Democrats Colluded with Russia

[hvilleherb]

Trump After Meeting with Rod Rosenstein: Democrats Colluded with Russia

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...d-with-russia/

[Jade Dragon]

[Darth Omar]

To me it’s telling that Trump made those comments after meeting with Rosenstein.

I’d love to have been a fly on the wall.

Assume Mullet is a straight player and he’s been made aware that democrats were the real Russian colluders. What does he do?

[Lightbringer]

To me it’s telling that Trump made those comments after meeting with Rosenstein.

I’d love to have been a fly on the wall.

Assume Mullet is a straight player and he’s been made aware that democrats were the real Russian colluders. What does he do?

I don't see what he can do unless he's been made aware of something that hasn't been made public which is hard to believe.

[Darth Omar]

I don't see what he can do unless he's been made aware of something that hasn't been made public which is hard to believe.

He could wind it down and wrap it up. Trump said he expected to ‘be treated quite fairly’ AFTER having met with Rosenstein.

It’s no longer possible to credibly argue that democrats didn’t collude with Russians before the election. Substitute Manafort [Trump’s supposed intermediary for Russian collusion] with the Perkins law firm/Steele and democrats were doing what they accused Trump of.

Maybe Mullet wants to remain credible.

[Lightbringer]

He could wind it down and wrap it up. Trump said he expected to ‘be treated quite fairly’ AFTER having met with Rosenstein.

It’s no longer possible to credibly argue that democrats didn’t collude with Russians before the election. Substitute Manafort [Trump’s supposed intermediary for Russian collusion] with the Perkins law firm/Steele and democrats were doing what they accused Trump of.

Maybe Mullet wants to remain credible.

The Democrats didn't collude with Russia. Doesn't even need to be argued. Russia right now is just a smoke screen, the FISA court is the thing.

[Tranquillus in Exile]

Trump After Meeting with Rod Rosenstein: Democrats Colluded with Russia

So Trump has no beef with the Mueller investigation now? Lol!

[Darth Omar]

The Democrats didn't collude with Russia. Doesn't even need to be argued. Russia right now is just a smoke screen, the FISA court is the thing.

If Russian collusion matters and is a ‘thing’ lol, the DNC/Hillary campaign are guilty of it. A spade is a spade is a spade.

But you’re right: FISA abuse is actually criminal.

[Darth Omar]

So Trump has no beef with the Mueller investigation now? Lol!

After Trump’s pow-wow with his buddy Rod, apparently not lol?

[Lightbringer]

If Russian collusion matters and is a ‘thing’ lol, the DNC/Hillary campaign are guilty of it. A spade is a spade is a spade.

But you’re right: FISA abuse is actually criminal.

Colluding with a foreign power in order to sway an election is also criminal, I just don't think that happened.

This is just my take on this but...the first time Trump called Hillary 'crooked Hillary' was April of 2016. Perkins-Coie retained Fusion GPS in April of 2016. The DNC "discovered Russian hacking" in April of 2016. I think Hillary wanted to throw Trump in jail once she took office because he was mean to her and I also think she was going to use this "Russian interference" as a hammer to tamp down the domestic dissent she knew she was going to face.

I have no proof of this, it's just my opinion.

[Tranquillus in Exile]

The Democrats didn't collude with Russia. Doesn't even need to be argued. Russia right now is just a smoke screen, the FISA court is the thing.

Forget FISA. The fundamental question is why was the collusion investigation started in the first place.

Trumpsters want us to think it was a "Deep State" conspiracy. Was it aimed at sabotaging Trump's campaign? Obviously not, since nobody expected him to win, and in any case it was kept secret. Was it an "insurance policy"? What specifically does that mean? Brennan, Comey and the gang started the investigation just in case Trump won - then what?

I am reasonably confident there were legitimate grounds for starting the investigation in the first half of 2016, whether or not it turns out there actually was collusion. I would go so far as to say the intelligence chiefs would have been failing in their duty if they had done nothing, which would have been the easy option of course.

Take a look at this if you haven't seen it before.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...m-links-russia

[Darth Omar]

Colluding with a foreign power in order to sway an election is also criminal, I just don't think that happened.

This is just my take on this but...the first time Trump called Hillary 'crooked Hillary' was April of 2016. Perkins-Coie retained Fusion GPS in April of 2016. The DNC "discovered Russian hacking" in April of 2016. I think Hillary wanted to throw Trump in jail once she took office because he was mean to her and I also think she was going to use this "Russian interference" as a hammer to tamp down the domestic dissent she knew she was going to face.

I have no proof of this, it's just my opinion.

Collusion is covered under which statute?

[katzgar]

Trump After Meeting with Rod Rosenstein: Democrats Colluded with Russia

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...d-with-russia/

you embarrass yourself yet again,

[Darth Omar]

Forget FISA. The fundamental question is why was the collusion investigation started in the first place.

Trumpsters want us to think it was a "Deep State" conspiracy. Was it aimed at sabotaging Trump's campaign? Obviously not, since nobody expected him to win, and in any case it was kept secret. Was it an "insurance policy"? What specifically does that mean? Brennan, Comey and the gang started the investigation just in case Trump won - then what?

I am reasonably confident there were legitimate grounds for starting the investigation in the first half of 2016, whether or not it turns out there actually was collusion. I would go so far as to say the intelligence chiefs would have been failing in their duty if they had done nothing, which would have been the easy option of course.

Take a look at this if you haven't seen it before.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...m-links-russia

There were legitimate grounds for a *counterintelligence* investigation on Russian interference.

Anything that involved Trump, not so much.

[Lightbringer]

Collusion is covered under which statute?

You're right. I could've sworn there was one but there isn't. My bad.