Flumper wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:17 pm
didn't Ford pardon Nixon of everything? otherwise there would have been.
Yup, and accepting the pardon was a admission of guilt.
yeah, well i think that was pretty much assumed by everyone at that point.
Now Trump really has to win reelection
I promise you, when Trump is out of office, the Democrats will lose interest. Why? Because this is all politics. They know now - those who didn't already - that he never colluded with the Russians. But it serves their purpose to get the plebs worked up about it. However, they are having some debate as to whether this is a good strategy, or if it will backfire.
Are you serious? Just finding a member of his campaign that wasn't meeting Russians is nearly impossible. Barr's summary said they did not establish that Trump's campaign conspired with The Russian Government.
Here's a little factoid for you: Hillary's campaign, though their oppo research firm, used a dossier from a foreign national, who relayed hearsay supposedly from Russians. Ergo, Hillary's campaign met with Russians.
You and I will be chatting in 2 to 6 years about how nothing came of the Trump investigation, how the people overwhelmingly did not care, and how the Democrats no longer pursued him after he was out of office. Because it was all politics.
Stapes wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:06 pm
It's a great strategy cause he is a piece of shit criminal. The worst thing the dem leadership could do is back off him. They need to keep hammering, investigating and indicting right up to election night.
This is one thing the Democrats can do which will be reviewed in the "why we lost" post-election assessment.
CaptQuint wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:19 pm
Yup, and accepting the pardon was a admission of guilt.
yeah, well i think that was pretty much assumed by everyone at that point.
Now Trump really has to win reelection
I promise you, when Trump is out of office, the Democrats will lose interest. Why? Because this is all politics. They know now - those who didn't already - that he never colluded with the Russians. But it serves their purpose to get the plebs worked up about it. However, they are having some debate as to whether this is a good strategy, or if it will backfire.
Are you serious? Just finding a member of his campaign that wasn't meeting Russians is nearly impossible. Barr's summary said they did not establish that Trump's campaign conspired with The Russian Government.
Here's a little factoid for you: Hillary's campaign, though their oppo research firm, used a dossier from a foreign national, who relayed hearsay supposedly from Russians. Ergo, Hillary's campaign met with Russians.
You and I will be chatting in 2 to 6 years about how nothing came of the Trump investigation, how the people overwhelmingly did not care, and how the Democrats no longer pursued him after he was out of office. Because it was all politics.
Factoid? Not a fact to be had there sir. The report was started by The Washington Free Beacon a conservative website to conduct opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. When Trump became the nominee The WFB stopped paying and the Hillary Campaign started by hiring Fusion GPS to look into Trump-Russia. Christopher Steele was formally employed by British Intelligence, The United Kingdom is an American Ally you see. Hillary did not meet with Russians, Trump's family and campaign did.
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
CaptQuint wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:40 pm
Factoid? Not a fact to be had there sir. The report was started by The Washington Free Beacon a conservative website to conduct opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. When Trump became the nominee The WFB stopped paying and the Hillary Campaign started by hiring Fusion GPS to look into Trump-Russia. Christopher Steele was formally employed by British Intelligence, The United Kingdom is an American Ally you see. Hillary did not meet with Russians, Trump's family and campaign did.
It doesn't matter who started it. The DNC paid for it. And it doesn't matter that the Brit was from an allied country. What matters is that the information he used was supposedly from Russian agents and sources. You can't get around that by having cutouts.
CaptQuint wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:40 pm
Factoid? Not a fact to be had there sir. The report was started by The Washington Free Beacon a conservative website to conduct opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. When Trump became the nominee The WFB stopped paying and the Hillary Campaign started by hiring Fusion GPS to look into Trump-Russia. Christopher Steele was formally employed by British Intelligence, The United Kingdom is an American Ally you see. Hillary did not meet with Russians, Trump's family and campaign did.
It doesn't matter who started it. The DNC paid for it. And it doesn't matter that the Brit was from an allied country. What matters is that the information he used was supposedly from Russian agents and sources. You can't get around that by having cutouts.
Nothing in that dossier has been disproven, and much of has been verified. The Russian Government was working against The Clinton Campaign and not with it.
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
you know, 50 years ago, talking to russians during a campaign by someone in the campaign would have probably been suspicious (at the least). the globe was much smaller then and communicating with foreign countries, especially adversaries, would have been unheard of.
However, in today's world, with free enterprise between all these nations and easy communications and corporations that overlap many borders, etc.... Its not at all surprising. I would be more surprised if you couldn't find someone within a campaign that talked to someone in russia about something.
Im not a big trump fan, but for me, that's how i see all of this. Its just nothing.
Flumper wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:01 pm
you know, 50 years ago, talking to russians during a campaign by someone in the campaign would have probably been suspicious (at the least). the globe was much smaller then and communicating with foreign countries, especially adversaries, would have been unheard of.
However, in today's world, with free enterprise between all these nations and easy communications and corporations that overlap many borders, etc.... Its not at all surprising. I would be more surprised if you couldn't find someone within a campaign that talked to someone in russia about something.
Im not a big trump fan, but for me, that's how i see all of this. Its just nothing.
Why would you lie about doing so?
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
CaptQuint wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:40 pm
Factoid? Not a fact to be had there sir. The report was started by The Washington Free Beacon a conservative website to conduct opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. When Trump became the nominee The WFB stopped paying and the Hillary Campaign started by hiring Fusion GPS to look into Trump-Russia. Christopher Steele was formally employed by British Intelligence, The United Kingdom is an American Ally you see. Hillary did not meet with Russians, Trump's family and campaign did.
It doesn't matter who started it. The DNC paid for it. And it doesn't matter that the Brit was from an allied country. What matters is that the information he used was supposedly from Russian agents and sources. You can't get around that by having cutouts.
Nothing in that dossier has been disproven, and much of has been verified. The Russian Government was working against The Clinton Campaign and not with it.
Are you saying the test is if it’s been disproven? So it’s ok to get stuff from Russians as long as it hasn’t been disproven?
Flumper wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:01 pm
you know, 50 years ago, talking to russians during a campaign by someone in the campaign would have probably been suspicious (at the least). the globe was much smaller then and communicating with foreign countries, especially adversaries, would have been unheard of.
However, in today's world, with free enterprise between all these nations and easy communications and corporations that overlap many borders, etc.... Its not at all surprising. I would be more surprised if you couldn't find someone within a campaign that talked to someone in russia about something.
Im not a big trump fan, but for me, that's how i see all of this. Its just nothing.
Why would you lie about doing so?
that part i'm not sure of. i don't know the context of the question or the thinking behind the person answering.
CaptQuint wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:40 pm
Factoid? Not a fact to be had there sir. The report was started by The Washington Free Beacon a conservative website to conduct opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. When Trump became the nominee The WFB stopped paying and the Hillary Campaign started by hiring Fusion GPS to look into Trump-Russia. Christopher Steele was formally employed by British Intelligence, The United Kingdom is an American Ally you see. Hillary did not meet with Russians, Trump's family and campaign did.
It doesn't matter who started it. The DNC paid for it. And it doesn't matter that the Brit was from an allied country. What matters is that the information he used was supposedly from Russian agents and sources. You can't get around that by having cutouts.
Nothing in that dossier has been disproven, and much of has been verified. The Russian Government was working against The Clinton Campaign and not with it.
Are you saying the test is if it’s been disproven? So it’s ok to get stuff from Russians as long as it hasn’t been disproven?
If one was looking for information about Trumps links to Russia and Russians where would you look? Australia? Panama? Much of the dossier has been confirmed, little to none of it disproved.
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
CaptQuint wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:40 pm
Factoid? Not a fact to be had there sir. The report was started by The Washington Free Beacon a conservative website to conduct opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. When Trump became the nominee The WFB stopped paying and the Hillary Campaign started by hiring Fusion GPS to look into Trump-Russia. Christopher Steele was formally employed by British Intelligence, The United Kingdom is an American Ally you see. Hillary did not meet with Russians, Trump's family and campaign did.
It doesn't matter who started it. The DNC paid for it. And it doesn't matter that the Brit was from an allied country. What matters is that the information he used was supposedly from Russian agents and sources. You can't get around that by having cutouts.
Nothing in that dossier has been disproven, and much of has been verified. The Russian Government was working against The Clinton Campaign and not with it.
Are you saying the test is if it’s been disproven? So it’s ok to get stuff from Russians as long as it hasn’t been disproven?
If one was looking for information about Trumps links to Russia and Russians where would you look? Australia? Panama? Much of the dossier has been confirmed, little to none of it disproved.
So it’s ok to get information about a political opponent from Russians? Veracity has nothing to do with it.
you guys have to remember that this is uncharted territory. campaigns have always gathered information from all kinds of sources on their opponents. is it okay to get info from russians or foreign governments? i assume that question is being answered through all of this. I think most people don't like that idea. but these are guidelines, not laws.
for me, the big question here is to lay out what is acceptable and what is not moving forward. One thing that trump got right on this was when he called it a witch hunt. similar to the witch hunt he sort of led against obama and his birth certificate.
CaptQuint wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:40 pm
Factoid? Not a fact to be had there sir. The report was started by The Washington Free Beacon a conservative website to conduct opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. When Trump became the nominee The WFB stopped paying and the Hillary Campaign started by hiring Fusion GPS to look into Trump-Russia. Christopher Steele was formally employed by British Intelligence, The United Kingdom is an American Ally you see. Hillary did not meet with Russians, Trump's family and campaign did.
It doesn't matter who started it. The DNC paid for it. And it doesn't matter that the Brit was from an allied country. What matters is that the information he used was supposedly from Russian agents and sources. You can't get around that by having cutouts.
Nothing in that dossier has been disproven, and much of has been verified. The Russian Government was working against The Clinton Campaign and not with it.
Are you saying the test is if it’s been disproven? So it’s ok to get stuff from Russians as long as it hasn’t been disproven?
If one was looking for information about Trumps links to Russia and Russians where would you look? Australia? Panama? Much of the dossier has been confirmed, little to none of it disproved.
So it’s ok to get information about a political opponent from Russians? Veracity has nothing to do with it.
What's your opponent doing there? Trump asked Russia on camera to get Hillary's Emails and later that day they did exactly that.
At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months – during the first half of the year – Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease. It got harder from late July, as Trump's ties to Russia came under scrutiny. Finally, the lights went out. Amid a Kremlin cover-up, the sources went silent and information channels shut down.
What's your opponent doing there? Trump asked Russia on camera to get Hillary's Emails and later that day they did exactly that.
At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months – during the first half of the year – Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease. It got harder from late July, as Trump's ties to Russia came under scrutiny. Finally, the lights went out. Amid a Kremlin cover-up, the sources went silent and information channels shut down.
I was watching when Trump "asked Russia" to get Hillary's missing emails. It was facetious, and a jab at Hillary, the DOJ, and the press. The idea that the media made such a big deal out of it afterwards goes to show how stupid or in the bag they really are. All that faux outrage... fucking ridiculous.
So, is it OK to get info from the Russians? Yes or no? Is it OK if it's true? Or does that matter?
Flumper wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:30 pm
you guys have to remember that this is uncharted territory. campaigns have always gathered information from all kinds of sources on their opponents. is it okay to get info from russians or foreign governments? i assume that question is being answered through all of this. I think most people don't like that idea. but these are guidelines, not laws.
for me, the big question here is to lay out what is acceptable and what is not moving forward. One thing that trump got right on this was when he called it a witch hunt. similar to the witch hunt he sort of led against obama and his birth certificate.
We know, KNOW, Hillary got info from Russians. We do NOT know if Trump did. We know he did not collude with the Russian government.
What's your opponent doing there? Trump asked Russia on camera to get Hillary's Emails and later that day they did exactly that.
At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months – during the first half of the year – Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease. It got harder from late July, as Trump's ties to Russia came under scrutiny. Finally, the lights went out. Amid a Kremlin cover-up, the sources went silent and information channels shut down.
I was watching when Trump "asked Russia" to get Hillary's missing emails. It was facetious, and a jab at Hillary, the DOJ, and the press. The idea that the media made such a big deal out of it afterwards goes to show how stupid or in the bag they really are. All that faux outrage... fucking ridiculous.
So, is it OK to get info from the Russians? Yes or no? Is it OK if it's true? Or does that matter?
Is it ok to gather information about Russians and Trump from Russians and turn it over to the FBI and not lie about it? Yes, absolutely yes!
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
What's your opponent doing there? Trump asked Russia on camera to get Hillary's Emails and later that day they did exactly that.
At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months – during the first half of the year – Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease. It got harder from late July, as Trump's ties to Russia came under scrutiny. Finally, the lights went out. Amid a Kremlin cover-up, the sources went silent and information channels shut down.
I was watching when Trump "asked Russia" to get Hillary's missing emails. It was facetious, and a jab at Hillary, the DOJ, and the press. The idea that the media made such a big deal out of it afterwards goes to show how stupid or in the bag they really are. All that faux outrage... fucking ridiculous.
So, is it OK to get info from the Russians? Yes or no? Is it OK if it's true? Or does that matter?
Is it ok to gather information about Russians and Trump from Russians and turn it over to the FBI and not lie about it? Yes, absolutely yes!
You believe Trump colluded with Russians to get an advantage over Hillary. Like the meeting that was set up by a client of Fusion GPS, who claimed to have dirt on Hillary. Meanwhile, Hillary's team got information about Trump from Russian agents. But that's OK.
What's your opponent doing there? Trump asked Russia on camera to get Hillary's Emails and later that day they did exactly that.
At first, obtaining intelligence from Moscow went well. For around six months – during the first half of the year – Steele was able to make inquiries in Russia with relative ease. It got harder from late July, as Trump's ties to Russia came under scrutiny. Finally, the lights went out. Amid a Kremlin cover-up, the sources went silent and information channels shut down.
I was watching when Trump "asked Russia" to get Hillary's missing emails. It was facetious, and a jab at Hillary, the DOJ, and the press. The idea that the media made such a big deal out of it afterwards goes to show how stupid or in the bag they really are. All that faux outrage... fucking ridiculous.
So, is it OK to get info from the Russians? Yes or no? Is it OK if it's true? Or does that matter?
Is it ok to gather information about Russians and Trump from Russians and turn it over to the FBI and not lie about it? Yes, absolutely yes!
You believe Trump colluded with Russians to get an advantage over Hillary. Like the meeting that was set up by a client of Fusion GPS, who claimed to have dirt on Hillary. Meanwhile, Hillary's team got information about Trump from Russian agents. But that's OK.
Is it ok to gather information about Russians and Trump from Russians and turn it over to the FBI and not lie about it? Yes, absolutely yes!
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
Hillary did not collude with Russia to win the election. Most of Trump's campaign met with Russians and lied about it. These are facts and not in dispute. You can derp all you want.
Any damn fool can navigate the world sober. It takes a really good sailor to do it drunk
i think the point yall are arguing about is that Trump's team got info from the Russians and "WON" the election. Hillary did it and "LOST" the election.
So, in summary, its okay if you do it and lose. Not okay if you do it and win. Then its called collusion. amirite?
CaptQuint wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:26 pm
Hillary did not collude with Russia to win the election. Most of Trump's campaign met with Russians and lied about it. These are facts and not in dispute. You can derp all you want.
Most of them met with the Russians and lied about it? Then why aren't they in jail?
(Trump did not collude with Russia to win the election. Ask Mueller.)
