The sky isn’t blue

Trickle down tax policies work

Trump is honest

And there is no evidence of collusion.

(12-24-2017 11:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 11:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://theweek.com/articles/744702/most...washington

The conspiracy!

That’s a pretty good example of what’s going on. I’d go further. I think the Russia story was a set up to allow the Obama Administration to use federal intellelgence agencies to monitor and spy on the opposition party. It was a clever borderline “legal” way to do what the clumsy Nixon plumbers failed to do in the illegal Watergate break in. That’s the story that’s not being covered...but will be...eventually...if we have any real journalist left.

Until people start being put in handcuffs, they aren't going to dig in. At that point, they'll have no choice.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(12-24-2017 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 11:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  They held a meeting in Trump Tower promising dirt on Hilary Clinton obtained illegally. WTF is the purpose of this op. That is colluding. End of story. Just because a GOP congress and their supporters ignore this doesn’t make it not collusion. I’m just absolutely amazed they have it on email. That is what is surprising.

That’s not collusion. Takes more than they had a meeting.

Not to mention the Russian lawyer and Fusion GPS reps were on Clinton's payroll. It was a failed attempt at a setup, not collusion.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Citation on that claim that the Russian lawyer was on the Clinton payroll?


http://www.pulleditoutmyass.com?

This Putin spy right here:

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/art...ry-clinton


I would love to see the yellow rag that poisons your brain.

(12-24-2017 02:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yeah that meeting was about Russian adoptions. After the email said it was about dirt on the Clinton’s. That you continue to ignore this speaks volumes.

Que Sera Sera

Better than pulling nothing but a continuous string of suppositions and declarative statements without any cogent support out of my ass......

(12-24-2017 04:09 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This Putin spy right here:
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/art...ry-clinton
I would love to see the yellow rag that poisons your brain.

So the key to collusion is someone who denies having any dirt on Clinton, and in the meeting said she had no dirt? What am I missing?

I realize that you want a collusion story so badly that you can taste it, but whichever version of the facts surrounding this meeting, you don’t get to collusion.

Just as a question, what do you think are the elements required to prove collusion?

(12-24-2017 07:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Just as a question, what do you think are the elements required to prove collusion?

My guess would be whatever talking points are put out by the DNC.

So you really hunk Putin’s lawyer is going to give up the biggest asset in the history of assets? My goodness. Now would ever like to cite where this lovely lady was on the Clinton payroll?

(12-24-2017 09:09 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So you really hunk Putin’s lawyer is going to give up the biggest asset in the history of assets? My goodness. Now would ever like to cite where this lovely lady was on the Clinton payroll?

Who said anything about her being on the Clinton payroll? Maybe she was, who knows?

But again, what do you think are the elements that have to be proved to prove collusion?

Amazon WaPo sums it up nicely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...4e70139b00

Even concludes with this:

But there is now more public evidence about Clinton’s collusion with Russia than there is about any such collusion by Trump.

Oh

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

It’s alreadu been proved. His campaign took a meeting with a hostile foreign adversary claiming dirt on his opponent. Checkmate. I can’t help it that you guys ignore that.

My gawd Ever. That’s an opinion piece and nowhere in there does it say the Lawyer was on the Clinton payroll. Next!

(12-24-2017 09:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It’s alreadu been proved. His campaign took a meeting with a hostile foreign adversary claiming dirt on his opponent. Checkmate. I can’t help it that you guys ignore that.

But how does that constitute collusion?

(12-24-2017 09:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  My gawd Ever. That’s an opinion piece and nowhere in there does it say the Lawyer was on the Clinton payroll. Next!

Your team lost. Next.

(12-24-2017 09:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  My gawd Ever. That’s an opinion piece and nowhere in there does it say the Lawyer was on the Clinton payroll. Next!

The lawyer was working with Fusion GPS. You think she was working for free?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Nothing


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It is amazing how little f**** were given when the GOP was investigating and hold hold hearings how many times when it was the Obama admin with Clinton as SoS. Now people get riled up before the first investigation is even completed

(12-24-2017 11:07 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  It is amazing how little f**** were given when the GOP was investigating and hold hold hearings how many times when it was the Obama admin with Clinton as SoS. Now people get riled up before the first investigation is even completed

Simply astounding. How dare people question the Clintons and Obamas "minor" transgressions of not protecting American secrets, feeding drug cartels guns, lying to the American people about Benghazi, influence peddling, allowing terrorist organizations to thrive, etc. when President Trump drinks more than the emo quota of 3 diet cokes per day.

We really do need to focus on the real issues.

What a douche, you are.

(12-24-2017 09:25 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  My gawd Ever. That’s an opinion piece and nowhere in there does it say the Lawyer was on the Clinton payroll. Next!

Hmm...but that same lawyer met before and after the meeting referenced with Democrat National Committee officials. You left that part out.