President Trump

[PawDawg]

I'm not lost. I'm about logic. Your liberal script of Trump hate will never sell the fact that Russia was not more in bed with Hillary and Bill than they were with Trump.https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...pany.html?_r=0

FWIW, when/if we find out who was feeding Wikileaks we will know who was behind trying to help destroy Hillary. Schultz was the first casualty of Wikileaks. How did Russia play into that one? Were they pissed that Bernie was getting screwed?

[Guisslapp]

Trump has a friendly insider in one of those intelligence agencies that told him about the spying. He wouldn't have tweeted that without a good source. The spying by Obama is a much bigger crime than the Russians hacking the DNC.

He tweets lots of things without a good source. That is his pattern. And then when people call him on it - he says he was just reporting what some people are saying.

[Guisslapp]

I'm not lost. I'm about logic. Your liberal script of Trump hate will never sell the fact that Russia was not more in bed with Hillary and Bill than they were with Trump.https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...pany.html?_r=0

FWIW, when/if we find out who was feeding Wikileaks we will know who was behind trying to help destroy Hillary. Schultz was the first casualty of Wikileaks. How did Russia play into that one? Were they pissed that Bernie was getting screwed?

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinto...m-russia-deal/

[PawDawg]

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinto...m-russia-deal/

Of course...unless it comes from anonymous sources it is not credible. Did the Times or the other liberal reporting organizations ever retract?

[Guisslapp]

Of course...unless it comes from anonymous sources it is not credible. Did the Times or the other liberal reporting organizations ever retract?

Don't know - I have used up my free views of NYT for the month.

[RhythmDawg]

You need to stop reading WND. The FISA Court didn't say that because it had to approve any search warrant. Susan Rice had every reason to unmask certain individuals and there was nothing illegal about it. Muellar isn't even going to look at it.

How do you know there was nothing illegal about it? Another assumption.

[RhythmDawg]

I'll try but you are slippier than a greased pig in a mud hole.

You know what they say about the fittest.

[saltydawg]

How do you know there was nothing illegal about it? Another assumption.

Not an assumption at all. She is the National Security Advisor to the POTUS so she had the authority to request the unmasking of US citizens in foreign wiretap intercepts. What you are implying is that she did so for non-governmental purposes. That would be unethical but not illegal. See the distinction?

[RhythmDawg]

Not an assumption at all. She is the National Security Advisor to the POTUS so she had the authority to request the unmasking of US citizens in foreign wiretap intercepts. What you are implying is that she did so for non-governmental purposes. That would be unethical but not illegal. See the distinction?

You still don't get the point. What you say is true based on what you know...but you don't have all the information. You assume that you do. That is my point.

[Guisslapp]

How do you know there was nothing illegal about it? Another assumption.

What evidence is there that something illegal was done? Nada.

[RhythmDawg]

What evidence is there that something illegal was done? Nada.

Again, there is none to my knowledge. But you can't say definitively either way. Because we don't know for sure. But some people will go ahead and draw conclusions and condemn a person without all the information, while in other cases, look away when the same or similar circumstances apply to another individual.

Are you sensing a pattern yet?

[Guisslapp]

Again, there is none to my knowledge. But you can't say definitively either way. Because we don't know for sure. But some people will go ahead and draw conclusions and condemn a person without all the information, while in other cases, look away when the same or similar circumstances apply to another individual.

Are you sensing a pattern yet?

The pattern is that Trump's claims are not supported by any evidence.

[JuBru]

Don't know - I have used up my free views of NYT for the month.

Must be the lawyer in you to not use any work-arounds.

[RhythmDawg]

The pattern is that Trump's claims are not supported by any evidence.

Come on Guiss, you're starting to fall behind like Salty. Read this one slowly. You'll like it...

Just because you don't have or see evidence of it, doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist.

See why you shouldn't pre-judge stuff?


Furthermore...seems like I recall IC officials stating there is no evidence of Trump collision with Russia. Did I dream that? Even some Democrats have stated there is no evidence.

[Guisslapp]

Come on Guiss, you're starting to fall behind like Salty. Read this one slowly. You'll like it...

Just because you don't have or see evidence of it, doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist.

See why you shouldn't pre-judge stuff?


Furthermore...seems like I recall IC officials stating there is no evidence of Trump collision with Russia. Did I dream that? Even some Democrats have stated there is no evidence.

Had the IC said that? And, even if, what about Trump's very public request for Russia to further discredit HRC? Not illegal - but it isn't that one of the reasons he finds himself in this quagmire?