Why wait for the results of investigations when all the evidence has bee presented and considered when you can just accept Trump sating it is bogus. It is of course premature for either side to draw and definitive conclusions.
OOOOhhhh NOOOOO!!! LORDY THERE ARE TAPES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Baller Time
- Start date
It was ok to say that back in Feb and a bit of March. Today I will not give anyone the benefit of doubt. Now we hit the gas and start slicing.Why wait for the results of investigations when all the evidence has bee presented and considered when you can just accept Trump sating it is bogus. It is of course premature for either side to draw and definitive conclusions.
Are you seriously defending collision with foreign spies against the United Statess?????????Like Ukrainians? And in the later using ex MI6 to contact Russian spies for salacious information?
Is that the type of example you are looking at.
Looking pretty legal to me.
The only thing that might get him off on a technicality is the fact that in THIS case he came up empty. But it's highly unlikely this was the only attempt.
So now your argument is he must be guilty therefore it's time to convict anyway?Are you seriously defending collision with foreign spies against the United Statess?????????
The only thing that might get him off on a technicality is the fact that in THIS case he came up empty. But it's highly unlikely this was the only attempt.
And your actually complaining about technicalities? Really? You are hilarious.
It isn't a technicality. It's the law. Just like Aardie said. But I don't think it will even go that far.
Site a case where information under the law was considered a material contribution to a campaign and the election laws were used to prosecute. How about we start with precedent.
Collusion=Illusion
.
.
Grab and bag, and breathe into it. You're hyperventilating and making sh*t up in your head. I don't know what campaign you were watching, but shovels s of shit was flung on Trump and still being flung, most of it made up, and/or misconstrued. There's been so many retracted stories and complete fabrications on Trump the last year, I lost count, so spare me the selective outrage!Is your head so far up your ass that you are unaware of the massive Russian cyber campaign to slag Hillary with fake news stories on the net? Are you still avoiding that pedophile pizza store??? The Russians used true stories and fabricated ones to help Trump win and Trump knew it and encouraged it, and his team had numerous meetings to facilitate it. TREASON.
My point is he has ADMITTED to trying to collude with Russian spies, and PROVIDED EVIDENCE that he did indeed try to do do, and that the Trump campaign was involved (he looped in the campaign manager).So now your argument is he must be guilty therefore it's time to convict anyway?
And your actually complaining about technicalities? Really? You are hilarious.
It isn't a technicality. It's the law. Just like Aardie said. But I don't think it will even go that far.
Site a case where information under the law was considered a material contribution to a campaign and the election laws were used to prosecute. How about we start with precedent.
Now whether he is somehow going to avoid criminal charges due to some technicality (like his attempt failed) I'll leave up too the investigators.
But it's clear the campaign WAS colluding, while repeatedly lying to the public about it.
Leave aside the legal technicality for a moment:
Is collusion with foreign spies acceptable, ethically or politically? In your opinion?
You can't seriously be saying that conspiring against the United States with a Russian spy is ok because the other side called Trump names?????.
Grab and bag, and breathe into it. You're hyperventilating and making sh*t up in your head. I don't know what campaign you were watching, but shovels s of shit was flung on Trump and still being flung, most of it made up, and/or misconstrued. There's been so many retracted stories and complete fabrications on Trump the last year, I lost count, so spare me the selective outrage!
Oh gawd, what do you call the DNC and Ukrainian, opposition research? Trump though, yah he's conspiring. Enough with the selective moral hypocritical outrage.You can't seriously be saying that conspiring against the United States with a Russian spy is ok because the other side called Trump names?????
There was no crime committed and I think it would be a very hard press to say anyone in Politics wouldn't have at least listened to the information being presented.
He didn't sell Russia Uranium so slow down!
Just as a quick reminder. trump and his legal team knew about these emails Diaper Donnie had about 3 weeks ago. Its pink panther and shawarma time
I could totally be a devastating trump supporter..
Grab and bag, and breathe into it. You're hyperventilating and making sh*t up in your head. I don't know what campaign you were watching, but shovels s of shit was flung on Trump and still being flung, most of it made up, and/or misconstrued. There's been so many retracted stories and complete fabrications on Trump the last year, I lost count, so spare me the selective outrage!
Dellusion, lusion....what's your illusion?
Fuckin up libtards, and given em a contusions
No. He admitted he took a meeting to hear someone out. That's it.My point is he has ADMITTED to trying to collude with Russian spies, and PROVIDED EVIDENCE that he did indeed try to do do, and that the Trump campaign was involved (he looped in the campaign manager).
Now whether he is somehow going to avoid criminal charges due to some technicality (like his attempt failed) I'll leave up too the investigators.
But it's clear the campaign WAS colluding, while repeatedly lying to the public about it.
Leave aside the legal technicality for a moment:
Is collusion with foreign spies acceptable, ethically or politically? In your opinion?
Last edited:
Whatever you say, KellyAnn.
Grab and bag, and breathe into it. You're hyperventilating and making sh*t up in your head. I don't know what campaign you were watching, but shovels s of shit was flung on Trump and still being flung, most of it made up, and/or misconstrued. There's been so many retracted stories and complete fabrications on Trump the last year, I lost count, so spare me the selective outrage!
As I read this thread, and many others, its clear that people are just talking right past each other, and the reason is self evident. The anti-Trump group want to define the issue as "collusion with Russians" in the broadest possible sense, in the very same way that "Russian hacking of the election" is used in the very broadest sense by Trump political opponents (whether Democrat or GOP Never-Trumpers).
However, the only collusion with Russians that matters is collusion in a crime. That's what missing in the discussion. What crimes are the Trump campaign accused of colluding in? Treason? Putting aside the extremely high burden of proof relating to such charges, it doesn't fit the facts on the best interpretation of case. Trump wanted to become President. There is ZERO evidence that he wanted the Presidency in order to grant favours to or confer benefits upon Russia. At best, his campaign team were willing to accept the help of anyone, including Russians, to win. If the Russians wanted Trump to win, that may be politically relevant (because some people would never vote for someone who the Russians preferred), but it's not a crime for a political campaign to receive information on their opponent FROM ANY SOURCE. If their source used illegal means to obtain their information, but the recipient had nothing to do with the gathering of the info, that would represent the commission of a crime by the source (and, in my opinion, perhaps an obligation on the recipient to report the crime to the FBI), but not a crime on the part of the recipient.
In my view, the media and others who are pushing this charade forward will eventually have to come to the reckoning that there was no crime involved, and that, as unsavoury as having Russians wanting you to win an election may be, it's no more unsavoury than the various nefarious countries that wanted Clinton to win (for their own nefarious reasons).
However, the only collusion with Russians that matters is collusion in a crime. That's what missing in the discussion. What crimes are the Trump campaign accused of colluding in? Treason? Putting aside the extremely high burden of proof relating to such charges, it doesn't fit the facts on the best interpretation of case. Trump wanted to become President. There is ZERO evidence that he wanted the Presidency in order to grant favours to or confer benefits upon Russia. At best, his campaign team were willing to accept the help of anyone, including Russians, to win. If the Russians wanted Trump to win, that may be politically relevant (because some people would never vote for someone who the Russians preferred), but it's not a crime for a political campaign to receive information on their opponent FROM ANY SOURCE. If their source used illegal means to obtain their information, but the recipient had nothing to do with the gathering of the info, that would represent the commission of a crime by the source (and, in my opinion, perhaps an obligation on the recipient to report the crime to the FBI), but not a crime on the part of the recipient.
In my view, the media and others who are pushing this charade forward will eventually have to come to the reckoning that there was no crime involved, and that, as unsavoury as having Russians wanting you to win an election may be, it's no more unsavoury than the various nefarious countries that wanted Clinton to win (for their own nefarious reasons).
No he met with someone for the purpose of receiving what he thought would be damaging information which he would "love" and which would be useful later in the summer. He did not call in Kushner and Manafort just to hear someone out. The fact that it MAY have turned out to be useless is entirely beside the point.No. He admitted he took a meeting to hear someone out. That's it.
He admitted to a meeting where he expected to receive information obtained through criminal espionage against the United States by Russian spies and his emails clearly indicate that he intended to use that information to influence the election.No. He admitted he took a meeting to hear someone out. That's it.
Your denials are hilarious. He's caught red handed.
His only hope LEGALLY is that since it was a dead end and he didn't actually succeed that he gets off on a technicality.
But his intent was clearly to collude with Russian spies in an effort to influence the election. He's admitted that and he's provided proof of it.
Jr. said it was a dead end meeting and we all know just how credible Jr. is.His only hope LEGALLY is that since it was a dead end and he didn't actually succeed that he gets off on a technicality.
And as oft stated the DNC had an operative with Ukraine doing the same thing. As well as paying for the Steele Dossier. Both of which is involve the use of foreign intelligence services to undermine the Trump Campaign. The one with Russians.No he met with someone for the purpose of receiving what he thought would be damaging information which he would "love" and which would be useful later in the summer. He did not call in Kushner and Manafort just to hear someone out. The fact that it MAY have turned out to be useless is entirely beside the point.
And that apparently is legal as well. He didn't go there to receive. He went to hear what was available. Ethically dubious, but quite normal in ethicly challenged Washington. Or it would be illegal. Right?
You don't have any idea of his expectations. He took the meeting to see what's what. Just like the Dem paid money for the Steele Dossier. To see what's what. And both used Russian sources.He admitted to a meeting where he expected to receive information obtained through criminal espionage against the United States by Russian spies and his emails clearly indicate that he intended to use that information to influence the election.
Your denials are hilarious. He's caught red handed.
His only hope LEGALLY is that since it was a dead end and he didn't actually succeed that he gets off on a technicality.
But his intent was clearly to collude with Russian spies in an effort to influence the election. He's admitted that and he's provided proof of it.
The difference is the Dems actually and provably received information that was released and was damaging to his reputation. From FSB sources.
But it was legal as well. Unless you are now stating it was illegal?
Add in the Ukrainians as well.
This is the swamp in Washington. Who also say it's legal.
Lollipops and unicornsYou don't have any idea of his expectations. He took the meeting to see what's what. Just like the Dem paid money for the Steele Dossier. To see what's what. And both used Russian sources.
The difference is the Dems actually and provably received information that was released and was damaging to his reputation. From FSB sources.
But it was legal as well. Unless you are now stating it was illegal?
Add in the Ukrainians as well.
This is the swamp in Washington. Who also say it's legal.
Actually the idea charges are coming at this point are the lollipops and unicorns.Lollipops and unicorns
I see administrative issues with security clearance filings so far. And nothing illegal.
Just another day in the OkeeFenokee swamp. It's just right now it's on Trump.
But the rocks are kicked over now. Lots of bugs, creepy crawly are going to appear.
