Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 47

Thread: If it was “in plain sight”

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Gone to the mattresses
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    1,135
    Thanked 11,622 Times in 8,086 Posts
    Groans
    874
    Groaned 639 Times in 618 Posts

    Default If it was “in plain sight”

    Democrats like Nadless and Schitt claim that “collusion happened in plain sight”

    Well, if that is in fact true then why do they need to see the Muller report to prove it?

    They should already have everything they need

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to canceled.2021.2 For This Post:

    Earl (04-08-2019), Stretch (04-07-2019)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    3,843
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,597 Times in 1,209 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 96 Times in 94 Posts

    Default

    Dummycrats

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    31,480
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 15,036 Times in 9,600 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2,563 Times in 2,389 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teflon Don View Post
    Democrats like Nadless and Schitt claim that “collusion happened in plain sight”

    Well, if that is in fact true then why do they need to see the Muller report to prove it?

    They should already have everything they need
    If you define collusion as cooperation in working with another, the Trump campaign is certainly guilty. Among other things, the campaign's documented eager and excited desire to meet with Russians in Trump Tower shows cooperation

    Now what you are going to say is that Mueller never proved that, which most likely means he didn't get any of the participants to say what happened other than the orchestrated explanation, adoptions, right, so Mueller didn't established that it was illegal, but it did occur. Collusion, cooperation, isn't solely defined in legal terms, which is what the Congressional Democrats are referring to when they say "collusion happened it plain sight," it did

  5. The Following 2 Users Groan At archives For This Awful Post:

    Earl (04-08-2019), Primavera (04-07-2019)

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    3,031
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 2,033 Times in 1,207 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default


  7. The Following User Says Thank You to ziggy For This Post:

    Earl (04-08-2019)

  8. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    31,480
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 15,036 Times in 9,600 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2,563 Times in 2,389 Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=ziggy;2975248][video=t[/QUOTE]

    Well, seeing you had to bring beer ball Brett into it;


  9. The Following User Groans At archives For This Awful Post:

    Earl (04-08-2019)

  10. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    If you define collusion as cooperation in working with another, the Trump campaign is certainly guilty. Among other things, the campaign's documented eager and excited desire to meet with Russians in Trump Tower shows cooperation

    Now what you are going to say is that Mueller never proved that, which most likely means he didn't get any of the participants to say what happened other than the orchestrated explanation, adoptions, right, so Mueller didn't established that it was illegal, but it did occur. Collusion, cooperation, isn't solely defined in legal terms, which is what the Congressional Democrats are referring to when they say "collusion happened it plain sight," it did
    But then isn’t the Hillary/DNC Crime Syndicate every bit as guilty of collusion as Junior was?

    Given that big money was changing hands doesn’t that make their collusion more severe? As far as anyone knows Junior never offered a dime to hear what the Russian lawyer had to say. Which, as it turned out, wasn’t much.

    Collusion is not a crime, but if you wanted to wring a crime out of it, I think a jury would be more impressed with money changing hands than by one party merely being ‘excited’ about the prospect of getting campaign dirt.

    I don’t understand how such a glaring example of collusion can be overlooked by anyone who is concerned about collusion.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  11. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    31,480
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 15,036 Times in 9,600 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2,563 Times in 2,389 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Beto Omar View Post
    But then isn’t the Hillary/DNC Crime Syndicate every bit as guilty of collusion as Junior was?

    Given that big money was changing hands doesn’t that make their collusion more severe? As far as anyone knows Junior never offered a dime to hear what the Russian lawyer had to say. Which, as it turned out, wasn’t much.

    Collusion is not a crime, but if you wanted to wring a crime out of it, I think a jury would be more impressed with money changing hands than by one party merely being ‘excited’ about the prospect of getting campaign dirt.

    I don’t understand how such a glaring example of collusion can be overlooked by anyone who is concerned about collusion.
    Not to make about the "whataboutism," but did the Hillary campaign pay any Russians, that is Russians, for anything? Without rehashing all the innuendos, can you establish that the DNC had any direct dealings with Russians?

    You got to be really naive to think that that meeting was really about adoption, Junior got caught lying about it three separate times before admitting it occurred, but regardless, it is a direct coordination with Russians. They contacted him wanted to know if he wanted to meet and he eagerly accepted, and on top of that, got the other leadership of the campaign to meet with the Russians also

    That is coordination directly with the Russians, in "plain sight"

  12. The Following User Groans At archives For This Awful Post:

    Earl (04-08-2019)

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to archives For This Post:

    Rune (04-08-2019)

  14. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    39,914
    Thanks
    21,413
    Thanked 29,311 Times in 15,270 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 2,449 Times in 2,204 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teflon Don View Post
    Democrats like Nadless and Schitt claim that “collusion happened in plain sight”

    Well, if that is in fact true then why do they need to see the Muller report to prove it?

    They should already have everything they need
    Donald Trump on national TV, begs Russian state security services to spy on his American political opponent and hack Democratic party computers.

    I cannot ever recall seeing a major American presidential candidate beg an adversarial foreign government to spy on an American political opponent.



  15. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Not to make about the "whataboutism," but did the Hillary campaign pay any Russians, that is Russians, for anything? Without rehashing all the innuendos, can you establish that the DNC had any direct dealings with Russians?

    You got to be really naive to think that that meeting was really about adoption, Junior got caught lying about it three separate times before admitting it occurred, but regardless, it is a direct coordination with Russians. They contacted him wanted to know if he wanted to meet and he eagerly accepted, and on top of that, got the other leadership of the campaign to meet with the Russians also

    That is coordination directly with the Russians, in "plain sight"
    No, it’s coordinating with Russians via some cut outs lol.

    But it’s still collusion and it’s still in plain sight. So it’s okay to collude with Russians to affect an election so long as one uses intermediaries?
    Last edited by Darth Omar; 04-07-2019 at 03:31 PM.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    Earl (04-08-2019)

  17. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    If you define collusion as cooperation in working with another, the Trump campaign is certainly guilty. Among other things, the campaign's documented eager and excited desire to meet with Russians in Trump Tower shows cooperation

    Now what you are going to say is that Mueller never proved that, which most likely means he didn't get any of the participants to say what happened other than the orchestrated explanation, adoptions, right, so Mueller didn't established that it was illegal, but it did occur. Collusion, cooperation, isn't solely defined in legal terms, which is what the Congressional Democrats are referring to when they say "collusion happened it plain sight," it did
    I know you think you look smart, but you look really stupid, bro.

  18. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Donald Trump on national TV, begs Russian state security services to spy on his American political opponent and hack Democratic party computers.

    I cannot ever recall seeing a major American presidential candidate beg an adversarial foreign government to spy on an American political opponent.


    LOL still harping on this. Never give up, brave SJW!

  19. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Donald Trump on national TV, begs Russian state security services to spy on his American political opponent and hack Democratic party computers.

    I cannot ever recall seeing a major American presidential candidate beg an adversarial foreign government to spy on an American political opponent.

    This narrative that Trump was serious and it was a genuine appeal is only believed by you biased dipshits. Why do you keep repeating it? Everyone with a clear mind can see he was being facetious and sarcastic. He was making fun of the situation. It takes a real dunce to ignore the context and believe it was a real call to action. Congrats, dumbfuck, you win the prize!

  20. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    39,696
    Thanks
    11,692
    Thanked 22,025 Times in 15,330 Posts
    Groans
    243
    Groaned 1,515 Times in 1,431 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    If you define collusion as cooperation in working with another, the Trump campaign is certainly guilty. Among other things, the campaign's documented eager and excited desire to meet with Russians in Trump Tower shows cooperation

    Now what you are going to say is that Mueller never proved that, which most likely means he didn't get any of the participants to say what happened other than the orchestrated explanation, adoptions, right, so Mueller didn't established that it was illegal, but it did occur. Collusion, cooperation, isn't solely defined in legal terms, which is what the Congressional Democrats are referring to when they say "collusion happened it plain sight," it did
    there was no "cooperation" there was an offer without strings attached.
    There was no collusion -planning to cooperate on anything

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Earl (04-08-2019)

  22. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    39,696
    Thanks
    11,692
    Thanked 22,025 Times in 15,330 Posts
    Groans
    243
    Groaned 1,515 Times in 1,431 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Not to make about the "whataboutism," but did the Hillary campaign pay any Russians, that is Russians, for anything? Without rehashing all the innuendos, can you establish that the DNC had any direct dealings with Russians?

    You got to be really naive to think that that meeting was really about adoption, Junior got caught lying about it three separate times before admitting it occurred, but regardless, it is a direct coordination with Russians. They contacted him wanted to know if he wanted to meet and he eagerly accepted, and on top of that, got the other leadership of the campaign to meet with the Russians also

    That is coordination directly with the Russians, in "plain sight"
    that is NOT any cooperation.
    cooperation would be planning or caring out some type of conspiratorial relationship.

    There was an offer for opposition research- that is ALL it was -no "cooperation" needed or offered

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Darth Omar (04-07-2019), Earl (04-08-2019)

  24. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    31,480
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 15,036 Times in 9,600 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2,563 Times in 2,389 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Beto Omar View Post
    No, it’s coordinating with Russians via some cut outs lol.

    But it’s still collusion and it’s still in plain sight. So it’s okay to collude with Russians to affect an election so long as one uses intermediaries?
    Didn't I request without the inneundos?

    If any of that was accurate why didn't all the GOP "investigations" since the elections ever prove any of it? Jordan pleaded with Sessions on live TV to open a SC on the matter and Sessions embarrassingly lecture Jordan you had to have proof

    On the other hand, on a number of documented occasions a member of the Trump campaign met with Russians seeking information regarding the election, coordination in "plain site"

  25. The Following 2 Users Groan At archives For This Awful Post:

    Earl (04-08-2019), Primavera (04-07-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-24-2019, 07:59 AM
  2. Collusion and Conspiracy in plain sight
    By LV426 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-01-2018, 08:21 AM
  3. Donald Trump Is Lying in Plain Sight
    By christiefan915 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-09-2016, 07:15 PM
  4. Abu Anas al-Libi (al-Qaida) was hiding in plain sight in Libya
    By anatta in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-12-2013, 09:09 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-31-2012, 08:43 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •