Admitted after denying. The purpose of which was specifically to hear what the russian' had on clinton. Forgetting pertinent details.
No. Now, let's say that you paid their arch nemesis to write an unflattering and unsubstantiated document on each of them, then cited this document in accusing them of being Russian operatives, and then combining these two things so as to attain illegal surveillance of each....well, you may be onto something at that point. But you have to really, really, really hope that it's true. And of course, no take-backs or fingers-crossed allowed.
I thought that went without saying..... Does anyone here not know that this is exactly why he took the meeting.....and publicly admitted as such?
Here, we are, finally. Do you mean like paying a former Brit spook to compile a dossier on your opponent, and who actually uses other Kremlin spooks as sources? Is that where we are?
Is it espionage if it's on a private personal server instead of the federal one. That's the issue with this whole mess is that neither side is coming at it with clean hands.
I am sorry, I got confused. I did not realize we had changed the subject to the Clinton Campaign and the DNC paying an Intelligence Officer to use Russians conducting espionage to try and dig up dirt on Trump.
Many elements have now been substantiated, and none disproven. Your defenses depend on omissions and inaccuracies
I know this was not directed at me but thought I would respond. If you want to say: * Trump lies. I will agree with you * Trump is thin skinned. I will agree with you * STOP TWEETING!!! I will agree with you * Stop getting your talking points from Fox News. I will agree with you * Stop responding to every negative comment you feel slighted by. I will agree with you * Trump has cheated on his wife. I will agree with you * etc, etc, etc. However, if you say that proof exist now that he has broken the law, I will debate it. I also wonder if your hatred of him all all he stands for might slightly cloud your judgement of proof off illegalities.
I didn't say I was playing the drinking game, just that it would be a fun drinking game if you are looking to get smashed. Appreciate the concern though.
It is fairly shallow concern, to be honest. Like, enough for boots but would look silly in waders, deep.
He has not implemented sanctions that HE signed into law. Frankly, you and Trump's #1 cheerleader, Tenny, constantly berated Obama for not enforcing immigration laws. Just a point of order: Despite the narrative, immigrants are less likely to commit crime and more likely to work. Don't think the same can be said about the SVR, GRU or FSB. Comparatively, the sanctions are a heavily bi-partisan response to what every intelligence agency (Trump's own appointees mind you) says happened. His own people use the word "attack" when describing Russia's actions. You guys love to poo-poo Facebook memes and such shit as the sum total of Russian meddling, but they sucessfully hacked the voter rolls in 21 states. They hacked the DNC AND RNC. You think they won't ever use anything against the RNC if it will serve their purpose? They'll throw Republicans under the bus faster than Trump can bully-tweet Jeff Sessions for not "protecting" him. This is about an attempt to undermine the way The United States of America chooses our leaders. I'm not making any claims about how successful those were here. I am saying that just the attempt to do so (again, every Trump intelligence appointee says the Russians did and are still trying) is unacceptable and should have repercussions to dissuade attempts in the future. Too bad The Snowflake-in-Chief's ego is too fragile to even have Russia mentioned in briefings for fear his wittle ego can't handle the truth. Trump has placed his own insecurities about his legitimacy ahead of protecting our elections from foreign meddling/influence/whatever. He is failing to live up to his duties to preserve and protect the Constitution, the country and the people of the United States by refusing to enforce the sanctions law that, again, HE signed. Want to berate Obama or whoever using the law and order sword? Fine. Don't give a pass to someone you tend to agree with more when they refuse to enforce an on the books law just because you agree with the non-enforcement. The law is of supreme importance or none. For me to read those words and have respect for them, actions need to back them up even when it's "their" guy doing the flaunting of the law. Make no mistake, I think Trump is a detestable piece of shit that doesn't give 2 shits about anyone but himself, BUT this isn't the typical Republican vs Democrat bullshit. I'm sure nobody here believes me on that, but I have never been anything but honest my entire time here, and that's why we can't have a conversation about it. You automatically assume it's just a Democrat whining and moaning about the mean ole Republicans and it devolves into exactly what we have here: namecalling (I'm not innocent), prclamations of victory laps and personal attacks. It happens in reverse too. I've seen more maturity in middle school hallways- and I'm not excluding myself. Why would anyone want to engage in a meaningful conversation where the known outcome of personal attacks and insults will be the result every time? It didn't used to be that way here, but that's EXACTLY how it is now. That's on all of us. In spite this, yet another attempt to explain myself, I have no use for or inclination to talk to anyone I already know won't listen and will just mock and insult in any reply. I must thank Trump for one thing though. He has taught me that I was wrong about how I felt about other Republican presidents. Sure, I disagreed with much of their policy, but I now realize that I just disagreed with men that were otherwise mostly decent and honorable men. It took someone so repugnant and detestable like Trump for me to realize that. That's on me. I own that and must live with it. I was wrong. I'd give my left nut to have HW or W Bush back right now. At least I never questioned their commitment to our country over themselves or other countries. Serious question: What would you be doing if Hillary had won and refused to enact a law that was passed with only 5 total no votes in the House and Senate that she had signed?
