Trump guilty on all charges

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

I think you’re a fraud. In fact, I know you’re a fraud.

---

In terms of what Dave ?

I would suggest you PM me , this is getting rather infantile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

Democracy needs defending. It needs defending when trump and his idiots cry 'lock her up'. But it needs defending even more when rabid prosecutor's actually try to interfere with democracy via the judicial system. Why could these scumbags not just sit back and let the FBI and federal courts take him down for what he caused at the capitol. He'll appeal this and get away Scott free(as he probably should), and it will give him a boost for the election and make it harder for them to actually get him for the events at the capitol, that he deserves to go away for .

---

All the evidence and the witnesses came from Trump's side. He didn't even try to defend himself in court, only outside. Biden's DOJ and Merrick Garland have passed on every opportunity to go for Trump and left it for the 'rabid prosecutors' to do it.

It's not political.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

All the evidence and the witnesses came from Trump's side. He didn't even try to defend himself in court, only outside. Biden's DOJ and Merrick Garland have passed on every opportunity to go for Trump and left it for the 'rabid prosecutors' to do it.

It's not political.

---

Personally I'd agree with you that Biden and Garland aren't involved. I don't think it's bidens style to engage in this kind of nonsense. This is about individual prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves. This Bragg made the fact he has gone after trump in the past a central part of his campaign for election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

Democracy needs defending. It needs defending when trump and his idiots cry 'lock her up'. But it needs defending even more when rabid prosecutor's actually try to interfere with democracy via the judicial system. Why could these scumbags not just sit back and let the FBI and federal courts take him down for what he caused at the capitol. He'll appeal this and get away Scott free(as he probably should), and it will give him a boost for the election and make it harder for them to actually get him for the events at the capitol, that he deserves to go away for .

---

If Trump didn't give them the ammo by being corrupt and law breaking there wouldn't be cases to answer. It would take a huge conspiracy for the number of people involved to collude to send him down and that includes investigators, judges, witnesses and jurors (jurors who were approved by Trump's legal team I may add).

He's (and his company) have now been found guilty twice for fraudulent business behaviour.

The Capitol Riots trial could go either way although he tried every which way to attempt to overturn the last election result. However, many of his followers are being prosecuted for events that occured prior to the riots where he attempted to get the result overturned by non-violent means. Giuliani being the most high profile. They won't be so fortunate.

The top secret papers one sounds the dodgiest of the trials as Biden essentially did the same thing but it appears one is going to court as they tried to obstruct the investigation and one isn't as they assisted the investigation. However, it was a Republican who opted to discredit Biden by questioning his faculties instead of opting for the court route. Perhaps he knew which was most likely to damage Biden.

As with any organisation there are likely to be some bad apples but I think despite these the jucidial system in America is largely working as it should. The area where it is disfunctional is the Supreme Court and eventually Trump will be aquitted on all charges should he be able to appeal through the system and eventually get the cases before them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by city1927

Don't former Presidents get a Secret Service protection for life. How is that going to work in prison?

---

Bunks in the cell for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

Personally I'd agree with you that Biden and Garland aren't involved. I don't think it's bidens style to engage in this kind of nonsense. This is about individual prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves. This Bragg made the fact he has gone after trump in the past a central part of his campaign for election

---

Does Biden even know what day it is?
He’s riddled with dementia, another 4 years with him, any US citizen would be insane to vote for him, in return if the only other option is Trump I feel sorry for them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

Then why do you think the District Attorney of Manhattan interfered with an election? Based on what? Donald Trump paid off a porn star and hid the payments in order to influence an election? As it has been mentioned in this thread, paying off a porn star is not illegal. He could have just written a check. But he didn't. And it was proven in court and 12 people found him guilty on all counts. Do you think the DA interfered with the judge? The evidence? The jury?

---

There was no evidence whatsoever that the payment was made to influence the 2016 election. This was only introduced to turn a misdemeanour into a felony charge. New York is a well-known rabid democrat area with a DA who was elected on a 'get Trump' ticket. Finally the 'star' witness against Trump was a convicted perjurer.

There is no way this was a fair trial and will be thrown out by the appeal court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NinianKnight

There was no evidence whatsoever that the payment was made to influence the 2016 election. This was only introduced to turn a misdemeanour into a felony charge. New York is a well-known rabid democrat area with a DA who was elected on a 'get Trump' ticket. Finally the 'star' witness against Trump was a convicted perjurer.

There is no way this was a fair trial and will be thrown out by the appeal court.

---

You want to put money on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

I think there are definitely many within those states who'd love to go after biden in the same way, but they never actually have gone after the democrats yet in the way these prosecutors are going after trump. So far it's only these rabid fringe democrats who have decided to break the mould at present. Trump and his antics should be something that starts to fade into memory, unfortunately the likes of Bragg and willis seem determined to follow his lead and turn the states into a banana republic

---

"Rabid fringe Democrats"? You clearly know nothing about this.

The AG of Arizona is a personal friend of mine. She was elected as a Democrat but was previously a Republican. She is not "rabid" in any way. She is slowly working her way through the mess the MAGA crowd made in Arizona.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pipster

Does Biden even know what day it is?
He’s riddled with dementia, another 4 years with him, any US citizen would be insane to vote for him, in return if the only other option is Trump I feel sorry for them

---

Do you know what dementia is? What you're failing to realize is we don't just get Biden or Trump but the teams they construct for the executive branch. I'll take Biden's team every day of the next four years, thank you, rather than the unqualified sycophants Trump selects.

So you'd advocate voting for a wanna-be dictator?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

You want to put money on that?

---

I'll join you in that bet with Chrisp/NinianKnight. S/he's clueless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue

Everyone in business falsifies their accounts.

---

I don't and never have. Clearly, you think it's ok to break the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisp_1927

Personally I'd agree with you that Biden and Garland aren't involved. I don't think it's bidens style to engage in this kind of nonsense. This is about individual prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves. This Bragg made the fact he has gone after trump in the past a central part of his campaign for election

---

'Hmmm and you don't think the same of the long list of morons that have tried to keep the lie going? and the Maga Gop that support him, they are not trying to make names for themselves either. Cruz, MTG, Boebert to name a few, oh! and the release the krakken idiot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PontBlue

If Trump didn't give them the ammo by being corrupt and law breaking there wouldn't be cases to answer. It would take a huge conspiracy for the number of people involved to collude to send him down and that includes investigators, judges, witnesses and jurors (jurors who were approved by Trump's legal team I may add).

He's (and his company) have now been found guilty twice for fraudulent business behaviour.

The Capitol Riots trial could go either way although he tried every which way to attempt to overturn the last election result. However, many of his followers are being prosecuted for events that occured prior to the riots where he attempted to get the result overturned by non-violent means. Giuliani being the most high profile. They won't be so fortunate.

The top secret papers one sounds the dodgiest of the trials as Biden essentially did the same thing but it appears one is going to court as they tried to obstruct the investigation and one isn't as they assisted the investigation. However, it was a Republican who opted to discredit Biden by questioning his faculties instead of opting for the court route. Perhaps he knew which was most likely to damage Biden.

As with any organisation there are likely to be some bad apples but I think despite these the jucidial system in America is largely working as it should. The area where it is disfunctional is the Supreme Court and eventually Trump will be aquitted on all charges should he be able to appeal through the system and eventually get the cases before them.

---

I'm only basing this on what I read online, but apparently Trump can't take this week's ruling to the Supreme Court because of this (under the 2020s part)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habe..._United_States

It means that if a court has jurisdiction, then the Supreme Court can't overrule it, and (ironically) this happened after Trump put his three judges on the court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NinianKnight

There was no evidence whatsoever that the payment was made to influence the 2016 election. This was only introduced to turn a misdemeanour into a felony charge. New York is a well-known rabid democrat area with a DA who was elected on a 'get Trump' ticket. Finally the 'star' witness against Trump was a convicted perjurer.

There is no way this was a fair trial and will be thrown out by the appeal court.

---

That's not true. Hope Hicks' testimony was that the Stormy news coming so soon after the grab em by the pussy audio caused huge worry in the Trump campaign. They thought it would be game over, although in hindsight it may not have been, as the pussy tape had little impact.

The reason they came up with convoluted payment, where Cohen paid Stormy and the campaign paid Cohen was so that there was no immediate direct link to Trump which could easily have been sniffed out by journalists.

To say "there was no evidence" of it being linked to the election is totally wrong. The prosecution convinced the jury, who had been vetted and approved by Trump's team, that it was.


Looks like the DA lived up to his election promises, unlike some others :hehe:

I’d rather a guy with dementia running the most powerful country in the world than see Trump in charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

I'm only basing this on what I read online, but apparently Trump can't take this week's ruling to the Supreme Court because of this (under the 2020s part)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habe..._United_States

It means that if a court has jurisdiction, then the Supreme Court can't overrule it, and (ironically) this happened after Trump put his three judges on the court.

---

Too many people are listening to journo hacks and people who don’t understand the legal system in the US. A lot of the comments on here are copy-paste or people just spouting random bullshit their mates tell them. A few facts…

*. This court case was a joke. The judge is a known big Democrat who admitted “hating Trump”. His daughter is also all over social media as a Biden campaign funder. The Attorney General is a Democrat and New York is a heavily Democrat state. The latter is less of an issue because the case would had to have happened ina Democrat or Republican state, but not even the most one-eyed Democrat supporter can sidestep the fact that all the Democrat-tilted odds does not make it an objective case.

Nothing here speaks to objectivity, and it seems a few leading legal Professor Emeritus people from Harvard and Yale (Democrat universities), who are themselves Democrats, believe this has conflicts of interest all over it, and breaks the legal ethics code. This in itself will not change the result but will be wide open to the appeal courts, on points of law.

With that in mind..

*. The Supreme Court will not be the final arbiters, because this particular case is not constitution-related nor federal law. Therefore it follows the New York state legal system.

*. The next stage is actually the New York Appelate court. This court will not have a jury. It will not have Cohen, Stormy Daniels nor details from the case to argue. It will only examine the legal process and points of law, how it was handled, and not the case details itself. It is how the case was done that is examined. So the way in which it was approached will be very much examined. The downside for Trump is that this is unlikely to be done until November, as the appeal case has to be written, papers filed with the court, court calendars updated and the people lined up.

In addition, unlike with the Court we have been through, the Appellate Court judges cannot be as bent as they are at state level, and less politicized. The reason is this: Appellate Court judges are incentivized to be promoted to the highest state court which is the Court of Appeal. In order to get there to get your higher pay, you need to have the lowest record of cases overturned by the higher court. If you have cases overturned because you were bent / made poor decisions, then it really goes against your promotion prospects. So it doesn’t pay to be bent. Unlike in the lower court, there is no dis-incentive if you get it wrong.

*. If the Appellate Court overrules the appeal then the fina destination is highest, which is The Court of Appeal. But again, this court is also only concerned with points of law and the process.

*.All the chatter around the Supreme court is only likely to come into play with the matters of the other cases such as the incidents around the White House, as the Supreme Court is only interested in legal incidents affecting the Constitution.

So much bollocks is spoken about The Supreme Court. It won’t even be a factor in this case. Seriously. Armchair gum-bumpers are talking shite. Whoever is saying that - they are talking through their Ringo Starr.

A little bit rich to follow up the first paragraph with a load of Trump talking points about a RIGGED TRIAL :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

A little bit rich to follow up the first paragraph with a load of Trump talking points about a RIGGED TRIAL :hehe:

---

To be fair he did warn about ‘random bullshit’!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo

I’d rather a guy with dementia running the most powerful country in the world than see Trump in charge.

---

If Biden wins and needs to go into a care home then so be it

If Trump wins its a nightmare

Tommy Robinson and his right wing creeps were chanting for Donald Duck yesterday on the London numbskull demo

That was a surprise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

Too many people are listening to journo hacks and people who don’t understand the legal system in the US. A lot of the comments on here are copy-paste or people just spouting random bullshit their mates tell them. A few facts…

*. This court case was a joke. The judge is a known big Democrat who admitted “hating Trump”. His daughter is also all over social media as a Biden campaign funder. The Attorney General is a Democrat and New York is a heavily Democrat state. The latter is less of an issue because the case would had to have happened ina Democrat or Republican state, but not even the most one-eyed Democrat supporter can sidestep the fact that all the Democrat-tilted odds does not make it an objective case.

Nothing here speaks to objectivity, and it seems a few leading legal Professor Emeritus people from Harvard and Yale (Democrat universities), who are themselves Democrats, believe this has conflicts of interest all over it, and breaks the legal ethics code. This in itself will not change the result but will be wide open to the appeal courts, on points of law.

With that in mind..

*. The Supreme Court will not be the final arbiters, because this particular case is not constitution-related nor federal law. Therefore it follows the New York state legal system.

*. The next stage is actually the New York Appelate court. This court will not have a jury. It will not have Cohen, Stormy Daniels nor details from the case to argue. It will only examine the legal process and points of law, how it was handled, and not the case details itself. It is how the case was done that is examined. So the way in which it was approached will be very much examined. The downside for Trump is that this is unlikely to be done until November, as the appeal case has to be written, papers filed with the court, court calendars updated and the people lined up.

In addition, unlike with the Court we have been through, the Appellate Court judges cannot be as bent as they are at state level, and less politicized. The reason is this: Appellate Court judges are incentivized to be promoted to the highest state court which is the Court of Appeal. In order to get there to get your higher pay, you need to have the lowest record of cases overturned by the higher court. If you have cases overturned because you were bent / made poor decisions, then it really goes against your promotion prospects. So it doesn’t pay to be bent. Unlike in the lower court, there is no dis-incentive if you get it wrong.

*. If the Appellate Court overrules the appeal then the fina destination is highest, which is The Court of Appeal. But again, this court is also only concerned with points of law and the process.

*.All the chatter around the Supreme court is only likely to come into play with the matters of the other cases such as the incidents around the White House, as the Supreme Court is only interested in legal incidents affecting the Constitution.

So much bollocks is spoken about The Supreme Court. It won’t even be a factor in this case. Seriously. Armchair gum-bumpers are talking shite. Whoever is saying that - they are talking through their Ringo Starr.

---

Isn't it strange how most of the right wingers on this site have already discredited the judge, court system etc.....

Lone Gunman got his way then, and the thread moves here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Lone Gunman got his way then, and the thread moves here...

---

All he had to do was to not click on the thread :hehe:

Cause and effect again

I think this case was one of the weakest against Trump - of course he fudged the books because he used campaign funds to pay off a porn star he had a one-night stand with... but I am not sure if it had come out it would have had any effect on the outcome of the election. This happened just after the Access Hollywood tapes came out where he bragged about sexually assaulting women - if that didn't shift the dial, I am not sure him having sex with a porn star would have, given his past history of misogyny and cheating on all his previous wives that republicans are happy to gloss over. I think a lot of people will think "so what?".

People who support or vote for Trump have every right to support and vote for him. That's democracy. But I wish they would own their decision and be honest about who he is. An ex US colleague of mine works in Child Safeguarding and Counselling of victims of child trafficking - she has worked with a lot victims and survivors of child trafficking and child abuse - many who have been victims of some of the rich and powerful (elites I guess you would call them) - from across the political and judicial spectrum. She worked with some who were trafficking to the US from Eastern Europe and ended up in Trumps modelling agency - trafficked for his agency or ended up there after being trafficked is a bit unclear. However, there is no doubt Trump has sexually assaulted underage girls - some under NDA's and afraid to speak out because they have been intimated and threated. One girl was willing to testify about being raped as a 14 year old. But she was intimated and withdrew the complaint - scared for her life.

And let's be honest - none of comes as a surprise to any of us, Trump has a history of really, really bad behaviours and morals. The reason I mention it is that we can all see Biden is a dithering old man who is getting worse and worse - and the democrats made a huge mistake by allowing him to run for a second term. But if you support Trump, just admit who he is and stop trying to take the moral high ground. He's a wrong-un.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

I'm only basing this on what I read online, but apparently Trump can't take this week's ruling to the Supreme Court because of this (under the 2020s part)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habe..._United_States

It means that if a court has jurisdiction, then the Supreme Court can't overrule it, and (ironically) this happened after Trump put his three judges on the court.

---

Thanks for succinctly clarifying he can't get this appealed all the way to the supreme republican court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

Isn't it strange how most of the right wingers on this site have already discredited the judge, court system etc.....

---

There you go - straight into the Left v Right tribal bullshit without giving though to the process. I see that took a split second autopilot decision.

So you think that openly hating Trump, being heavily pro-Biden, from a pro-Biden famipy heavily campaigning for him, trussed up my a Democrat AG and in a Trump hating state looks objective, fair, and balanced? And no conflict of interest? That is a novel way of assessing things. There is nothing so blind as a man that cannot see. Or read, in Biden’s case.

The Democrats could have been clever and respected due process by choosing a state that was balanced between Republican v Democrat, had an AG that was independent (or at least looked independent), could have chosen a politically independent judge too. At least the optics would have carried a veneer of objectivity, without a clear conflict of interest. It could also have been done far earlier in the electoral cycle.

The way this was carried out confirmed my belief that the US is a mafia state - where Republicans and Democrats abuse the legal system to convict opponents. Had it been a Democrat such as Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton or Obama in the dock, I would have wanted the same approach - free of politics. But then again that is me. I like fairness. I like objectivity. I like a clean legal system and a fair fight. I like the elimination of conflicts of interest.

But for some that is clearly not the case. Tribal politics comes first, and principles, sensible economics and a fair legal system come after. Primitive tribalism reigns supreme in your head, and that of others.I think that what this thread shows is that such an unprincipled bent appears to also apply to quite a few on the Left (although this applies to Fascists). I note several Lefties on here that never change their Labour vote, are the same ones who are completely have their eyes closed and fingers in their ears.

When you look at Socialist countries and Mafia countries, the supporters always think it is fair to pin their opponents regardless of fairness or respect for law. In China Xinping eliminates his enemies this way. Communist Cuba the same. Latin American countries such as Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina have this dark variant of politics. It is the single argument that Hayek got correct - that behind all variants of Socialism is the desire for authoritarian control. It starts off as soft Left, and when you cannot force it upon people, the gang mentality (unions) appear, ostraciation of people with opposing views, imprisonment of opponents and corruption of the legal system. The soft Left have to go Hard Left and the Hard Left l, left unchecked move closer and closer to Communism, unless it is weeded out.

In this case the people that support the way this legal process has ocurred disregard democracy, liberty, innocence until proven guilty, and the right to a fair trial. As long as your political opponent gets taken down by whatever means, it is OK to bend the process and apply corruption. That says more about the people who support it than the people triggering the process itself.

Idiots on the Left. Idiots on the Right. Tribalist politics by the swivel-eyed, seeing enemies and opponents everywhere as if it were a field of war or sport, rather than a serious subject and debate to run countries. Baboons. Laughable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AfricanBluebird

I think this case was one of the weakest against Trump - of course he fudged the books because he used campaign funds to pay off a porn star he had a one-night stand with... but I am not sure if it had come out it would have had any effect on the outcome of the election. This happened just after the Access Hollywood tapes came out where he bragged about sexually assaulting women - if that didn't shift the dial, I am not sure him having sex with a porn star would have, given his past history of misogyny and cheating on all his previous wives that republicans are happy to gloss over. I think a lot of people will think "so what?".

People who support or vote for Trump have every right to support and vote for him. That's democracy. But I wish they would own their decision and be honest about who he is. An ex US colleague of mine works in Child Safeguarding and Counselling of victims of child trafficking - she has worked with a lot victims and survivors of child trafficking and child abuse - many who have been victims of some of the rich and powerful (elites I guess you would call them) - from across the political and judicial spectrum. She worked with some who were trafficking to the US from Eastern Europe and ended up in Trumps modelling agency - trafficked for his agency or ended up there after being trafficked is a bit unclear. However, there is no doubt Trump has sexually assaulted underage girls - some under NDA's and afraid to speak out because they have been intimated and threated. One girl was willing to testify about being raped as a 14 year old. But she was intimated and withdrew the complaint - scared for her life.

And let's be honest - none of comes as a surprise to any of us, Trump has a history of really, really bad behaviours and morals. The reason I mention it is that we can all see Biden is a dithering old man who is getting worse and worse - and the democrats made a huge mistake by allowing him to run for a second term. But if you support Trump, just admit who he is and stop trying to take the moral high ground. He's a wrong-un.

---

I agree that the Stormy news probably wouldn't have had an impact. But that's with the benefit of hindsight. At the time, the pussy tape seemed to be a nail in his coffin, and he even came out with an apology video - something that he bitterly regretted doing as it made him seem weak. As Hope Hicks said in her testimony, there was panic in the camp at that point that he was on the verge of losing his campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

The Democrats could have been clever and respected due process by choosing a state that was balanced between Republican v Democrat, had an AG that was independent (or at least looked independent), could have chosen a politically independent judge too. At least the optics would have carried a veneer of objectivity, without a clear conflict of interest. It could also have been done far earlier in the electoral cycle.

---

The Democrats didn't choose the state.

The crime was in New York and was against NY state laws, so the Manhattan DA brought the case. It could only happen there, just as the nuclear secrets case is in Florida where Mar a Lago is, the Georgia racketeering one is in Georgia, and the Capitol case is in Washington DC.

Maybe Trump should have done the crime somewhere more favourable instead!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

The Democrats didn't choose the state.

The crime was in New York and was against NY state laws, so the Manhattan DA brought the case. It could only happen there, just as the nuclear secrets case is in Florida where Mar a Lago is, the Georgia racketeering one is in Georgia, and the Capitol case is in Washington DC.

Maybe Trump should have done the crime somewhere more favourable instead!

---

They are also conveniently ignoring the Jury selection process. The Judge didn't convict, the DA didn't convict, a jury of his peers did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PontBlue

They are also conveniently ignoring the Jury selection process. The Judge didn't convict, the DA didn't convict, a jury of his peers did.

---

It’s funny how there are two threads on a past president yet hardly a word in respect of Sleepy’s foreign policy particularly the reluctance to broker peace talks in respect of conflicts they are indirectly involved in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

It’s funny how there are two threads on a past president yet hardly a word in respect of Sleepy’s foreign policy particularly the reluctance to broker peace talks in respect of conflicts they are indirectly involved in.

---

The Russia Collusion hoax is a case study in what happens when people don't understand how the media works, which is imperative when it comes to sourcing and interpreting data correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze

*. This court case was a joke. The judge is a known big Democrat who admitted “hating Trump”. His daughter is also all over social media as a Biden campaign funder. The Attorney General is a Democrat and New York is a heavily Democrat state. The latter is less of an issue because the case would had to have happened ina Democrat or Republican state, but not even the most one-eyed Democrat supporter can sidestep the fact that all the Democrat-tilted odds does not make it an objective case.

---

You did well!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump makes it explicit: he wants the US Supreme Court to somehow prevent his sentencing in New York. <a href="https://t.co/khV9owT0sc">pic.twitter.com/khV9owT0sc</a></p>&mdash; Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) <a href="https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1797402289285570877?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 2, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

The Russia Collusion hoax is a case study in what happens when people don't understand how the media works, which is imperative when it comes to sourcing and interpreting data correctly.

---

You know for a fact that the Russian collusion story was a hoax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo

You know for a fact that the Russian collusion story was a hoax?

---

Like I said, the media are very good at what they do.

You didn't answer my question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo

You didn't answer my question

---

I knew early on it was a hoax because I read the source documents.

Oh well, in that case, it must have been a hoax. As you were.

Actually, fwiw, I never believed there was any collusion as such, but there’s strong evidence to suggest there was Russian interference that affected the end result. Are you denying that or just the collusion bit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevo

Actually, fwiw, I never believed there was any collusion as such, but there’s strong evidence to suggest there was Russian interference that affected the end result. Are you denying that or just the collusion bit?

---

It was all ginned up and quite damaging as it exposed their entire modus operandi. Foreign countries are always running interference operations on their rivals, but that's another topic altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

It was all ginned up and quite damaging as it exposed their entire modus operandi. Foreign countries are always running interference operations on their rivals, but that's another topic altogether.

---

No - it is the same topic.