TrumPutinGate

#16,380
#16,380
lawgator1 said:
When this controversy first began, the test for the right was simply that there had been no collusion, at all. Now it has morphed into well, there was collusion, but that is not illegal.

When it is proven, and the allegation is made that it is illegal, there will be a new mantra. It will be that, well, it's illegal, but the president is allowed to do illegal things like this.
Click to expand...

Given where this investigation started and where it is now, I'd say it's been a complete bust for the Democrats. Go back and read the first TrumPutin thread if you need a refresher course.

People in the know have said they have found no evidence of a link between Trump and Russia. Still, the kooks are following each new morsel of information and projecting it onto their predefined notions of treason.

Meanwhile, Trump has had a pretty good first year in office. The one that will be most obvious to the average citizen is the economy seems to be firing up again after years of malaise under the last administration. And most will certainly notice a tax reduction in the coming year.

Keep fighting the good kook fight, LG. I hear Hatch is still being prepped for the top job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16,382
#16,382
lawgator1 said:
When this controversy first began, the test for the right was simply that there had been no collusion, at all. Now it has morphed into well, there was collusion, but that is not illegal.

When it is proven, and the allegation is made that it is illegal, there will be a new mantra. It will be that, well, it's illegal, but the president is allowed to do illegal things like this.
Click to expand...

There was collusion? So why does Dianne Feinstein keep saying that there is no evidence of collusion? Why did Ron Wyden go on national tv a couple of weeks ago and say there was no collusion, only an attempt to collude?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16,383
#16,383
Mick said:
Where did you go Timsquach? I thought for sure you knew what you were talking about. You know the way you jumped into the conversation and all.
Click to expand...

Im here and stand by what I said. You would never be told to wipe/smash a hd whose user is being investigated. Never
 
#16,384
#16,384
lawgator1 said:
When this controversy first began, the test for the right was simply that there had been no collusion, at all. Now it has morphed into well, there was collusion, but that is not illegal.

When it is proven, and the allegation is made that it is illegal, there will be a new mantra. It will be that, well, it's illegal, but the president is allowed to do illegal things like this.
Click to expand...

Its so hilarious to see your rationale. I mean it's actually like you believe that presidents before Trump, have never done anything henious or broken the law. Also, this whole colluison thing has just gone off the rails and you know it. You are just clinging to some last bit of hope that something surfaces. That way you can say I told you so about Trump. Its never ok to break the law and get away with it. And if sure fire evidence surfaces that Trump did collude with Russia to influence his victory, then he needs to be impeached and punished. However, suorely you of all people should realize why most think your demonizing of Trup is vastly hypocritical right?

You and your party continue to make fools of yourselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16,385
#16,385
tim said:
Im here and stand by what I said. You would never be told to wipe/smash a hd whose user is being investigated. Never
Click to expand...

You can stand by your ignorance if you want. It's obvious you don't know the how email communications are preserved. They are preserved on 2 servers (the sending server and receiving server). You can delete emails on any device used to access them but that does not delete them from the servers. The smashing is inconsequential. It didn't destroy any email information, which was the scope of the investigation not the personal devices used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16,386
#16,386
Nick Ackerman, a former Watergate prosecutor, said Saturday that the big issue in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is not whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia, but whether it conspired to steal emails from prominent figures in the Democratic Party.

"I think the big enchilada here is the conspiracy to break into the Democratic National Committee [DNC] in violation of the federal computer crime law and to use those emails to help Donald Trump get elected," Ackerman said on MSNBC.

"All of that is motive as to why Donald Trump and others were endeavoring to obstruct the investigation, and why Donald Trump told [former FBI Director] James Comey to let the investigation on [former national security adviser Michael] Flynn go," he added. "All of this is going to come together in 2018."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16,387
#16,387
OuterBanksVol said:
Nick Ackerman, a former Watergate prosecutor, said Saturday that the big issue in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is not whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia, but whether it conspired to steal emails from prominent figures in the Democratic Party.

"I think the big enchilada here is the conspiracy to break into the Democratic National Committee [DNC] in violation of the federal computer crime law and to use those emails to help Donald Trump get elected," Ackerman said on MSNBC.

"All of that is motive as to why Donald Trump and others were endeavoring to obstruct the investigation, and why Donald Trump told [former FBI Director] James Comey to let the investigation on [former national security adviser Michael] Flynn go," he added. "All of this is going to come together in 2018."
Click to expand...
OK. So, it's not really the collusion, not the treason, not the sexual assaults on women, not the dementia, and not the obstruction of justice. Now, it's the conspiracy to break into the DNC?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#16,388
#16,388
Mick said:
You can stand by your ignorance if you want. It's obvious you don't know the how email communications are preserved. They are preserved on 2 servers (the sending server and receiving server). You can delete emails on any device used to access them but that does not delete them from the servers. The smashing is inconsequential. It didn't destroy any email information, which was the scope of the investigation not the personal devices used.
Click to expand...

I’m sure you have called Trump a liar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16,389
#16,389
OuterBanksVol said:
Nick Ackerman, a former Watergate prosecutor, said Saturday that the big issue in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is not whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia, but whether it conspired to steal emails from prominent figures in the Democratic Party.

"I think the big enchilada here is the conspiracy to break into the Democratic National Committee [DNC] in violation of the federal computer crime law and to use those emails to help Donald Trump get elected," Ackerman said on MSNBC.

"All of that is motive as to why Donald Trump and others were endeavoring to obstruct the investigation, and why Donald Trump told [former FBI Director] James Comey to let the investigation on [former national security adviser Michael] Flynn go," he added. "All of this is going to come together in 2018."
Click to expand...

:lolabove:
 
#16,399
#16,399
The Trump administration and it's minions on Fox and in the House have tried to sell the notion that the Russia investigation by the DOJ began because of the dossier. Why do they promote that storyline? Because they can link that back to people with connections, albeit indirect, to Clinton. This gives them political cover to try to generally criticize the whole thing, therefore, as stemming from the Dems.

Turns out, this theory is utter bullsh!t. The investigation began when the Australian intelligence services alerted us to the coffee boy Papadapoulos bragging to one of their agents about the Russians having dirt on Clinton via emails. Emails that then began appearing publicly about a month later.

How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt - The New York Times

This is critical for two reasons. One, he was the among the first dominoes to fall. They went right after him. He will now have to explain THE CRITICAL POINT.

How did he know the Russians had that info a month before it came out????

The end is near, Trump nut huggers. Trump is toast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16,400
#16,400
lawgator1 said:
The Trump administration and it's minions on Fox and in the House have tried to sell the notion that the Russia investigation by the DOJ began because of the dossier. Why do they promote that storyline? Because they can link that back to people with connections, albeit indirect, to Clinton. This gives them political cover to try to generally criticize the whole thing, therefore, as stemming from the Dems.

Turns out, this theory is utter bullsh!t. The investigation began when the Australian intelligence services alerted us to the coffee boy Papadapoulos bragging to one of their agents about the Russians having dirt on Clinton via emails. Emails that then began appearing publicly about a month later.

How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt - The New York Times

This is critical for two reasons. One, he was the among the first dominoes to fall. They went right after him. He will now have to explain THE CRITICAL POINT.

How did he know the Russians had that info a month before it came out????

The end is near, Trump nut huggers. Trump is toast.
Click to expand...

Looks like you got him now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top