WOODWARD FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION, EVEN THOUGH HE ‘LOOKED FOR IT HARD’

Not a strong argument. When your enemy invades your property to steal your chickens and goats but admits he didn't find any, it's pretty safe to say you never had any chickens and goats.

 

Well do you find him credible? His claim as I posted is that as hard as he looked and even with his propensity to use unverified, second sourced, hearsay etc. etc. he couldn't even find shaky ground on which to assert collusion had occurred.
Does that help or hurt the cause to find collusion?

 

You're the one the that keeps replying pal.

 

Yep he didn't even say he had heard things or was told things that even with his low bar he could not use in his book. Nothing, nada, zip.

 

OK you don't want to have a civil discussion........gotcha.........don't respond to my post pal.

 

It has nothing to do with not wanting to be civil. It's simple, stop making things up, and stop replying pal.

 

Sorry to burst you bubble but this is a whole lot more complicated than Watergate. But keep hanging your hat on Woodward, may it make your thoughts warm and even more fuzzy.

PS- did anyone claim that Woodward furthered my claims of collusion. Look at the convictions so far and the stunning numbers of contacts the Trump campaign had with Russians. And all those Russians weren't just laundering money by buying inflated price condo's from the Trump crime family I'll bet.

 

Nobody had any thoughts about Woodward and collusion. That is all just the wishful thinking of the Trump supporters. All Woodward and the members of the Administration he talked to did was confirm Trump's obvious total incompetance as both a President and as a coordinator and manager of the Executive branch. Not that of course it wasn't obvious to almost everyone.

 

There are things that were acceptable at one time and not acceptable today just as somethings are acceptable today but not acceptable in the past. Smoking marijuana is an example.

It's obvious that the FBI needs to clean house and remake itself. Same with the CIA.

Every executive branch of the federal government was politicalized during the Obama administration.

I actually believe if the American people knew who "Deep Throat" was in 72/73 (Mark Felt) Watergate would have gone nowhere.
The American people were just learning back then what J. Edgar Hoover's FBI was doing for forty years and they weren't happy campers and the FBI had to clean house during the 1970's and remake itself.

 

Nobody had any thoughts but he's another person telling you no. Eventually that pile of evidence gets bigger and bigger until eventually you'll have to admit what's self evident: No collusion into the 2016 Presidential elections.

"Not even a scintilla of evidence"-Rep Gowdy.

 

An appropriate observation grapeape.

I think Bob is full of it, so to me, nothing he says is worth paying attention to, even if it might support something like no collusion.

 

The FBI was regularly giving updates while they were burying Hillary's crimes, but downright bashful about reporting even the crime for which they represented to FISC that that had probable cause to spy on the Trump Campaign, Transition, and Administration.


The FBI under Obama:

President Trump continues to deliberate on whether, and to what extent, he will declassify and publicize key FISA-gate documents — in particular, the redacted portions of the Carter Page surveillance-warrant applications.

I suspect he will, at least to the extent he can do so without putting intelligence methods and sources at risk. Accountability is essential here.

The FBI and the Obama Justice Department launched an investigation of the Democrats’ political adversaries, and they used Clinton-campaign-generated, foreign-provided innuendo to do it. They strained to make a case on Donald Trump even as they were burying a daunting criminal case on Mrs. Clinton. The President was deliberately lied to by FBI Director Comey, about his status as a suspect in the investigation, despite Comey's repeated lies, he was the main suspect.

The main suspect in an investigation with no crime.

The Obama administration spied on Trump and his campaign. Every one of the four FISA warrant applications, after describing Russia’s cyber espionage attack on the 2016 election, makes the following assertion (after two redacted lines):

the FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts to influence the 2016 election were being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1’s campaign.​

“Candidate #1” is Trump. The upper hierarchies of the FBI and the Justice Department claimed they believed the Steele dossier. The operating assumption of the Obama administration in the months before the 2016 election was that the Trump campaign was complicit in the Kremlin’s hacking conspiracy. The FBI made this representation to the FISA court four times, including twice after President Trump was already in office.

The Obama leadership of the intelligence community represented that the Trump campaign was in cahoots with the Kremlin. The FBI and Obama’s DOJ took bold risks because they’d convinced themselves that there was no risk at all: Everything was in the black box of classified intelligence and Hillary was a shoo-in to win. No one would ever be any the wiser.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/trump-russia-probe-fbi-fisa-application/

 

There is no pile of evidence. There are a lot of people with no knowledge coming forth to earn brownie points in the vain hope Trump some day in his life will actually reward loyalty. Since he treats his wives like crap I suspect Gowdys ass kissing is going to be a wasted effort.

 

I don't know if Hoover was anyone's fan.

He was one real strange dude who became to powerful.

Every President from FDR to Nixon feared J. Edgar Hoover.

 

So trump is unstable and mentally ill....
But didn’t collude?
That’s the RW defense now! Lol

 

And right wingers were so impressed with that performance they thought they would try it themselves?

 

What is more complicated than Watergate which was VERY complicated as far as the money laundering. And what convictions for collusion are you talking about? Woodward despite his best efforts couldn't even find a hint of it.

 

No......Woodward despite his best efforts found no evidence of collusion, the person touted as the best investigative reporter in the country. Does that help the cause for collusion or hamper it?

Do you find Woodward credible?

 

Woodward certainly did as he tried his best to find it and have his biggest thing since Watergate? The reporter who asked him if he found any evidence AT ALL of ANY collusion certainly did. How does this help you case there was collusion?

Do you find Woodward credible?

 

OK you don't want to have a civil discussion........gotcha.........don't respond to my post pal.

 

Woodward found a disaster area in the Whitehouse, known as Trump.

 

He is credible and has recorded all conversations.

 

I have always found him credible and as I've said I dint think trump colluded. I think his sons did in a haphazard deal making sort of way and they didnt understand what they were doing

 

Some imagine that Woodward's book about Trump's administration is the Trump Justice Department Special Counsel's final report. That is not the case.

As many times as I have indicated that I don't expect much evidence of direct "collusion" to be be found, I recognize that all speculation concerning that report is premature and, inevitably, self serving.

Trump's Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:

 

True that!