Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 286 to 300 of 382
  1. #286
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,452
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    where was the collusion then? you're talking about evidence that wasn't there.

    people testified under oath that they saw no collusion. were they also wrong?
    No evidence of collision is not the same as evidence of no collusion.

  2. #287
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    25,487
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    No evidence of collision is not the same as evidence of no collusion.
    yes I'm sure there must have been collusion since that is what the left had already concluded before any investigation. the evidence just must have been missed during the lengthy investigation, because it must have been there, somewhere.

    don't get your panties in a bunch because you don't like what I'm posting.
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome
    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  3. #288
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    46,881

    Sources say Russia probe transcripts affirm officials came up empty on collusion

    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    yes I'm sure there must have been collusion since that is what the left had already concluded before any investigation. the evidence just must have been missed during the lengthy investigation, because it must have been there, somewhere.
    How do you know what is in the transcripts?

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  4. #289
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,351
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    how do I show something that wasn't there, no evidence.

    I've continued to back up what I've said, no evidence. in order for me to be wrong, you need to support what you said.

    in order for me to be wrong, these also must be wrong..

    "concluded they had found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy."

    "Trump officials all testified they had seen no collusion on the campaign."

    if I'm wrong, point to the evidence that there was some evidence of collusion, which would contradict the quotes above.




    why would anyone on PSD agree with me. it's taken extreme situations for that to happen in the years with Trump as President or candidate.
    I didn't say there was collusion. I said you were wrong when you said the transcripts showed there was no collusion. They don't show that. In your quotes you point out "no evidence" and "had seen no collusion" ... that's all well and good, but that's not what you said. You didn't say they didn't prove collusion, you didn't say they didn't find evidence of collusion, you said it showed that there was no collusion. It does not show that there was no collusion, it shows that the investigators didn't find evidence of collusion.

    There are plenty of Trump supporters here, and I kind of agreed with something you said this week (don't remember what) ... but this has nothing to do with politics or with Trump, it is entirely you not understanding the english language. "shows no collusion" is not at all the same as "no evidence of collusion". One says that there was a conclusion that no collusion ever happened, the other is that they stopped looking for proof of collusion.

  5. #290
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,351
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    yes I'm sure there must have been collusion since that is what the left had already concluded before any investigation. the evidence just must have been missed during the lengthy investigation, because it must have been there, somewhere.
    Okay, so this is progress, except nobody is arguing that there was collusion, just that the transcripts don't show that there was no collusion. It's strange that you now believe there was collusion after all this time, but for sure now you must accept that your proclamation that the transcripts showed there was no collusion was a mistake right?

  6. #291
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,449
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    where was the collusion then? you're talking about evidence that wasn't there.

    people testified under oath that they saw no collusion. were they also wrong?
    I will testify under oath that I didn’t see you eat anything today. Does that mean you haven’t eaten anything?

  7. #292
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    25,487
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    How do you know what is in the transcripts?

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I can read.

    don't get your panties in a bunch because you don't like what I'm posting.
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome
    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  8. #293
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    25,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I didn't say there was collusion. I said you were wrong when you said the transcripts showed there was no collusion. They don't show that. In your quotes you point out "no evidence" and "had seen no collusion" ... that's all well and good, but that's not what you said. You didn't say they didn't prove collusion, you didn't say they didn't find evidence of collusion, you said it showed that there was no collusion. It does not show that there was no collusion, it shows that the investigators didn't find evidence of collusion.

    There are plenty of Trump supporters here, and I kind of agreed with something you said this week (don't remember what) ... but this has nothing to do with politics or with Trump, it is entirely you not understanding the english language. "shows no collusion" is not at all the same as "no evidence of collusion". One says that there was a conclusion that no collusion ever happened, the other is that they stopped looking for proof of collusion.
    when they didn't find evidence of collusion, what do you think that means. evidence of collusion can't be found if there was none.

    don't get your panties in a bunch because you don't like what I'm posting.
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome
    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  9. #294
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    25,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Okay, so this is progress, except nobody is arguing that there was collusion, just that the transcripts don't show that there was no collusion. It's strange that you now believe there was collusion after all this time, but for sure now you must accept that your proclamation that the transcripts showed there was no collusion was a mistake right?
    yes some did, and that is part of the point. these same people like Clapper and Schiff said publicly that Trump absolutely colluded with Russia, and they had to say differently under oath.

    my post that you're quoting was sarcasm because I'm tried of this.

    don't get your panties in a bunch because you don't like what I'm posting.
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome
    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  10. #295
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,351
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    when they didn't find evidence of collusion, what do you think that means. evidence of collusion can't be found if there was none.
    Yes, if there was no collusion they would not have found it, but not finding evidence is not proof of no collusion, and that is what the transcripts show ... lack of proof of collusion. What is missing from the report is what you said was in the report ... that there was in fact no collusion. You were wrong to say so and should admit it.

  11. #296
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,351
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    yes some did, and that is part of the point. these same people like Clapper and Schiff said publicly that Trump absolutely colluded with Russia, and they had to say differently under oath.

    my post that you're quoting was sarcasm because I'm tried of this.
    I was talking about here in this conversation.

    I'm tired of it too. Just admit you were wrong when you said that the transcripts showed there was no collusion and I'll let it drop.

  12. #297
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    46,881
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    I can read.
    Did you read the transcripts?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  13. #298
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    25,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Yes, if there was no collusion they would not have found it, but not finding evidence is not proof of no collusion, and that is what the transcripts show ... lack of proof of collusion. What is missing from the report is what you said was in the report ... that there was in fact no collusion. You were wrong to say so and should admit it.
    you keep saying this but have yet to provide anything to support this. if what I said in there being no collusion is wrong, then counter that with something to show there was collusion. but you wont, because you can't.

    along with Clapper's quote, I provided quotes from Republicans and Trump officials.

    Republicans on the panel concluded they had found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy between Trump's team and Russia, and the Trump officials all testified they had seen no collusion on the campaign.
    they investigated for collusion and found no evidence.
    if these was some collusion or conspiracy then they would have found something.

    don't get your panties in a bunch because you don't like what I'm posting.
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome
    the anti-Trump movement seems to be getting dumber

  14. #299
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    25,302
    The phrasing of that quote is key. "Direct empirical evidence " being the choice of words indicates there was collusion. Just not specifically "direct empirical " evidence.

    Why use that phrasing ? If there was no evidence, it would say there was no evidence. Period. Without any qualifiers.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  15. #300
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    9,291
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    I can read.
    Clearly you can't. Otherwise you would be more suited to ask a simple Yes/No question.

    Did you yourself read the transcripts? Or do you only take the word of biased media and their representation of them? Can you formulate your own opinion?

Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •