evince
Truthmatters
note this shit slice refuses to actually discuss anything of import
its a Russian diverta bot hole
a total waste of time
the only thing its good for is a bill board to plaster the FACTS over
go look who befriended it already
It Begins: Journalists start admitting Trump-Russia conspiracy was a fabricated lie
- Thread starter artichoke
- Start date
note this shit slice refuses to actually discuss anything of import
its a Russian diverta bot hole
a total waste of time
the only thing its good for is a bill board to plaster the FACTS over
go look who befriended it already
Superfreak
Verified User
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
same to you....
Whoops:
Manafort Accused of Sharing Drumpf Polling Data With Russian Associate
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html
So Trump's campaign manager was sharing secret polling data with one of Putin's besties.
That would be COLLUSION, would it not?
Manafort Accused of Sharing Drumpf Polling Data With Russian Associate
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html
So Trump's campaign manager was sharing secret polling data with one of Putin's besties.
That would be COLLUSION, would it not?
I never misread your dishonesty and stupidity. It is as plain as that Pinocchio nose of yours.
I already did. It was the dictionary definition. Try rereading.
evince
Truthmatters
so you think hating democracy is cool?
Superfreak
Verified User
So you are too ignorant to comprehend that post?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
no crime there.......thought you meant something that could be used against Trump......sorry, didn't know you were just wasting our time for giggles.......
You've lost track of the thread. Try rereading. Or don't. Honestly, I don't think your reading abilities are up to it, so it will probably be a waste of time for you.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
nothing has changed......collusion is still not a crime, collusion is still not grounds for impeachment.......collusion does not exist in the current fact situation........everything you do is a waste of time.......
What definition of "collusion" are you using when you make that claim?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
yours....or the one you said you claimed....your definition fails in that nothing illegal was discussed at the meeting your refer to......
Last edited:
Mine was from the dictionary:
"a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
or
"illegal cooperation or conspiracy"
The Trump tower meeting clearly fits that definition. It was a secret meeting, as a result of people conspiring by email for the express purpose of cheating in the election (receiving valuable information from the Russian government as part of their effort to get Trump elected, in direct contradiction of the law banning the solicitation of anything of value from foreigners for a campaign). That's collusion. There are other examples, too, like Manafort colluding with Russian intelligence operative Kilimnik, including secretly sharing polling with him to get illegal help in the election:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/politics/paul-manafort-donald-trump-robert-mueller/index.html
So, since my definition clearly fits the fact patterns, you must be using some other definition of "collusion" when you claim there was none. What definition is that? Be specific, please.
I have to laugh at this; there was nothing criminal about meeting with Russians, or anyone for that matter, at the Trump tower. They could have met Putin himself and it would not be a crime.
Only morons indoctrinated by the Democratic Party of the Jackass can have such delusional arguments.
Only a moron can buy into the notion that Hillary only lost because the Russians helped Trump. That is basically what the Mueller investigation is about and why it will become a massive NOTHING burger.
You see snowflake, you cannot indict a President simply because you don't like the outcome of an election. You cannot indict a President without a crime. That is what happens in third world shit holes. That is the realm lunacy only the dumbest among us can buy into. You take the cake on stupid and misplaced arrogance and pomposity.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
no it doesn't.....it wasn't illegal......look at it this way.....everyone agrees about what Don Jr did back in 2006..........no charges have been brought against him in the two years since.........do you still think anyone believes he did something illegal?.........
Nobody has argued that meeting with Russians is a crime. The crime was meeting to solicit the provision of something of value to a campaign from a foreign national. That was the express purpose of the meeting and it was a campaign finance violation.
Also, the definition I provided doesn't require that it be a crime. So, even if you create a special invisible-ink exception to the campaign finance law that lets you get valuable information from Russians so long as you're working for Donald Trump (or whatever special exception you're imagining), such that it isn't a crime, it would still constitute cheating in the common understanding of the term (cheating isn't generally a crime), since it's seeking the assistance of a foreign government to win a US election. That would meet the dictionary definition of collusion, which says it can be secret OR illegal.
As you now understand, you misread the argument. Care to try again, now that your mistake was pointed out?
Feel free to start another thread on that topic. Clearly, that's not the topic of this thread. Whether the collusion brought about Trump's win, or wasn't necessary for his win, it's still collusion. And whether Trump could have won without his campaign's finance violations doesn't alter the criminality of the behavior.
You see snowflake, a president isn't above indictment merely because Fox News ordered you to hate his opponent.
It was illegal to solicit anything of value from a foreign national for a political campaign, which is what the meeting was expressly for. But, even if you weren't wrong about that, your point would still not be responsive. Reread the definition I provided. Is illegality a necessary element of it?
What did he do back in 2006?