(08-15-2018 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 08:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 06:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-14-2018 09:27 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/...setup.html
When will the Clinton campaign be investigated for collusion again? Oh wait, rule of law means nothing in this gas bag country, only who you don't like.

Ah yes, the grand conspiracy that the FBI and Clinton waited until after the election to release damaging information on Trump (but did not wait until after the election to inform the American people that Clinton was back under investigation), so that they could install Mike Pence in the Oval Office. Brilliant!
The only way that garbage website makes sense (I’ll go into issues I found with their reporting if you want, which only took me reading a source they linked to), is if the entire Clinton/FBI cabal was so incompetent as to not realize that, if they had damaging information as part of a conspiracy, they should use it before the election, because after the election it would do no good in putting Clinton into a seat of power.

I do wish you would be consistent in your use of logic. You sound like an alien abduction advocate making fun of the people who think the moon landing was a hoax

I don't see how my logic is inconsistent in this instance. Care to point out the inconsistency?
The logic I used is that if there was a conspiracy to try and damage a campaign, the conspiracy would do so during the actual campaign, and not after.
So let's apply that to the Trump campaign. If the Trump campaign were involved in a conspiracy with the Russian government to release stolen emails to attempt to damage the Clinton campaign, they would do so during the campaign. OO, were damaging emails related to the Clinton campaign released during the campaign? This isn't saying that the Trump campaign MUST have been involved, but rather that there is reason to suspect they may have been, or at least that there doesn't exist a result that says the underlying conspiracy would have been illogical.

What about the possibility that it was Strzok's "insurance policy"? We don't need it to win the election, which was a foregone conclusion, but it could be useful later. Maybe, once she is on the throne, we use it to discredit any opposition. Or maybe we are worried that releasing it could backfire and ruin a sure thing. Or maybe, just maybe, it is truly the "insurance policy" in case the unthinkable happens.

Of, course, the foregone conclusion was wrong. But back when it was a foregone conclusion, lots of things made sense.