The Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory (aka The Big Lie)

[Howard]

Yes he testified about it under oath.  If you know that when are you misrepresenting what he did? 

Not everything that isn't classified should be released to the media.  And he also testified under oath that he leaked his self-serving memos to the press for his own self interest. 

This will be settled by those with more legal expertise then us  .

Here's my 2 cents since we are the ones debating on the forum:

1. I think Comey is very credible , honest and careful to operate within the law

2. There may never be actual hard proof that Trump (himself ) colluded with Russia on the election.
I do think Trump's careless ways will bite him in the ass eventually.

[Dos Equis]

This will be settled by those with more legal expertise then us  .

Here's my 2 cents since we are the ones debating on the forum:

1. I think Comey is very credible , honest and careful to operate within the law

2. There may never be actual hard proof that Trump (himself ) colluded with Russia on the election.
I do think Trump's careless ways will bite him in the ass eventually.

This isn't a debate.  You are spouting ridiculous liberal talking points.  That's about it. 

[Yamcha]

This isn't a debate.  You are spouting ridiculous liberal talking points.  That's about it. 

but it's all real in his head!

[Howard]

but it's all real in his head!

OK, we'll see who gets the last laugh on this one 

I can wait.

[Las Vegas]

OK, we'll see who gets the last laugh on this one  

I can wait.

It wouldn't show anything, though, since you haven't made a case.

[Dos Equis]

but it's all real in his head!

Yep.  Is he suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome? 

[Dos Equis]

OK, we'll see who gets the last laugh on this one 

I can wait.
[/quote

It wouldn't show anything, though, since you haven't made a case.

He sure hasn't. 

[Las Vegas]

He sure hasn't. 

I take that back.  He's shown he loves TV and all things MSM, and prefers to believe it.  That's it.

Sorry, Howard, but it's true.  Otherwise you'd be able to explain yourself.

[Dos Equis]

I take that back.  He's shown he loves TV and all things MSM, and prefers to believe it.  That's it.

Sorry, Howard, but it's true.  Otherwise you'd be able to explain yourself.

Not a lot of independent thinking.

[Howard]

Not a lot of independent thinking.

Ok then , despite being a "never Trumper" , I never questioned his
election win and being our rightful President.

I'm rooting for him to really act like the President
and do things to make America great.

to be continued...

[Dos Equis]

Ok then , despite being a "never Trumper" , I never questioned his
election win and being our rightful President.

I'm rooting for him to really act like the President
and do things to make America great.

to be continued...

Followed by 10 mindless anti-Trump threads.   

[Howard]

Followed by 10 mindless anti-Trump threads.   

It's the Tony Romo effect.

You want to see the old reliable QB come back and finally
bring glory back to the Cowboys.

But with each game rookie D. Prescott kicks ass
you have to report/focus on reality.

[Dos Equis]

It's the Tony Romo effect.

You want to see the old reliable QB come back and finally
bring glory back to the Cowboys.

But with each game rookie D. Prescott kicks ass
you have to report/focus on reality.

No, it's you parroting talking points and failing to think independently.  Nothing more complicated than that. 

[Dos Equis]

I don't expect anyone to watch all of this (Sessions testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee), but it was a clown show by democrats.  Cotton was great.  Harris is the newest liberal stooge.  The entire thing was an enormous waste of time and taxpayer money.

No, Sessions did not have meetings with Russian operatives to work on the grand conspiracy to help Trump win the election.   

https://www.c-span.org/video/?429875-1/attorney-general-calls-collusion-accusations-detestable-lie

[Yamcha]

 

[whork]

Im confused. Are the resident Republicans really saying that Clinton having a private email server is somehow worse than colluding with Russia

[Yamcha]

Im confused. Are the resident Republicans really saying that Clinton having a private email server is somehow worse than colluding with Russia

only one person has been proven to have broken a law 

[whork]

only one person has been proven to have broken a law 

Yes but the ramifications of the Hillary case makes her a stupid bitch that should know better.

The Trump case makes him a traitor.

[mazrim]

Yes but the ramifications of the Hillary case makes her a stupid bitch that should know better.

The Trump case makes him a traitor.

But Hillary being a serial killer/rapist, etc. would be worse then that so there is no point to your post if you want to just make things up.
Yamcha's point stands. You simply cannot make up something on one person and compare it to something that is actually true.

Also, it is being a traitor to do what she did (amongst other dealings).

[polychronopolous]

Im confused. Are the resident Republicans really saying that Clinton having a private email server is somehow worse than colluding with Russia

The American people see right through your little bullshit scheme.

The mainstream media is dying and are ridiculed and scorned daily.

They simply do not have the power to force Trump out and his counter attacks towards them inflict more damage.

The Democrats will get slaughtered over this dog and pony show they are chasing.

It's pretty much comical at this point.

[Dos Equis]

Dershowitz: Findings of Any Wrongdoing by Trump Would Be Moot
By Bill Hoffmann   |   Thursday, 15 Jun 2017

An investigation reportedly launched to determine if President Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice in the FBI's Russia probe might be moot regardless of its conclusions, according to renowned civil-rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

The Washington Post cited unnamed officials as confirming that special counsel Robert Mueller is "interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether Trump attempted to obstruct justice."

But Dershowitz, a long-time Harvard Law professor, told Newsmax TV on Thursday:

"The fact that Mueller is opening an investigation on obstruction doesn't answer the two basic questions. One — can a president be indicted while sitting? And two — can a president be indicted for obstruction — which is simply doing his job, being the head of the executive branch?"

"I think the answer to both of these questions is still going to be no and no," Dershowitz told Newsmax.

Trump on Thursday morning called the report a "phony story" and "the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history."

"They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story," he wrote in a post to his personal Twitter account. "Nice."

Dershowitz also told Newsmax he doubts the Democrats and Congress will be able to successfully pursue an obstruction of justice narrative.

"I don't think there's enough there. And I think the objective of the investigation is to uncover, to see if they can uncover enough," Dershowitz said. "There's neither fire nor smoke coming from a constitutional point of view."

He said Mueller, who has reportedly hired experts to weigh in, "is looking to see if there is anything that would justify a prosecution of anybody on the president's [team]."

"I think Trump benefits from the fact that he's hiring experts on a president's power, because I think they'll tell him that the president's power [is legitimate] ending the investigation," Dershowitz said.

He added that the fact Mueller is looking into obstruction of justice is not surprising and has to be viewed in context.

"I think people should not overstate the significance of a special counsel's investigation. That's his job. That's what he's supposed to do. Anything else would've been surprising. I don't think there's anything surprising," Dershowitz said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Dershowitz-Special-Counsel/2017/06/15/id/796267/

[polychronopolous]

Dershowitz: Findings of Any Wrongdoing by Trump Would Be Moot
By Bill Hoffmann   |   Thursday, 15 Jun 2017

An investigation reportedly launched to determine if President Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice in the FBI's Russia probe might be moot regardless of its conclusions, according to renowned civil-rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

The Washington Post cited unnamed officials as confirming that special counsel Robert Mueller is "interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether Trump attempted to obstruct justice."

But Dershowitz, a long-time Harvard Law professor, told Newsmax TV on Thursday:

"The fact that Mueller is opening an investigation on obstruction doesn't answer the two basic questions. One — can a president be indicted while sitting? And two — can a president be indicted for obstruction — which is simply doing his job, being the head of the executive branch?"

"I think the answer to both of these questions is still going to be no and no," Dershowitz told Newsmax.

Trump on Thursday morning called the report a "phony story" and "the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history."

"They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story," he wrote in a post to his personal Twitter account. "Nice."

Dershowitz also told Newsmax he doubts the Democrats and Congress will be able to successfully pursue an obstruction of justice narrative.

"I don't think there's enough there. And I think the objective of the investigation is to uncover, to see if they can uncover enough," Dershowitz said. "There's neither fire nor smoke coming from a constitutional point of view."

He said Mueller, who has reportedly hired experts to weigh in, "is looking to see if there is anything that would justify a prosecution of anybody on the president's [team]."

"I think Trump benefits from the fact that he's hiring experts on a president's power, because I think they'll tell him that the president's power [is legitimate] ending the investigation," Dershowitz said.

He added that the fact Mueller is looking into obstruction of justice is not surprising and has to be viewed in context.

"I think people should not overstate the significance of a special counsel's investigation. That's his job. That's what he's supposed to do. Anything else would've been surprising. I don't think there's anything surprising," Dershowitz said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Dershowitz-Special-Counsel/2017/06/15/id/796267/

Exactly. Complete waste of time.

How many damn "investigations" are we going to have?

It's time to move on as a country!

[Dos Equis]

Exactly. Complete waste of time.

How many damn "investigations" are we going to have?

It's time to move on as a country!

Probably just one very long one.  Total waste of time and our money.  This will not end well for Democrats.  They are so dumb.  They have set the bar so low for Trump that all he needs to do is walk and chew gum to be successful.  These wild accusations are also going to make it harder for them to hold Trump accountable if and when he actually does something bad. 

[Straw Man]

Exactly. Complete waste of time.

How many damn "investigations" are we going to have?

It's time to move on as a country!

I'd still like to know if Trump or any of his surrogates colluded with the Russians during the election or prior to him taking office.

I say we have at least as many as we had for Benghazi and they should last just a long.
I'm sure Republicans can't see any problem with that

BTW - Trump may lie under oath (if he follows through which his pledge to testify) and we know can he be impeached for that since Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about and act that wasn't even a crime
 

[Yamcha]

I'd still like to know if Trump or any of his surrogates colluded with the Russians during the election or prior to him taking office.

I say we have at least as many as we had for Benghazi and they should last just a long.
I'm sure Republicans can't see any problem with that

BTW - Trump may lie under oath (if he follows through which his pledge to testify) and we know can he be impeached for that since Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about and act that wasn't even a crime
 

wouldn't evidence be fairly obvious?

why are we spending billions upon billions (along with giving up all our privacy rights) to the 3-letter agencies if we cannot show that "our biggest enemy" ended up "hacking" our election?