UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

It’s why Trump won. The behavior was obvious and all but the most rabid nuts could admit that the left was on the wrong side.

(no message)

(no message)

Rule of Liberalism #14: “ You’ll have to show us a lot more than rock solid, irrefutable evidence to change our minds”.

Emails from the Obama IC specifically describing the Obama IC coup plan which then followed exactly the script outlined and directly implicating Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and Rice.

You couldn’t be less intellectually honest if you tried. But we all see what you have become…Ty94

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

and most probably, still is...very real. The only "Hoax" is the one DJT is desperately trying to maintain. In short, we have a Treasonous President in our White House.

Click on the Lawfare links for details on all the ways Trump worked with Putin to help win the 2016 election.


Link: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/collusion-reading-diary-what-did-senate-intelligence-committee-find

(no message)

a dissenting opinion...based upon the Unanimously Approved FINDINGS. The Senate Report was not part of a DOJ criminal investigation, so there was no way the GOP majority was going to use a word like "Collusion" or "Conspiracy"...even though the voluminous evidence from hundreds of interactions between the campaign and Russia points directly to that conclusion. If you read the material I've provided, you'd know all this.

Now, answer my question...what was the justification for Don Jr. meeting with Russian attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya, for the expressed purpose (based on actual emails found by the Senate Committee) of getting "Dirt" on Hillary Clinton?...or, Campaign Manager, Paul Manafort, handing internal polling data to Russian Agent, Konstantin Kilimnik...if not to have Russia (Putin) help Trump win the 2016 election?

(no message)

(no message)

Like everyone else on your side.

report...where it reviews all of the 996 pages of Vol 5 dealing with findings of Trump campaign connections with Russian agents...

Here's the "Conclusion" section commentary on the "No Collusion" majority statement...
---------------------
Conclusion


One of the clever features of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report is the committee’s apparent decision to draw no conclusions, merely to recount facts. This allowed the entire committee, irrespective of party or fealty to the president, to join in the factual findings. Even Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, who opposed the committee’s formal adoption of the report, did so not because he objected to any of the findings the committee made but because he objected to its failure to find explicitly that there was “no collusion”: “[T]he Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan Russia investigation found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election,” he claimed. “The facts presented in Volume 5 make this conclusion abundantly clear, however I voted against the report because it fails to explicitly state this critical finding.” The factual findings are, for all intents and purposes, unanimous; the absence of any interpretive conclusions allowed the committee to achieve that substantial accomplishment.


This strategy also, however, allowed each member, or group of members, to draw their own conclusions. The committee leadership during the investigation—Sens. Richard Burr and Mark Warner—both decorously sat out from this jockeying. But a group of Republican senators wrote additional views to emphasize their conclusion that while “the Russian government inappropriately meddled in our 2016 general election in many ways[,] then-Candidate Trump was not complicit. After more than three years of investigation by this Committee, we can now say with no doubt, there was no collusion.” And Democratic members wrote separately to state their conclusion that:


The Committee's bipartisan Report unambiguously shows that members of the Trump Campaign cooperated with Russian efforts to get Trump elected. It recounts efforts by Trump and his team to obtain dirt on their opponent from operatives acting on behalf of the Russian government. It reveals the extraordinary lengths by which Trump and his associates actively sought to enable the Russian interference operation by amplifying its electoral impact and rewarding its perpetrators—even after being warned of its Russian origins. And it presents, for the first time, concerning evidence that the head of the Trump Campaign was directly connected to the Russian meddling through his communications with an individual found to be a Russian intelligence officer.

Our own conclusions are notably closer to those of the Democrats than to those of the Republicans. To read these thousand pages and come away with the conclusion that they amount to evidence of “no collusion” really involves a protestation of faith, not a dispassionate assessment of presented evidence. As we said at the outset, debating what constitutes “collusion” is not worth anyone’s time, given that the word has no agreed-upon meaning in this context and that to say that there was none of it doesn’t answer in any event the more important question of what the facts amount to. Here are the conclusions we believe the Intelligence Committee’s evidence supports:


The Trump campaign and Donald Trump himself were certainly aware in real time of Russian efforts to intervene in the 2016 presidential election. The campaign had a heads-up that Russia had stolen Democratic emails. And Russian operatives sought and received a meeting with senior Trump campaign officials promising “dirt” on Trump’s opponent. As the campaign wore on, and the Russian efforts were increasingly made public, Trump personally and publicly encouraged them.

The Trump campaign was run for a time by a man with an ongoing business relationship with a Russian intelligence operative, to whom he gave proprietary internal polling data.

The Trump campaign did not discourage Russian activity on its behalf. In fact, it sought repeatedly to coordinate its messaging around WikiLeaks releases of information. The campaign, and Trump personally, sought to contact WikiLeaks to receive information in advance about releases and may well have succeeded.

The campaign sought to obtain disparaging information about Hillary Clinton from actors who either were Russian operatives or it believed were Russian operatives. It did so through a number of means—some of these efforts were direct. Some were indirect.

The Russian government and affiliated actors clearly regarded the Trump campaign as a prime target for influence and recruitment. Russia targeted a diverse array of people associated with Trump for contact and engagement through an astonishing variety of avenues. Some of these attempts were rebuffed. Many of them were successful. The result was a sustained degree of engagement between the campaign, and later the transition, and Russian officials and cutouts.

Trump’s personal and business history in Russia provided a significant opportunity for kompromat. Such material was very likely collected. There is less evidence that it was ever deployed, though Trump’s mere awareness of his vulnerability gives rise to substantial counterintelligence concerns.

Trump’s active pursuit of business deals in Russia while running for president and denying any such deals created significant counterintelligence risk.
Trump’s campaign, and later transition, were filled with a remarkable number of people who had secret interactions with Russian actors, about which they lied either in real time or in retrospect.

All of this activity, particularly cumulatively, amounts to a grave set of counterintelligence concerns, in which any number of Trump campaign figures—including the candidate himself—exposed themselves to potential coercive pressure from an adversary foreign actor.

Trump to this day will not criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin or acknowledge unambiguously Russian intervention in the 2016 election.

We will leave it to others to debate what words best summarize this picture.
---------------------

(no message)

you...I do.

If you only listened to your own advice.

Among other things…

Putin to win the 2016 election…care to try and prove me wrong?

You should have your wife read your posts back to you.

always the same...I and others, are used to it.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

that I provided you?

Maybe you can provide explanations for Trump Campaign Manager, Paul Manafort, handing internal polling data to Russian agent, Konstantin Kilimnik...or Donald Trump Jr. meeting in Trump Tower with Russian attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya, for the sole purpose of getting "dirt" on Hillary Clinton...no one else has been able to come up with a benign rationale for those collaborations with our worst enemy.

(no message)

(no message)

try to stay focused on the issue at hand...i.e. there is no "Russia Hoax"...Trump and Putin authorized their aides to work together in order to get DJT elected in 2016...naturally, Trump is doing all he can to deny what the Senate Intel Committee found...while distracting from his exceptionally close relationship over many years with Sex Trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein.

(no message)

Hillary Clinton?

(no message)

All Oligarchs exist at Putin’s pleasure…Manafort was squeezed into the Trump campaign and had access to material Russians wanted…he paid some of his debt by handing over internal polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik. Also, Don Jr. met with that Russian attorney to get dirt on Hillary…no way Jr. goes “rogue” against his Dad’s wishes.

Add them…and hundreds of other interactions between the campaign and Russia…together and you get pure Treasonous Collusion.

Donald Trump belongs in a Max Security Cell, right now….and he knows it.

This case is far past settled, you need to get with the program. It will save you some embarrassment.

"Settled" until DJT is held accountable for his crimes...and these are not, by any means...Misdemeanors.

Answer's because they are normal.

1 - She doesn't work for the Russian government.

2 - She provided him with nothing on Hillary Clinton.

3 - If it's so damning, why weren't Trump nor his son charged, much less indicted on anything related to collusion?

had to make up another story after emails surfaced that proved the meeting was all about the 2016 election.

Do you conduct the rest of your life this way?


Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_meeting

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

NB: I do…for Baron