https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/release-of-mueller-report-finally-sets-trump-and-america-free/

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article229428389.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS0AlApiWLs&feature=youtu.be

https://www.thenation.com/article/will-the-mueller-report-make-the-new-cold-war-even-worse/


If you're on Spring Break, do some homework.

Time for libtards and demafags to apologize to Trump for the 3 years of bullshit harassment. Investigate the dems they are the ones trying to destroy this great country of ours!

For The Democrats bad actors who orchestrated this treasonous fraud against the president

Go to hell with your made up obstruction of justice carp

The report shows that Trump is guilty as sin. Get you heads out of your FOX-fucked asses.

Hey assholes... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The report shows that Trump is guilty as sin. Get
> you heads out of your FOX-fucked asses.


More lies from the left. The sooner you realize your 2+ years of lies have been debunked by this report, the better off you'll be. You should start by recanting your lies and asking for forgiveness. If you refuse, you should have your voting rights revoked as you're doing nothing more than Putin's bidding. The question is whether you're a Russian troll or an American traitor.

Guilty of winning an election when it was "her turn" and causing you idiots to lose your fucking minds.

There are at least TEN counts of obstruction of justice laid out in the report. And that ain't all. Your man IS FUCKED, just as he suspected!

Dead as a doornail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are at least TEN counts of obstruction of
> justice laid out in the report. And that ain't
> all. Your man IS FUCKED, just as he suspected!


You’re really to simple to understand what elements need to be proven in order substantiate a charge and conviction on obstruction. Your lack of critical thinking skills is probably why you fell for the collusion delusion to begin with.

‘Collusion’ is a Trump-word, you pathetic dope.

How did the word “collusion” get introduced into the public lexicon? And who is initially responsible for introducing it? The answer, it turns out, goes back to July of 2016 at the Democratic National Convention.

On July 22, 2016, Wikileaks released more than 19,000 emails from top members of the Democratic National Committee. Two days after the release, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook told CNN that, according to “experts,” Russian state actors had stolen the emails from the DNC and were releasing them through Wikileaks “for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump.”

Mook did not use the word “collusion,” but the press, in reporting his comments, did. Within the hour, in an article timestamped at 9:55 a.m., the Washington Examiner reported that Paul Manafort and Donald Trump Jr, had responded to Mook’s allegations and “vigorously denied any kind of collusion between Trump Sr. and the Russian president.” (To be clear, Manafort denied “any ties” between Putin and the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump Jr. criticized Mook for “lie after lie.” Neither one of them mentioned “collusion.”) Ninety minutes later, at 11:27 a.m., ABC News repeated what it termed Mook’s “allegation of collusion between the campaign and Russia.” And three hours later, at approximately 12:35 p.m., Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “If there was some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence or Russian hackers, that clearly has to be dealt with.”

From there it was off to the races. Over the next two weeks, the word “collusion” was used hundreds of times by politicians like Martin O’Malley and media personalities such as Trevor Noah.

The term caught on, I think, because it captured the general suspicion that the campaign was somehow in on the hack or knowingly benefiting from it while carefully eliding the fact that no tangible evidence had yet emerged tying the Trump campaign to the Kremlin. (Remember that news of the Trump Tower meeting and other contacts between the campaign and Russian actors had not yet become public.)

After this initial spurt, the collusion frenzy tapered off. Through August and September the word appeared only sporadically in the press, as other stories edged out the Trump-Russia narrative for dominance in the campaign. But when Wikileaks published more than 50,000 emails from Clinton’s campaign chairman in October of 2016, the term had a renaissance of sorts.

The popularity of the term continued to wax and wane throughout the final months of 2016. When a big story would break about Trump, the campaign, or Clinton’s emails, the word “collusion” would appear in headlines. Not every story described the relationship as collusion. Some referred to it as “ties” with Russia. Others questioned whether Trump was “coordinating” with Putin. Collusion had not yet become the de facto term to describe the Russia connection. But it was very much in the mix.

^^^ Total loser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ‘Collusion’ is a Trump-word, you pathetic dope.

Yes, it is, but FOX News has told the bots to parrot cutesy terms like "collusion delusion" everywhere they can, so they obediently do. They think there is some point behind that.

NO Collusion … NO Illegal Activity …. Dumb Ass Dems LOSE AGAIN !!!!!!

Dumb as dirt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^ Total loser Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ‘Collusion’ is a Trump-word, you pathetic
> dope.
>
> Yes, it is, but FOX News has told the bots to
> parrot cutesy terms like "collusion delusion"
> everywhere they can, so they obediently do. They
> think there is some point behind that.


How did the word “collusion” get introduced into the public lexicon? And who is initially responsible for introducing it? The answer, it turns out, goes back to July of 2016 at the Democratic National Convention.

On July 22, 2016, Wikileaks released more than 19,000 emails from top members of the Democratic National Committee. Two days after the release, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook told CNN that, according to “experts,” Russian state actors had stolen the emails from the DNC and were releasing them through Wikileaks “for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump.” 

Mook did not use the word “collusion,” but the press, in reporting his comments, did. Within the hour, in an article timestamped at 9:55 a.m., the Washington Examiner reported that Paul Manafort and Donald Trump Jr, had responded to Mook’s allegations and “vigorously denied any kind of collusion between Trump Sr. and the Russian president.” (To be clear, Manafort denied “any ties” between Putin and the Trump campaign, and Donald Trump Jr. criticized Mook for “lie after lie.” Neither one of them mentioned “collusion.”) Ninety minutes later, at 11:27 a.m., ABC News repeated what it termed Mook’s “allegation of collusion between the campaign and Russia.” And three hours later, at approximately 12:35 p.m., Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “If there was some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence or Russian hackers, that clearly has to be dealt with.”

From there it was off to the races. Over the next two weeks, the word “collusion” was used hundreds of times by politicians like Martin O’Malley and media personalities such as Trevor Noah.

The term caught on, I think, because it captured the general suspicion that the campaign was somehow in on the hack or knowingly benefiting from it while carefully eliding the fact that no tangible evidence had yet emerged tying the Trump campaign to the Kremlin. (Remember that news of the Trump Tower meeting and other contacts between the campaign and Russian actors had not yet become public.)

After this initial spurt, the collusion frenzy tapered off. Through August and September the word appeared only sporadically in the press, as other stories edged out the Trump-Russia narrative for dominance in the campaign. But when Wikileaks published more than 50,000 emails from Clinton’s campaign chairman in October of 2016, the term had a renaissance of sorts.

The popularity of the term continued to wax and wane throughout the final months of 2016. When a big story would break about Trump, the campaign, or Clinton’s emails, the word “collusion” would appear in headlines. Not every story described the relationship as collusion. Some referred to it as “ties” with Russia. Others questioned whether Trump was “coordinating” with Putin. Collusion had not yet become the de facto term to describe the Russia connection. But it was very much in the mix.

for the perpetually dumb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dumb as dirt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ^^^ Total loser Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ‘Collusion’ is a Trump-word, you pathetic
> > dope.
> >
> > Yes, it is, but FOX News has told the bots to
> > parrot cutesy terms like "collusion delusion"
> > everywhere they can, so they obediently do.
> They
> > think there is some point behind that.
>
>
> How did the word “collusion” get introduced
> into the public lexicon? And who is initially
> responsible for introducing it? The answer, it
> turns out, goes back to July of 2016 at the
> Democratic National Convention.
>
> On July 22, 2016, Wikileaks released more than
> 19,000 emails from top members of the Democratic
> National Committee. Two days after the release,
> Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook
> told CNN that, according to “experts,” Russian
> state actors had stolen the emails from the DNC
> and were releasing them through Wikileaks “for
> the purpose of actually helping Donald
> Trump.” 
>
> Mook did not use the word “collusion,” but the
> press, in reporting his comments, did. Within the
> hour, in an article timestamped at 9:55 a.m., the
> Washington Examiner reported that Paul Manafort
> and Donald Trump Jr, had responded to Mook’s
> allegations and “vigorously denied any kind of
> collusion between Trump Sr. and the Russian
> president.” (To be clear, Manafort denied “any
> ties” between Putin and the Trump campaign, and
> Donald Trump Jr. criticized Mook for “lie after
> lie.” Neither one of them mentioned
> “collusion.”) Ninety minutes later, at 11:27
> a.m., ABC News repeated what it termed Mook’s
> “allegation of collusion between the campaign
> and Russia.” And three hours later, at
> approximately 12:35 p.m., Bernie Sanders’s
> campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, told CNN’s Jake
> Tapper, “If there was some kind of collusion
> between the Trump campaign and Russian
> intelligence or Russian hackers, that clearly has
> to be dealt with.”
>
> From there it was off to the races. Over the next
> two weeks, the word “collusion” was used
> hundreds of times by politicians like Martin
> O’Malley and media personalities such as Trevor
> Noah.
>
> The term caught on, I think, because it captured
> the general suspicion that the campaign was
> somehow in on the hack or knowingly benefiting
> from it while carefully eliding the fact that no
> tangible evidence had yet emerged tying the Trump
> campaign to the Kremlin. (Remember that news of
> the Trump Tower meeting and other contacts between
> the campaign and Russian actors had not yet become
> public.)
>
> After this initial spurt, the collusion frenzy
> tapered off. Through August and September the word
> appeared only sporadically in the press, as other
> stories edged out the Trump-Russia narrative for
> dominance in the campaign. But when Wikileaks
> published more than 50,000 emails from Clinton’s
> campaign chairman in October of 2016, the term had
> a renaissance of sorts.
>
> The popularity of the term continued to wax and
> wane throughout the final months of 2016. When a
> big story would break about Trump, the campaign,
> or Clinton’s emails, the word “collusion”
> would appear in headlines. Not every story
> described the relationship as collusion. Some
> referred to it as “ties” with Russia. Others
> questioned whether Trump was “coordinating”
> with Putin. Collusion had not yet become the de
> facto term to describe the Russia connection. But
> it was very much in the mix.