(10-30-2017 05:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 05:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 04:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Agreed, buying dirt is not a crime (as I explained in a previous post - opposition research is the norm). I also doubt that buying dirt from the Russians is a crime. I'm not so sure if buying dirt that was illegally obtained is not a crime though.

Regardless, because it is so unusual to both be interested in using a hostile foreign government for "dirt", and be interested in using "dirt" that was stolen, that begs the question - is there something else going on? And because there is a question, there is an investigation.

And why does it matter if we're classifying the Clinton emails as dirt? Literally, explain to me why the phrasing matters to this conversation, at all. We could call then hot fudge sundaes and it wouldn't at all change their relevance to the investigation.

And you bet your butt I am justifying the investigation, because there IS justification. We literally today just found out that someone plead guilty to lying to the investigators about their conversations with someone who was trying to get them the stolen Clinton hot fudge sundaes. And that person then tried to cover their tracks after they lied to investigators. That right there gives credence to the justification of looking into this situation. Why lie to federal officials during an investigation if everything was A-OK?

The problem is, the left is saying their hot fudge sundae is just fine, but the right's hot fudge sundae is horrible, because they attempted to get their sundae from a Russian waitress, while the left only got theirs from a Ukrainian waitnrss. ither both are bad or both are good. either amounts to collusion, which takes us back to the ostensible reason for this witch hunt. maybe instead of ostenxible reason I should say excuse. ou don't go looking for jaguars in Minnesota, unless you just want to make trouble for Minnesotans.

suspicious behavior equals guilt? damn, we could do away with so many trials. i can think of lot of reasons for that guy's behavior other than collusion.

In any case, call me when something serious happens. I think all the damcing in the streets is way unwarranted.

Provide a clear and succinct explanation of how the Trump campaigns actions and the DNC's actions were the same. Provide an explanation of who was involved in each incident, who reached out to who, who reciprocated, and what the final outcome was of the information.

And to your bold, oh heck no, and I did not suggest it DID equal guilt. Read my bold and explain how you came to that conclusion. I specifically said it gave credence to there being suspicion and therefore a reason to investigate. Deleting potential evidence (e.g. destroying evidence) is what Papadopoulus did, and he also lied to federal investigators. Does that not make you interested in why he did both of those things?

To the first, can you wait until tomorrow? i am working from my old IPad from a hospital waiting room, and it is difficult on the POS to look up things. hasta Manana, amigo.

o the second, suspicious behavior gets innocent people shot sometimes. haven't you been following the NFL? but if suspicious behavior on a minor tamgential figure is the cornerstone for your investigation, it is weak.

Sorry to hear you are in the hospital OO. Best to you. I hope everything is well and turns out well.

not me. my sister has mental and physical handicaps and I take care of her. she is in for back surgery. We have been here since 5:00 AM, and I expect to be here till about nine. hard day, but I hope this surgery alleviates some of her pain and allows her to walk normally. thanks for,the thought anyway.