Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes he did, and collusion isn't a legal term, it's used as a catch-all for working with a foreign adversary to swing an election.
Criminal conspiracy would be the legal term.
Meeting with a foreign adversary to obtain information on your political opponent and involving other members of the campaign is criminal conspiracy. It's also a violation of election laws and could involve espionage and cyber crimes.
We know darn well had Chelsea and Hillary pulled this stunt and won the election, you all would have been screaming your heads off for impeachment, so spare me the hypocritical BS.
I am far from a Trump fanatic, but you are not even close;
col·lu·sion
noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
"the armed forces were working in collusion with drug traffickers"
"there had been collusion between the security forces and paramilitary groups"
LAW
illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit.
Had Trump or someone with his authority agreed to a quid pro quo for Russia to somehow hack the machines and change votes in return for something he would then do as president for them, yes that would fit the definition. However that is not even close to what happened.
As to your Chelsea & Hilary example, rest assured that the DNC (which was essentially Hillary's campaign team) was actively engaged in opposition research against all the (R's) and was focused on Trump once he got the nomination. I would expect no less, nor would I be saying (under the exact same circumstances in reverse) Hillary colluded with Russia.
Frankly, if Chelsea or a surrogate didn't go to see what someone might have on Trump, it would be political negligence.
Now if you want to deal in reality and asked me if Trump Jr. should have taken that meeting, I'd say no. I think he used poor judgement, as for all he knew, it could have been a set up. Instead he should have gotten a lower level person to vet the source, and determine if they had legitimate evidence against Hillary, such as her 30k + emails that were destroyed by her. If not, why even get involved with the cloak and dagger rubbish.
Also, Trump Jr. might very well be lying by saying they discussed the adoption issue, just as people with common sense know Loretta Lynch did not have a coincidental run in with Bill Clinton on a tarmac and only discussed grandchildren.
Shep has been anti-Trump to gain viewers. Don Jr. did not tell the truth and the "meeting" was a bust. Big deal. The real story is why has the GOP not hauled the former AG up to discuss her obstruction of the investigation of Hillary.
Sincerely? Yeah, like anyone who is not enamored of trump would watch fox news very much, whether it is shep talking or not. Now, I do admit that I watch for a few minutes at a time sometimes, but 99% of fox news shows are simple, one-sided, opinionated, talk shows. The one that shep does is about the only actual 'news' on fox. You are confusing an actual news program with being anti-trump, because some of the reporting is describing trump's activities in more neutral terms than is typical on fox.
You know it's bad for Trump when Fox News is against him. Maybe the reason that Trump and Co. aren't putting all their Russian contacts out IS because they committed a crime or at the very least something highly immoral.
Not sure about immoral, but unethical comes immediately to mind.
Now why would Trump suddenly decide to start hiding unethical or immoral behavior? He was fine with it up until now.
He backstabs contractors, defrauds students, and "renegotiates" loans without a care. Even brags about doing it.
It sounds like what many believe have been true of the Democrats when it comes to Obama and the Clinton's.
The irony about this meeting that occurred is that somehow if party X says they have evidence of wrongdoing by a political opponent, what party would not have such a meeting?
So Trumps son says great and takes a meeting to determine if there was a validity to it, is no different than what Carville and others have done on the (D) side.
So why would it be ok with the (D's) for things like that to routinely occur in the "war room", but not when the (R's) do it?
Have you even watched the news for the past few days? It was more than "taking a meeting," lol.
Shep has been anti-Trump to gain viewers. Don Jr. did not tell the truth and the "meeting" was a bust. Big deal. The real story is why has the GOP not hauled the former AG up to discuss her obstruction of the investigation of Hillary.
Not quite. The "big" news was not a bust if you read what has been happening.
Yes there are the die hard supporters but there are also the trolls. You can recognize them by their insulting non factual rhetoric. Honestly, I think I'm seeing more troll rhetoric then supporters. I'm sure some of the supporters are parroting the troll rhetoric as well.
It's unfortunate that the trolls and blind supporters attempt to lower the bar and blur the lines between what should be acceptable from our leaders and the muddy waters of deception.
Lies are never good in any relationship and catastrophic on the world stage.
Kudos to Fox and any other news organization that reports it like it is. We all deserve transparent, honest leadership. Anything less is despicable.
Indeed. They are fairly easy to spot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
I am far from a Trump fanatic, but you are not even close;
Had Trump or someone with his authority agreed to a quid pro quo for Russia to somehow hack the machines and change votes in return for something he would then do as president for them, yes that would fit the definition. However that is not even close to what happened.
`
How do you know there was no quid pro quo? Didn't the RNC change their stance on issues dealing with Russia? Has Trump not shilled endlessly for Putin since Day 1?
The FACT is ~ we have no idea who promised what to who. Hopefully Mueller will be able to find out.
Oh poor Shep. He's just such a sensitive guy. When are they going to send this clown to CNN to join Lemon and Cooper?
What does being sensitive have to do with anything? Why is he a clown? Because he doesn't sound like Hannity? Now, there's a clown, lol.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
