TrumPutinGate

#14,226
#14,226
Mick said:
Reread the thread and even revisit Trumputin gate 1 and for future reference in this thread the "trump" in trumputin gate means trump campaign associates and the "putin" means Russians. I hope this helps with your disconnect.
Click to expand...

What disconnect?

Russia attempted to interfere. The evidence is clear.

When it comes to Trump "campaign associates" there is scant evidence of direct collusion in the Russian election efforts. Flynn and Manafort did some things they'll get hammered for but those things are relationships and actions that so far as I've seen have not been tied to collusion on the election.

There is about zero evidence of Trump himself colluding with the Russian election efforts.
 
#14,227
#14,227
volinbham said:
What disconnect?

Russia attempted to interfere. The evidence is clear.

When it comes to Trump "campaign associates" there is scant evidence of direct collusion in the Russian election efforts. Flynn and Manafort did some things they'll get hammered for but those things are relationships and actions that so far as I've seen have not been tied to collusion on the election.

There is about zero evidence of Trump himself colluding with the Russian election efforts.
Click to expand...

The captain will go down with his ship and he should IF proven his associates sought Russian help. That is the disconnect. I don't think you will find an email from Trump to Putin but we have found emails from the underlings of both camps that support the collusion claim.
 
#14,229
#14,229
Mick said:
The captain will go down with his ship and he should IF proven his associates sought Russian help. That is the disconnect. I don't think you will find an email from Trump to Putin but we have found emails from the underlings of both camps that support the collusion claim.
Click to expand...

What emails have been found that support the collusion?

Also, I think you are misinterpreting what I said.

To repeat:

That Russia attempted to interfere in the election is a known.

The extent (if any) of impact said interference had is unknown and probably not knowable.

That Trump associates directly participated and coordinated with said interference is unknown (though alleged by many here and political opponents) AND scant evidence exists (or has been leaked) to back up this theory.

So I was simply saying no one is disputing the first point; most here are arguing the same as posted above on 2 and 3.
 
#14,231
#14,231
volinbham said:
What emails have been found that support the collusion?

Also, I think you are misinterpreting what I said.

To repeat:

That Russia attempted to interfere in the election is a known.

The extent (if any) of impact said interference had is unknown and probably not knowable.

That Trump associates directly participated and coordinated with said interference is unknown (though alleged by many here and political opponents) AND scant evidence exists (or has been leaked) to back up this theory.

So I was simply saying no one is disputing the first point; most here are arguing the same as posted above on 2 and 3.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out that there are people who do not accept that Russia tried to interfere in the election and agree with you that it is unknowable the impact their attempts had.

In the Jr. email he said something like: Dirt on Hillary. I love it. Lets meet.

He had to make sure Hillary was "fit". Do you buy that line?
 
#14,232
#14,232
volinbham said:
That's the collusion?

If anything it shows they didn't collude if this is the best attempt they made.
Click to expand...

Well considering every time he's been asked about this meeting he's lied and came back and added more detail. This is probably a lie as well. Whether it's collusion or not I'm not sure but we know you can't trust a word he says
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14,233
#14,233
Mick said:
Trump Jr. Says He Wanted Russian Dirt to Determine Clinton’s ‘Fitness’ for Office

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/trump-russia-investigation.html
Click to expand...


That's the best they could come up with for him to say? That's utterly ridiculous. They should have stuck with, "I am inexperienced in these matters and really did not think it was a big deal." People would believe that. But the claim he did it to see if she was fit to be in office? Only abject morons would buy that.

So Trump's base will eat it up, naturally.



volinbham said:
What emails have been found that support the collusion?

Also, I think you are misinterpreting what I said.

To repeat:

That Russia attempted to interfere in the election is a known.

The extent (if any) of impact said interference had is unknown and probably not knowable.

That Trump associates directly participated and coordinated with said interference is unknown (though alleged by many here and political opponents) AND scant evidence exists (or has been leaked) to back up this theory.

So I was simply saying no one is disputing the first point; most here are arguing the same as posted above on 2 and 3.
Click to expand...


We know that Trump's team had the intent to get info from Russian government to derail her. You seem to be saying that's not enough, that what is necessary is for there to be evidence they DID get info from the Russians and they DID agree to give the Russians something in return.

As far as the meeting last year, I think you'd have a more compelling case if Trump and the administration had not lied about and minimized it about a half a dozen times already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#14,234
#14,234
lawgator1 said:
We know that Trump's team had the intent to get info from Russian government to derail her. You seem to be saying that's not enough, that what is necessary is for there to be evidence they DID get info from the Russians and they DID agree to give the Russians something in return.

As far as the meeting last year, I think you'd have a more compelling case if Trump and the administration had not lied about and minimized it about a half a dozen times already.
Click to expand...

intent is not enough - particularly the intent revealed so far.

If the charge is collusion then absolutely there needs to be evidence of action and some quid pro quo. That's what collusion is.
 
#14,235
#14,235
lawgator1 said:
That's the best they could come up with for him to say? That's utterly ridiculous. They should have stuck with, "I am inexperienced in these matters and really did not think it was a big deal." People would believe that. But the claim he did it to see if she was fit to be in office? Only abject morons would buy that.

So Trump's base will eat it up, naturally.

.
Click to expand...

Was there also a doctor and psychiatrist in the meeting? Maybe HC was wanting to adopt because she is unfit to have children.
 
Last edited:
#14,236
#14,236
volinbham said:
intent is not enough - particularly the intent revealed so far.

If the charge is collusion then absolutely there needs to be evidence of action and some quid pro quo. That's what collusion is.
Click to expand...


I'd be more willing to accept their claim that they did not actually materially collude, that they went right up to the line but did not cross it, if they had not LIED about the meeting multiple times so far.

As is, I am very suspicious that some trade was made. That's what Mueller is to find out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#14,237
#14,237
lawgator1 said:
I'd be more willing to accept their claim that they did not actually materially collude, that they went right up to the line but did not cross it, if they had not LIED about the meeting multiple times so far.

As is, I am very suspicious that some trade was made. That's what Mueller is to find out.
Click to expand...

Hillary lied constantly about the server - each time it was revealed she lied, she created a new lie. Be consistent - if lying is the evidence of intent you have it in spades with HC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14,238
#14,238
Mick said:
Was there also a doctor and psychiatrist in the meeting? Maybe HC was wanting to adopt because she is unfit to have children.
Click to expand...

Who needs professionals? Many yahoos in the media and on this board have concluded Trump is unfit for the office - apparently you can tell by just looking at someone...
 
#14,240
#14,240
volinbham said:
Who needs professionals? Many yahoos in the media and on this board have concluded Trump is unfit for the office - apparently you can tell by just looking at someone...
Click to expand...

That's right I can. I didn't vote HC so I'm not going to rub her nuts like you do Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14,242
#14,242
Mick said:
That's right I can. I didn't vote HC so I'm not going to rub her nuts like you do Trump.
Click to expand...

I didn't vote for Trump, I don't like him and I think he's doing a crap job - the fact I'm not willing to buy into the lunacy that is the topic of this thread should not be confused with my overall evaluation of him as POTUS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14,243
#14,243
volinbham said:
I didn't vote for Trump, I don't like him and I think he's doing a crap job - the fact I'm not willing to buy into the lunacy that is the topic of this thread should not be confused with my overall evaluation of him as POTUS.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm finding more of your type that are more anti-liberal/ anti-democrat than nut rubbers. It comes across the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14,244
#14,244
volinbham said:
just asking if you have standards or if it's all politics with you.
Click to expand...


Well, this IS the politics forum.

That aside, I think what you and the Fox clan do not seem to understand is that, when it is pointed out that Trump has lied or is lying yet again, it is no answer to say that others in the past also lied.

Even if you are right about all that you whine about with Clinton and Obama, that does not excuse Trump lying about things. Especially when he does it so cavalierly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#14,245
#14,245
lawgator1 said:
Well, this IS the politics forum.

That aside, I think what you and the Fox clan do not seem to understand is that, when it is pointed out that Trump has lied or is lying yet again, it is no answer to say that others in the past also lied.

Even if you are right about all that you whine about with Clinton and Obama, that does not excuse Trump lying about things. Especially when he does it so cavalierly.
Click to expand...

Coming from someone who constantly defended Obama when he lied. Lmfao
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14,246
#14,246
lawgator1 said:
Well, this IS the politics forum.

That aside, I think what you and the Fox clan do not seem to understand is that, when it is pointed out that Trump has lied or is lying yet again, it is no answer to say that others in the past also lied.

Even if you are right about all that you whine about with Clinton and Obama, that does not excuse Trump lying about things. Especially when he does it so cavalierly.
Click to expand...

I'm not excusing anything. The lying about the meeting makes the meeting look worse. That meeting however is not collusion.

Just wondering why you have such a double standard. If lying means you have intent you certainly should be arguing that across the board but you ignore it when it benefits you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#14,247
#14,247
lawgator1 said:
Well, this IS the politics forum.

That aside, I think what you and the Fox clan do not seem to understand is that, when it is pointed out that Trump has lied or is lying yet again, it is no answer to say that others in the past also lied.

Even if you are right about all that you whine about with Clinton and Obama, that does not excuse Trump lying about things. Especially when he does it so cavalierly.
Click to expand...

I can promise you watch Foxnews more than ANYONE in this forum.
 
#14,248
#14,248
volinbham said:
What on earth does this have to do with Trump/Russia collusion?

If anything, it sounds like Zuckerberg/Russia collusion.


No one questions that Russia tried to interfere with the election. That however is miles away from saying Trump actively colluded with Russia.
Click to expand...

Has Zuckerberg returned the money he made off those adds?
 
#14,249
#14,249
volinbham said:
I'm not excusing anything. The lying about the meeting makes the meeting look worse. That meeting however is not collusion.

Just wondering why you have such a double standard. If lying means you have intent you certainly should be arguing that across the board but you ignore it when it benefits you.
Click to expand...


You know, taking a step back, perhaps we should all just be very grateful to Donald jr. That he took on the public service of checking in to Hillary's credentials to be president, from the Russians.

Really, bravo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top