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.
Nope! Trump's foreign policy advisor bragging to the Australian ambassador that the Russian had dirt on HRC and will be helping them with that info is the reason the FBI launched the investigation.
That makes no sense whatsoever. He didn't mention any crime, so there was nothing for the FBI to investigate.
So if the Russians gave information about Hillary to Trump that's collusion? But if the Australians gave information about Trump to the Obama administration which was used to launch an investigation against a political opponent, it's not?
^^^ So many misconceptions and wrong assumptions, I'll just correct the easiest one:
The emails the Russians offered/gave to the Trump campaign were illegally obtained. Anyone accepting or using them broke the law. That could be called criminal collusion, if you like.
The information that Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat, passed to his government, which subsequently passed it to US govt. officials, was legally obtained, No laws or protocols were broken. That could be called collusion, if you like, but there was no criminal act involved so it doesn't matter.
So yes, if you insist: both were collusion. One was criminal, one was not.
^^^ So many misconceptions and wrong assumptions, I'll just correct the easiest one:
The emails the Russians offered/gave to the Trump campaign were illegally obtained. Anyone accepting or using them broke the law. That could be called criminal collusion, if you like.
The information that Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat, passed to his government, which subsequently passed it to US govt. officials, was legally obtained, No laws or protocols were broken. That could be called collusion, if you like, but there was no criminal act involved so it doesn't matter.
So yes, if you insist: both were collusion. One was criminal, one was not.
You keep overlooking the fact that there's no proof that the Russians had anything to do with the release of the DNC emails.
I don't recall that the dossier alleged any crimes. Part of the "rule of law" is not punishing people who didn't break the law.
The dossier doesn't attempt to define or allege any crimes, that wasn't its purpose. But you purport to disregard it even if everything in it is true.
There's certainly information in it that would be prosecutable under US law, including the hack of Podesta emails. Beyond that the dossier contains an abundance of information, that if true, implicates Trump in bribery re Russian business deals and numerous other nefarious dealings. And for sure it contradicts statements his closest allies (including Cohen) have made under oath.
I'm not in a position to say how much of it is true, but this is not about my hesitancy. Again, you're the one who says that even if it's all true, you're still team Trump. IMO, that shows an alarming disregard for the rule of law.
And with that the millions of screaming anti-Trumpers cry in their corners... sorry anti-Trumpers all the NYT did was lay out old news...
Righties love to use the words "cry", "crying", etc at every opportunity when describing liberals. Who exactly is it that you see crying? I don't see it that way. Is that just an attempt to shut down logical debate that they know won't go their way?
^^^ So many misconceptions and wrong assumptions, I'll just correct the easiest one:
The emails the Russians offered/gave to the Trump campaign were illegally obtained. Anyone accepting or using them broke the law. That could be called criminal collusion, if you like.
The information that Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat, passed to his government, which subsequently passed it to US govt. officials, was legally obtained, No laws or protocols were broken. That could be called collusion, if you like, but there was no criminal act involved so it doesn't matter.
So yes, if you insist: both were collusion. One was criminal, one was not.
You can't get a FISA warrant to surveil a presidential campaign with an unverified account of a drunk person saying something outrageous.
Lol. Because the New York Times is so very credible. The same New York Times that said that Trump's wires were tapped in the first place?
The Russia investigation is a hoax. To date, no one has even suggested what "collusion" even means. Last I heard, they were looking into some Russians buying facebok ads in Wisconsin. No connection to the Kremlin on one side or to Trump at all, but that was what the left was getting excited about.
All right, so lets pretend that all of this is true (and there is no corroborating evidence that it is). Russians hacked the DNC and wikileaks published the e-mails.
WHAT HAS TRUMP TO DO WITH IT?
And regardless of that answer, for those of us with brains, the disturbing part is still the information contained in the e-mails showing the Democrat party functioning as a criminal organizaion.
Just give up. It has been over a year. It is time to put the cards on the table. Indicting Manafort for what he did fifiteen years ago or Flynn for a minor charge of mispeaking about what happened after the election is not going to get you there. Put up or shut up.
What you don't take the Mexican control of the continuously lying NYT as credible.
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.
