL

#21 | Posted by goatman at 2020-02-20 03:45 AM | Reply

To what extent did the Mueller Report

Well Barr and Trump are blocking the release of the full report because well he is just so innocent.

#22 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-02-20 08:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Trump may have not "coordinated" with Russia, but he certainly communicated and didn't turn away help. The Mueller report showed that.

Not treason, but completely un-American if you ask me...............

#23 | Posted by brass30 at 2020-02-20 08:56 AM | Reply

This claim is quite extraordinary, but does anyone doubt Trump would do this? He's on record dangling pardons to other people and really has zero concern for anything other than himself and Russia. The story lines up.

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-20 09:56 AM | Reply

In other words, how much wiggle room do I have to avoid admitting Trump is a POS and I'm a moron for believing that conman for three years...

#17 | POSTED BY JPW

Your straw man doesn't address my question. *Shocking*

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 10:12 AM | Reply

Trump/Prison 2020

#26 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2020-02-20 10:39 AM | Reply

Your straw man doesn't address my question. *Shocking*

#25 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Your attempt at weaseling does not address the fact that Russia hacked us. The trump campaign cooperated with them. And Trump and the deplorables are still lying or in denial. And it is still happening today and will happen again.

No hoax. Trump cooperated. And colluded. With a foreign power to undermine our elections. And it was not the first time or the last time he will do cheat. And he has not taken action to prevent it again. There is just not enough evidence for you because wait for it...

Trump has withheld that evidence and prevented the testimony of the witnesses who would know. In other words, he obstructed justice. As charged in his impeachment.

So "Russia if you are listening..."

Jeffy needs your help....

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-02-20 11:00 AM | Reply

So now Rohrabacher has come and said he did offer a pardon (obviously thru Trump) to prove that Russia didn't hack the DNC..LOL...now that's quite a spin.

Guess he needed say something before proof got out a pardon was indeed offered..........

Trump hardly knows him? Hehe..........

#28 | Posted by brass30 at 2020-02-20 11:46 AM | Reply

No hoax. Trump cooperated. And colluded.

Stop lying. His team was given a political colonoscopy and no evidence exists to substantiate your BS.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 12:16 PM | Reply

"no evidence exists"

Please find that conclusion in Mueller's report. You won't because you can't because it isn't in there. You are the one who is lying, Jeff. Go ahead and lie to yourself if you want to, but please stop lying to the rest of us.

#30 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-20 12:21 PM | Reply

#30 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

The report explicitly states they found no evidence that Trump, his team or any American conspired with Russia.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 02:27 PM | Reply

The whole Russian collusion thing in the Mueller report was a dud. I don't know why you people still cling to it.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 02:32 PM | Reply

#31 We went over this last week and you conveniently stopped responding. The Report says the investigation did not "establish" that the Trump team conspired with Russia. They did not say "no evidence."

Why are you such a liar?

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-20 02:34 PM | Reply

#33 Why are you so invested in this narrative.

You're like a bitter clinger that Obama described.

Here is the Mueller report, by the numbers:

- 675: The number of days from when Mueller was appointed to the day he turned in his report to Barr.

- 34: people indicted as a result of Mueller's investigation, including Russian nationals and several former Trump aides and advisors.

- 19: lawyers who were employed by the special counsel's office, according to a letter Barr sent to Congress on Sunday.

- About 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other staff that assisted with the investigation.

- More than 2,800 subpoenas issued by the Special Counsel's office, that's an average of at least four per day.

- Nearly 500 search warrants executed.

- More than 230 orders for communication records.

- Nearly 50 authorized orders for the use of pen registers, a tool that lets the government know who someone is communicating with and when, but not what they said.

- 13 evidence requests to foreign governments

- 500 witnesses interviewed

- $25 million in posted costs as of February

Mueller report:Investigation found no evidence Trump conspired with Russia, leaves obstruction question open


www.usatoday.com

I am not interested in parsing semantics. All of those resources and "found no evidence Trump conspired with Russia." You people need to let go; move on.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 02:39 PM | Reply

It really is pathetic.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 02:39 PM | Reply

We went over this last week and you conveniently stopped responding. The Report says the investigation did not "establish" that the Trump team conspired with Russia. They did not say "no evidence."

Thanks, Joe. I'm not at home on my own computer, so I can't cite the quotes from Mueller's report that put the lie to Jeff--and USA Today's--claim there was no evidence.

#36 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-20 02:42 PM | Reply

Hey Jeff. #34 doesn't disprove the facts in my #33.

If you aren't interested in playing semantics then don't use unequivocal language that is patently false.

You're a liar. And a ------ one.

#37 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-20 02:44 PM | Reply

And i'm not "invested in this narrative." I think Trump is a vile POS for literally hundreds of reasons, of which Russia is but a one. That doesn't mean i'm going to watch you lie about it without saying something, if for no other reason than perhaps some other reader with a brain might understand. I know for a fact you're too far gone.

#38 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-20 02:46 PM | Reply

Robert Mueller kneecaps President Trump's no collusion, no obstruction mantra

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities," Mueller said. But: "We did not address collusion,' which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not."

That's an important distinction, between a colloquial term, collusion, and what Mueller's team sought to determine, which was whether there was enough evidence to prove criminal conspiracy. Mueller is pointed: There was no determination on "collusion" " and there may have been at least some evidence pointing to possible conspiracy.

At the hearing, Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.) pressed Mueller on the extent to which "collusion" and "conspiracy" are interchangeable as terms, asking Mueller if the two aren't colloquially equivalent. Mueller said they weren't, prompting Collins to follow up by noting that the report equates the two. The difference, of course, is that the report is drawing a legal equivalence to evaluate possible criminal overlap between Trump's team and Russia. That's not what Trump is doing when he uses the term.


www.washingtonpost.com

#39 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-20 02:49 PM | Reply

#37 You are way too young to be perpetually angry, Joe.

#38 You absolutely are invested in a narrative. Mueller laid out a pretty good obstruction case. Collusion was a dud. Learn to deal with it.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 02:50 PM | Reply

#39 Gal,

Please notice that I explicitly used the word "conspired". Please reread #31. Joe apparently didn't and then he flew off the handle, but we've all seen that before.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 02:52 PM | Reply

"we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not." is not the same thing as saying "there was no evidence. Furthermore, the Mueller report, which again I can't access, specifically stated that the investigation was hampered in getting at the truth by people on Trump's team who lied to investigators and who destroyed emails, etc.

#42 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-20 02:53 PM | Reply

You are way too young to be perpetually angry, Joe

Translation: I got caught lying again and rather than run away like i usually do, i'll pivot to a tired ad hominem.

Go away, liar.

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-20 02:53 PM | Reply

Joe apparently didn't

I read every dumb word of your lying post. The Mueller Report does not say they found no evidence. It says they did not establish conspiracy. Those are not the same thing. There can be evidence of something without that thing being "established." You rounding "did not establish" down to "no evidence" is a lie.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-20 02:55 PM | Reply

In investigating ties between the Trump campaign and Russian individuals, Mueller's team ran into technological hurdles, in addition to old-fashioned ones such as unavailable foreign witnesses, according to the report.

The special counsel's office "learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated " including some associated with the Trump Campaign deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long term retention of data or communication records," the report said. "In such cases the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with the other known facts."

Apps such as Snapchat, for example, delete messages once they have been viewed, and the company says it deletes all messages from its servers after 30 days. WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram and Viber are some of the apps that offer end-to-end encryption of messages. The report does not mention which individuals may have used such apps.

The probe also "faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well " numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States," the report said.

As a result of the missing evidence, Mueller wrote that his office "cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report."

The nearly two-year-long investigation "established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government," according to the report. "Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the campaign. In some instances, the campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the campaign officials shied away."


www.rollcall.com

#45 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-20 03:02 PM | Reply

#42 Gal,

Here is the report:

www.justice.gov

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 03:07 PM | Reply

#44 | POSTED BY L'il Joe

Send me a PO address and I'll mail you a box of tissue.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 03:09 PM | Reply

#46 Thanks, Jeff, but I meant my annotated copy of the report. I don't feel like searching through it right now!

#48 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-20 03:12 PM | Reply

#46 I ctrl+F'd "no evidence" and found the most hilarious thing.

Page 2: "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

Go to bed, Jeff.

#49 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-20 03:12 PM | Reply

#46 I ctrl+F'd "no evidence" and found the most hilarious thing.
Page 2: "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

TY

#50 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-20 03:19 PM | Reply

It's always fun to play the "What if" game. What if:

The nearly two-year-long investigation "established multiple links between Clinton Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russian offers of assistance to the campaign. In some instances, the campaign was receptive to the offer, while in other instances the campaign officials shied away."

NO COLLUSION is not what Jeff and Trump et al would be shouting.

#51 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-20 03:23 PM | Reply

"NO COLLUSION is not what Jeff and Trump et al would be shouting."

Oops, sorry:

NO EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY!

#52 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-20 03:27 PM | Reply

The report explicitly states they found no evidence that Trump, his team or any American conspired with Russia.
#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I quoted the report showing that this is in fact a lie.

Stop lying Jeff.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-20 04:09 PM | Reply

Stop lying Jeff.
#53 | POSTED BY JPW

He can't.

I've notice more and more with Jeff lately that he posts a lot of straight up lies.

Trump has rubbed off on him.

#54 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-02-20 04:12 PM | Reply

Since you posted the link to the report go to page 9 IIRC.

It will say explicitly that they found substantial contact and communications between Russians and the Trump campaign and transition teams but didn't find sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal charge of conspiracy.

#55 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-20 04:13 PM | Reply

#55 Pretty sure it also says Trump admin officials withheld information that could have substantiated those charges.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-20 04:17 PM | Reply

Conspire is a legal term, JPW. I chose it for a reason. Please cite where in the report Mueller established criminal conspiracy between Trump's team and Russia. You and I are actually saying the same thing but are using different language.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 04:33 PM | Reply

#49

I'm not tired.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 04:34 PM | Reply

Please cite where in the report Mueller established there was no criminal conspiracy between Trump's team and Russia.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-20 04:35 PM | Reply

Give it up, Jeff, or at least give it a rest:

The report explicitly states they found no evidence that Trump, his team or any American conspired with Russia.
#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-02-20 02:27 PM

is not the same thing as:

I ctrl+F'd "no evidence" and found the most hilarious thing.
Page 2: "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

#60 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-20 04:37 PM | Reply

#57 nice goal post shift.

Just take the hit and admit you were wrong Jeff.

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-20 04:46 PM | Reply

" I'm not tired."

You should be after twisting yourself in knots. Read this until it sinks in.

A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

#62 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-20 04:47 PM | Reply

Do you know what that means Jeff? It means when you say the Mueller Report " explicitly states they found no evidence," you are lying.

Liar.

#63 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-20 04:48 PM | Reply

JPW,

I'm one of the rare few on this site who will admit when I'm wrong. I used "conspired" for a reason, because it's a legal term. Conspiring with Russia is against the law. The report did not establish Team Trump conspiring with Russia.

Joe wants to parse what the definition of is, is.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 04:57 PM | Reply

The report did not establish Team Trump conspiring with Russia.

Correct. And the Report goes out of its way to say that "did not establish" does not equal "no evidence."

So when you claim the Report says "no evidence," you are lying.

Liar.

#65 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-20 04:58 PM | Reply

Like I said, you want to parse what the definition of is, is.

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 04:59 PM | Reply

No i don't.

I want to tell you that when you say "no evidence," you are lying.

#67 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-20 05:01 PM | Reply

I'm one of the rare few on this site who will admit when I'm wrong. I used "conspired" for a reason, because it's a legal term. Conspiring with Russia is against the law. The report did not establish Team Trump conspiring with Russia.

No, Jeff, that's not how this started:

No hoax. Trump cooperated. And colluded. With a foreign power to undermine our elections. And it was not the first time or the last time he will do cheat. And he has not taken action to prevent it again. There is just not enough evidence for you because wait for it...
Trump has withheld that evidence and prevented the testimony of the witnesses who would know. In other words, he obstructed justice. As charged in his impeachment.
#27 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2020-02-2

to which you replied:

No hoax. Trump cooperated. And colluded.
Stop lying. His team was given a political colonoscopy and no evidence exists to substantiate your BS.
#29 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-02-20 12:16 PM

to which I replied:

"no evidence exists"
Please find that conclusion in Mueller's report. You won't because you can't because it isn't in there. You are the one who is lying, Jeff. Go ahead and lie to yourself if you want to, but please stop lying to the rest of us.
#30 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2020-02-20 12:21 PM

and then you replied:

#30 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY
The report explicitly states they found no evidence that Trump, his team or any American conspired with Russia.
#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-02-20 02:27 PM | FLAG:

and then Joe replied:

#31 We went over this last week and you conveniently stopped responding. The Report says the investigation did not "establish" that the Trump team conspired with Russia. They did not say "no evidence."
Why are you such a liar?
#33 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2020

It was only then, at the end of a long post, that you introduced the term "conspiracy" into the discussion:

Mueller report:Investigation found no evidence Trump conspired with Russia, leaves obstruction question open
www.usatoday.com
I am not interested in parsing semantics. All of those resources and "found no evidence Trump conspired with Russia." You people need to let go; move on.
#34 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-02-20 02:39 PM

#68 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-20 05:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

PS You originally said: "The report explicitly states they found no evidence"

not:

"The report did not establish Team Trump conspiring with Russia."

As has been pointed out, you've moved the goal post several times.

#69 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-20 05:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Conspiring with Russia is against the law. The report did not establish Team Trump conspiring with Russia.
Joe wants to parse what the definition of is, is.
#64 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No, he's trying to convince you that collusion is a bad thing that the president should not do and warranted a full investigation.

I'll go out on a limb and say JEFF is correct in that there was no evidence warranting charges specific to conspiracy. That does NOT mean there was ZERO nefarious or personally beneficial intent that should be taken into consideration as potentially criminal, with plenty of evidence to back that exact narrative; again, which completely warranted an investigation. The idea that the conspiracy investigation was a dud is complete hyperbole (but not surprised the self-admitted troll JEFF refuses to acknowledge as much). The problem with JEFF's stance here is that he does not perceive collusion as conspiracy light and that he refuses (for some unknown reason) to acknowledge collusion with Russia as being a problem. In fact, the collusion at Trump Tower was only deemed not "direct evidence of conspiracy" because it was determined that Trump Jr. was too ignorant of the law to warrant charges.

Yeah, sure. A real dud. /s

#70 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-02-20 05:13 PM | Reply

Gal spanking Jeffy.... no, he would enjoy that too much ;>)

#71 | Posted by Corky at 2020-02-20 05:14 PM | Reply

I Ctrl-F and didnt find "Trump is guilty as hell".

Stangely, I didnt find "This whole investigation is not a hoax".

#72 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-02-20 05:14 PM | Reply

"It was only then, at the end of a long post, that you introduced the term "conspiracy" into the discussion:"

Oh, sorry, my apologies, you introduced the term here:

The report explicitly states they found no evidence that Trump, his team or any American conspired with Russia.
#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2020-02-20 02:27 PM | FLAG:

#73 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-02-20 05:15 PM | Reply

#72 | POSTED BY PETROUS

No you didn't. And if you did, you're a silly little man whose hair smells like cinnamon.

#74 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2020-02-20 05:16 PM | Reply

#64 you're turning to sloppy language to avoid admitting you were wrong.

Mueller report never said there was NO evidence, which was your statement .

#75 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-20 05:26 PM | Reply

JeffJ has become a gaslighter.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-02-20 05:49 PM | Reply

#68 Whomp!! Take that Jeffy. You can run from the truth but we will not let you hide behind lies and half truths.

#77 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-02-20 05:58 PM | Reply

Yessssssssssssss Jeff is getting his hiney reamed out but good. It's a gorgeous sight to behold.

#78 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-02-20 06:01 PM | Reply

#75 I said no evidence of "conspiring" with Russia.

If that's a false statement I'll gladly admit it.

#79 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 06:16 PM | Reply

Report never says NO evidence. Just insufficient evidence to indict and charge.

Not by any means the same thing.

#80 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-20 06:41 PM | Reply

www.bloomberg.com

Around the time in 2016 when Paul Manafort began sharing the Trump campaign's internal polling data with an associate linked to Russian intelligence, each man was trying to advance an agenda.

Manafort sharing polling data with the Russians.

Sure, no evidence indeed

#81 | Posted by truthhurts at 2020-02-20 07:10 PM | Reply

#80 JPW. Fair enough.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 07:57 PM | Reply

I said no evidence of "conspiring" with Russia.

If that's a false statement I'll gladly admit it.

Gladly my ass. It took half a day for you to even say "fair enough" despite a direct in the report that verbatim contradicts your claim being shoved in your face repeatedly in bold type.

When you whine about not being treated with respect, threads like this should be Exhibit A. Trumpers are a cancer.

#83 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-20 08:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't care if I'm treated with respect.

It's a fricking weblog.

If you are coming here to feel respected you've got other things to worry about in life.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-20 08:45 PM | Reply

Gal is my favorite poster here. Spanking Jeffry with the facts. That's going to leave a mark.

#85 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2020-02-21 01:39 AM | Reply

I don't care if I'm treated with respect

Hahahahaha

You whine about it constantly

Duly noted, though!

#86 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-21 08:15 AM | Reply

"I don't care if I'm treated with respect"

Obviously you have no self respect either.

When will you stop being a dupe and tool of a hostile foreign nation and spreading misinformation at their behest?

Huh?

When will you show some respect for yourself and your country again?

#87 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-02-21 01:31 PM | Reply

#75 I said no evidence of "conspiring" with Russia.
If that's a false statement I'll gladly admit it.

#79 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No. They found quite a great deal of evidence on conspiring with Russia and noted significant amounts of evidence was also destroyed by Trump officials.

They did not find enough evidence to reach the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. They did find enough evidence to reach "preponderance of the evidence."

For example, the Report found sufficient evidence that Konstantin Kilimnik was a spy for the Russian government. They found beyond a reasonable doubt that Manafort was feeding him information from the campaign including polling data.

Another example, The Report also found evidence that Trump directed campaign officials to contact Stone about Wikileaks. However, again there was insufficient evidence to reach proof beyond a reasonable doubt because communications were often destroyed and/or campaign officials used encrypted communications apps.

And now numerous Trump officials were prosecuted for lying about all of it.

Shame Barr ordered the investigation shut down before it concluded.

I wonder why the very communications that could have proven the Trump was innocent was destroyed by Trump's team?

#88 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-21 01:34 PM | Reply

#82, fair enough is not actually true.

When the prosecution's case is insufficient, the defendant is innocent.

It doesnt matter one wit if the prosecutor has a truck load of records.

You, me, and anyone else is innocent until proven guilty.

No where in a prosecutor's brief is the determination of innocence rely on a statement in their files.

Trump was vindicated because there was no prosecution of the case. Any claim that the investigation proved guilt cheats a person of a fair trial.

#89 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-02-21 02:43 PM | Reply

#86

I never complain about a lack of respect, Joe.

I expect it from you simply because you're rude to everybody most of the time.

I do point out that I give you the courtesy of taking you at your word even though you rarely extend the same courtesy. That has nothing to do with respect and it's not even a complaint it's simply shining a light on the fact that your default is to be an angry dick.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-22 12:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I expect it from you simply because you're rude to everybody most of the time."

Don't remember Joe ever being "rude" to me.

Though it's possible. Every one has a bad day. Occasionally.

#91 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-02-22 01:28 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort