You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] LostEscapeArtist 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

Normally when an investigation continues to show no evidence for an assertion the investigation is ended, and only opened back up again if evidence appears at a later date. In this case they just keep digging because they have a preconceived notion that the assertion of 'collusion' must be true regardless of lacking evidence.


[–] PewterKey 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

To play devil's advocate. Say they know it is true, it could be a case of parallel construction. But they are struggling to not expose other members of the group. Because if it was something like Podesta that introduced Trump to a key Russian official, it would make them need to assassinate a inner member with lot's of leverage.


[–] Martel-Sobieski 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

They are trying to dig up any dirt they can to be used as control blackmail. If they had actual collusion info it would've come out long ago. Instead they want to drag their feet, try and delegitimize the president, and try to get as much blackmail as they can on him and people inside his staff

It's the deep States way of operating


[–] Bigz_Sarducci 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

President Trump needs to fleece out his cabinet of former Obama snitches. I am afraid he has deep state operatives in his midst....


[–] belrial 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The lack of evidence then becomes "evidence" that they are even more clever in hiding the conspiracy.


[–] Rommel79 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I heard this from several people. I asked my mother in law if she honestly believes that the guy who can't stay off of Twitter and supposedly runs his mouth so much he has leaked state secrets could honestly create and maintain an undetectable conspiracy to take over the US. She said that was a good point, but she still thinks it might have happened.


[–] Flash_Bang_Smack 22 points -21 points (+1|-22) ago 

Normally when an investigation continues to show no evidence for an assertion the investigation is ended,

Normally, people who have not been part of an ongoing investigation and have no knowledge of the investigation other than media reports which say there IS evidence of collusion do not tell us what the outcome of the investigation has been. Only shills usually do that.


[–] Dukeofboot 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Literally no official has said there is evidence.

Think Im wrong, prove it. Quote and sited source.

Edit: in other words, provide evidence.