Comments by "Triple 9" (@Betta66) on "Senate Intel Finds no Collusion Between Trump and Russia" video.

  1.  @aroenche428  Mueller's appointment letter tasked him with finding evidence of Russian contacts in the Trump administration. He was given that letter after Trump fired James Comey. At least two people close to Trump lied about having Russian contacts. Where's the illegality? I can tell you what's definitely illegal: obstruction of justice.
    1
  2.  @aroenche428  Did Zack Snyder write this? Because damn, does this make zero sense? 1. You're arguing that it's illegal for a special investigator to find evidence? What do you think "investigate" means? 2. Do you think not being charged with something is the same thing as being innocent? Trump once tweeted "no obstruction (except for I fight back)," which is literally what obstruction of justice is. If asking the FBI to go easy on Michael Flynn and firing James Comey and Jeff Sessions for not being loyal to him (in the latter case, admitting to doing so for that very reason) don't count as obstruction of justice, then Trump could stand in the Rose Garden and say "I'm totally guilty of obstructing justice" and you would still be kissing his ass. 3. "We'd have known about it months ago via leaks." Bullshit. Even if there were leaks, you would still be giving Trump tongue baths. 4. "Zero legs"? Your Dear Leader keeps changing his story on everything from the Trump Tower meeting to how closely he worked with Paul Manafort and you think he has more legs to stand on than the guy who says "Hey, maybe this guy with a history of getting sued for fraud isn't trustworthy"? You want to waste your time, keep watching Styx's videos. Or don't, because your "cat is out of the bag" statement proves you clearly don't pay attention to them. In the article Styx himself linked to in the description, it basically says "one guy on the committee says they haven't found much, but admits things could change, and also other members of the committee stress the importance of keeping things in context." But like a good NPC, you and everyone in this comments section let Trump tell you that he was vindicated because of what one guy said that wasn't even remotely close to what the one guy said. 5. I'd never heard of David Brock before your comment, but since you seem to hate him, I already know he'd make a way better president than Trump. Seriously, I bet you only hate him because he wasn't on your side when you wanted the "Anita Hill is a perjuring lesbian" guy to help discredit Christine Blasey Ford.
    1
  3. This presidency? No kidding
    1
  4.  Max Raider  I've seen worse. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/15/budget-deficit-swells-trump-900432
    1
  5.  schwoogie78  Everything about Trump's presidency has been a waste of sanity
    1
  6. ChaosTrident Trump initially demanded $5.7 billion for the wall (from us, not Mexico). Sure, one could make the argument that $5.7 billion isn’t that much, but it’s more than $42.8 million and less than the money wasted on the shutdown. As for collusion, Mueller’s appointment letter tasked him with finding evidence of Russian contacts. Trump himself may or may not have colluded, but if members of his administration did, then either he didn’t know and he’s terrible at performing background checks or he did know and hired them anyway. Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort was just yesterday found guilty of lying about a Russian contact and you’re saying that doesn’t count because nothing less than Trump flat out admitting to collusion is sufficient evidence to you. Except you would still be kissing his ass if he admitted to collusion. You’d say that collusion isn’t a crime, then turn around and say Hillary is a criminal for colluding like all Trump NPCs do.
    1
  7. ChaosTrident You criticize me for making assumptions about you and yet you assume I’m a CNN loving globalist. I will not say whether I get all of my news from CNN because if I deny it, you will call me a liar. Why should you expect me to care what you did or didn’t say when you clearly don’t care what I’m saying? Anecdotal evidence and wishful thinking aren’t enough to prove you’re right. Oh, and speaking of anecdotal evidence, I said in the comments of a previous video that I had a college degree and someone responded that I was lying. So to your claim about your tax returns, show me or I’m calling bullshit.
    1
  8. Milly GY No, that’s not what they’re expecting to find. That’s the kind of ludicrous demand for impossible evidence a creationist makes. And even if evidence like that was actually found, you would still defend Trump.
    1
  9. imamia mia The shutdown cost more than what Trump demanded for the wall and you think the investigation is the bigger waste of taxpayer money?
    1
  10. Shravaka Yogi If that’s the case, can we let go of Hillary’s emails too? You might as well build the border wall out of those since you people can’t get over them.
    1
  11.  Clear sky Over the lake  You think the President would be low on free publicity without this?
    1
  12. If you repeat a lie enough times, it is still a lie. According to the article you yourself linked: "[Intelligence Committee chairman Richard] Burr was careful to note that more facts may yet be uncovered, but he also made clear that the investigation was nearing an end. 'We know we're getting to the bottom of the barrel because there're not new questions that we're searching for answers to,' Burr said. Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr's characterizations, but said they lacked context. 'We were never going find a contract signed in blood saying, Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,' one Democratic aide said. The series of contacts between Trump's associates, his campaign officials, his children and various Russians suggest a campaign willing to accept help from a foreign adversary, the Democrats say. By many counts, Trump and his associates had more than 100 contacts with Russians before the January 2017 presidential inauguration. 'Donald Trump Jr. made clear in his messages that he was willing to accept help from the Russians,' one Democratic Senate investigator said. 'Trump publicly urged the Russians to find Clinton's missing emails.' . . . Predictably, Burr's comments led Trump to tweet that he had been fully vindicated, which is not the case." Remember when Rudy Giuliani said "I never said there was no collusion"? He tried to cover his tracks by saying that members of the administration might have colluded (even if Trump didn't personally direct them to collude himself) and said as far as Trump knows, there was no collusion. If Trump made Jordan Belfort his economic adviser, for example, even he didn't have any personal involvement in Belfort's crimes, he either didn't know Belfort committed them (in which case, Trump is terrible at conducting background checks) or he knew and hired him anyway. It's the same thing here. Several members of Trump's inner circle lied about having Russian contacts. It might be true that Trump didn't collude, but how many members of Trump's inner circle have to lie about having Russian contacts before you start to question whether Trump is, as he claims, hiring the best people?
    1