Kryptos said:

LogicaL Chaos said:

I bet the news coming out about Assange will be very intriguing

---

Honestly? I expect something along the lines of "Assange found in hotel room, shot in head" within the next week.

His testimony could potentially hurt both Putin and Trump. Both people famous for not taking any chances.

---

Kryptos said:

LogicaL Chaos said:

I bet the news coming out about Assange will be very intriguing

---

Honestly? I expect something along the lines of "Assange found in hotel room, shot in head" within the next week.

His testimony could potentially hurt both Putin and Trump. Both people famous for not taking any chances.

---

koods said:

Kryptos said:

LogicaL Chaos said:

I bet the news coming out about Assange will be very intriguing

---

Honestly? I expect something along the lines of "Assange found in hotel room, shot in head" within the next week.

His testimony could potentially hurt both Putin and Trump. Both people famous for not taking any chances.

---

Assange won’t be sleeping in a hotel room anytime soon

---

koods said:

I should have taken fal up on the signature bet. I wasn’t concerned so much that there was actually no evidence of “collusion” but that the report would not expressly state that there was (or that Barr would simply cover up that portion.) and of course, there’s the fact that Fal would refuse to recognize the significance of a paragraph like this:

---

qman said:

koods said:

I should have taken fal up on the signature bet. I wasn’t concerned so much that there was actually no evidence of “collusion” but that the report would not expressly state that there was (or that Barr would simply cover up that portion.) and of course, there’s the fact that Fal would refuse to recognize the significance of a paragraph like this:

---

And you can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist.

---

Kryptos said:

qman said:

koods said:

I should have taken fal up on the signature bet. I wasn’t concerned so much that there was actually no evidence of “collusion” but that the report would not expressly state that there was (or that Barr would simply cover up that portion.) and of course, there’s the fact that Fal would refuse to recognize the significance of a paragraph like this:

---

And you can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist.

---

Mueller's a stone cold by-the-book republican ex-soldier. His marching orders were "The President cannot be indicted". So he had two possible outcomes for the report: (1) The president* is innocent or (2) Here is a bunch of troubling evidence about the president*.

He most definitely did not put option one into the report.

---

koods said:

Quote:

  also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence

---

The very next sentence

Quote:

in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”
.

---

So there was evidence of collusion.

---

If there was evidence of collusion, there was also conflicting evidence showing that 'evidence' was bogus.

koods said:

I should have taken fal up on the signature bet. I wasn’t concerned so much that there was actually no evidence of “collusion” but that the report would not expressly state that there was (or that Barr would simply cover up that portion.) and of course, there’s the fact that Fal would refuse to recognize the significance of a paragraph like this:

---

Oh I recognize the significance of that sentence - Enlil previously made it clear.  Even if there is laughable evidence, that still counts as evidence.

That's exactly what the sentence you highlighted is about.  He didn't have sufficient evidence to support a fact, but that doesn't mean he didn't have any evidence. 

I'll still honor my offer for a signature bet with you.  We can let a mutually agreed to judge determine who is correct.

Kryptos said:

I think he's (Assange is) a loose end connecting Putin to Trump.

---

qman said:

Kryptos said:

His marching orders were "The President cannot be indicted". So he had two possible outcomes for the report: (1) The president* is innocent or (2) Here is a bunch of troubling evidence about the president*.

He most definitely did not put option one into the report.

---

In your opinion, what is the most "troubling evidence about the president"?

---

That's a serious conspiracy theory you've got going on there.

koods said:

This is my first opportunity to actually go through the report front to back and it isn’t pretty for Falcon and the no evidence of collusion crowd. It is not only packed with evidence of questionable activities, it says that in many cases, the investigators were not able to get to the truth of the matter becasue witnesses lied, invoked fifth amendment rights, destroyed evidence or never made themselves available for questioning or did not follow up on evidence of crimes that could not be charged due to justice department policy.

Note the highlighted section discussing the destruction of evidence and use of encryption by Trump Campaign officals.

---

koods said:

This is my first opportunity to actually go through the report front to back and it isn’t pretty for Falcon and the no evidence of collusion crowd. It is not only packed with evidence of questionable activities, it says that in many cases, the investigators were not able to get to the truth of the matter becasue witnesses lied, invoked fifth amendment rights, destroyed evidence or never made themselves available for questioning or did not follow up on evidence of crimes that could not be charged due to justice department policy.

Note the highlighted section discussing the destruction of evidence and use of encryption by Trump Campaign officals.

---

So the absence of any evidence is the "evidence"? 

qman said:

So the absence of any evidence is the "evidence"? 

---

That's why they call koods the King of Make Believe! 

koods said:

It seems that most of the redactions so far are labelled as “harm to ongoing matter”

There are a lot of ongoing matters

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

koods said:

This is my first opportunity to actually go through the report front to back and it isn’t pretty for Falcon and the no evidence of collusion crowd. It is not only packed with evidence of questionable activities, it says that in many cases, the investigators were not able to get to the truth of the matter becasue witnesses lied, invoked fifth amendment rights, destroyed evidence or never made themselves available for questioning or did not follow up on evidence of crimes that could not be charged due to justice department policy.

Note the highlighted section discussing the destruction of evidence and use of encryption by Trump Campaign officals.

---

I missed the part about evidence of collusion.  This actually confirms they were unable to find such evidence.

---

koods said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

koods said:

This is my first opportunity to actually go through the report front to back and it isn’t pretty for Falcon and the no evidence of collusion crowd. It is not only packed with evidence of questionable activities, it says that in many cases, the investigators were not able to get to the truth of the matter becasue witnesses lied, invoked fifth amendment rights, destroyed evidence or never made themselves available for questioning or did not follow up on evidence of crimes that could not be charged due to justice department policy.

Note the highlighted section discussing the destruction of evidence and use of encryption by Trump Campaign officals.

---

I missed the part about evidence of collusion.  This actually confirms they were unable to find such evidence.

---

Lol. You are the master of spin. This post was specifically about the mueller team’s thwarted efforts to investigate matters, including DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE by the trump campaign.

---