Re: Nobody said there is *no* evidence of collusion
The right wing media sure did. But for the most part the insinuations against Clinton were lies and the accusations against Trump are largely founded in fact.
What spell are you going to cast to avoid addressing that fact?
Re: Nobody said there is *no* evidence of collusion
Did the media keep up the incessant insinuations against Clinton as they are doing with Trump?
Is that relevant? Your post on which I commented said:
If there was anything to find they'd have found something after all this time, they've found NOTHING.
I assumed you were talking about the investigations by the FBI, the special prosecutor, and congressional committees since these are the ones who doing the investigating and will be the ones who "find" anything. Assuming that I correctly read your meaning, my question is whether or not your patience with these investigations are perhaps shorter than your patience was with the Starr investigation which took years to produce actionable results.
Was I wrong? Are you actually talking about the media? Because the media is reporting on the current state of the investigations by the official bodies; why do you think the media should find anything before the official investigators do?
I think you might have to clarify what you meant.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo.
Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all. — Billy Bragg
Re: Nobody said there is *no* evidence of collusion
If there was anything to find they'd have found something after all this time, they've found NOTHING.
Rethinking that statement yet?
Isn't it ironic that the very day you posted that the WSJ broke a brand-new story that could turn out to be the smoking gun (or could be nothing; we won't know unit it's thoroughly investigated)?
It was some kind of set-up. The woman had absolutely nothing to say. And there is no crime in talking to a Russian, even for promising dirt on a political opponent. The media just has to keep hyping and gasping and inventing stuff to support the fake news about Russian collusion.
Re: Nobody said there is *no* evidence of collusion
Bet you're feeling pretty silly now that we know, from the emails posted by Donald Trump Jr.
LMAO! Probably not though! They in live in a protective bubble and only seek the information that strengthens their cognitive biases, regardless of and in-spite of the truth.
Re: Nobody said there is *no* evidence of collusion
It's no setup. Unless, of course, you have evidence of such. Until then a criminal investigation is required.
Don Jr. lied on his security clearance application. That's a felony. But It's OK If You're A Republican, right?
There's definitely an argument that his actions constituted solicitation of a non-monetary contribution to the campaign. That's solidly illegal.
It does not matter if she didn't have information. He thought she had information from the Russian government from their attempt to influence our election. I.e he intended collusion. Who's to say what further information will come?
Re: Nobody said there is *no* evidence of collusion
Remember, much of il Donald's support is made up from "Biblical Christians" and they have been making up excuses to explain away the factual errors and contradictions in the character of the God they market and the Bible for almost two thousand years. That's a lot of experience in apologetics.
When they can make up excuses for things as basic as their religious beliefs and the God they market and claim to worship, making up excuses for politicians is a walk in the park (complete with convenient cut outs and drops).
™ Version 4.2
