ADVERTISEMENT

Still waiting for Russian collusion evidence.

I have offered a lengthy commentary in response to the constant "nothing burger" diatribe, which is why this particular thread was started.

Just wondering if any of the "nothing burger" crowd is willing to admit that this DJT Jr information is enough to say that maybe the investigation is more than complete fiction created by the Dems.
Besides stuff from an article in a newspaper, what actual evidence has been presented on DJT Jr? I'm not on the "nothing more than complete fiction" train, but I'm far from convinced there was a giant sinister plot of collusion as presented by the MSM.

Honestly, I'm more concerned about the possible FBI use of a former British spy and his allegedly Democrat financed dossier for information. If that did happen, that's a huge blow to the credibility of the FBI. My concern has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the integrity of the FBI and DOJ.
 
Shhhhhhh Been, lies dont' count. They're entitled to lie about it and then claim there's no evidence. If someone points out the lies, you default to "Hillary did it too." See how it works? And the kicker: The Trumpanzees go along with it! Just keep moving the goalposts!

For 8 years it was constant investigate, spin and investigate against Obama and the same people whine and complain when the tables are turned. Karma may be a bitch, but she can be so, so beautiful.

This is karma?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
This thread is hilarious!:D

I see the Trump defenders are still playing the same game. Deny, then when that can't work anymore . . . deflect to talking about the DNC or the Clintons. Never admit though what everyone else can clearly see! That would be unacceptable. Instead . . . blame the media, the deep state, the Clintons, heck, blame anyone!!!!

They just can't bring themselves to lay blame or responsibility where it belongs . . . at the doorstep of the Trumps!
 
It doesn't matter if she works for the Russian government or not. Or if he even had info on Clinton.

What is damning is the willingness of the Trump campaign to collude or take information from a foreign government to help win an election.

One thing I can't figure out is why JR would not tell Mannafort or Kushmen the reason that they were even going to the meeting with her. Plausible deniability maybe?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GL97
Just wondering if any of the "nothing burger" crowd is willing to admit that this DJT Jr information is enough to say that maybe the investigation is more than complete fiction created by the Dems.

Of course not.

For them to admit that, they would have to admit they were wrong and this isn't all just created by the bias media. This is something that diehards on the right can't do.
 
Besides stuff from an article in a newspaper, what actual evidence has been presented on DJT Jr? I'm not on the "nothing more than complete fiction" train, but I'm far from convinced there was a giant sinister plot of collusion as presented by the MSM.

Honestly, I'm more concerned about the possible FBI use of a former British spy and his allegedly Democrat financed dossier for information. If that did happen, that's a huge blow to the credibility of the FBI. My concern has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the integrity of the FBI and DOJ.

Agree with all of your points.
 
It is interesting that POTUS, Trump Jr, Pence, Spicer, and many others told us, repeatedly, that no member of the Trump campaign had any contact with the Russians, but now the narrative is changing to, "it shouldn't be a big deal because everyone does it". Which is it?

I've actually read some Trump supporters starting to claim that even direct collusion with the Russian government on the part of the Trump campaign isn't anything to get upset about. After-all, (they say) someone had to stop the Clintons and Democrats!:rolleyes:

Here is one post on this thread that is getting close to such troublesome and bizarre logic:

If our news organizations would do real investigative reporting perhaps we would not have to rely on Wiki Leaks or foreign nationals to give us the truth on our elected officials. How is exposing the truth a crime if it is unsolicited, and do we not want the truth?
 
LOL. Our news organizations are political action groups today. Almost all lies. Bizarre logic is believing the media.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rdcldad
It doesn't matter if she works for the Russian government or not. Or if he even had info on Clinton.

What is damning is the willingness of the Trump campaign to collude or take information from a foreign government to help win an election.

One thing I can't figure out is why JR would not tell Mannafort or Kushmen the reason that they were even going to the meeting with her. Plausible deniability maybe?

Yeah, just like when the Hillary campaign actively colluded with the Ukranian government to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign.
 
LOL. Our news organizations are political action groups today. Almost all lies.

Yes, we know the spiel . . . the free press is the enemy. How dare we have press in this country that differs with or challenges what the Trump White House says! The scandel! :rolleyes:

One has to wonder how Trump and his supporters would have survived back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in the USA when every newspaper was simply a political arm of the Federalists or the Democratic-Republicans.
 
The absolute filth of those we get to choose from for political offices is baffling. You and I should run together in the next presidential election. I'm good for the vice president spot.

No thanks. I can't think of anything I would enjoy less. Let's figure out a way to share a pitcher of beer instead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
Yes, we know the spiel . . . the free press is the enemy. How dare we have press in this country that differs with or challenges what the Trump White House says! The scandel! :rolleyes:

One has to wonder how Trump and his supporters would have survived back in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in the USA when every newspaper was simply a political arm of the Federalists or the Democratic-Republicans.

I stopped watching the press over 12 years ago. Like someone else said, the press pushed for the Iraq war. I want real journalists that are credible, not spoon feeding us the "news" already filtered for us. This is not a Trump issue at all, Trump not responsible for the press, problem has been around a long time and long before him.

Give me an honest press, and while we are at it, let's remove every politician in Washington with true moderates that will protect the constitution and enforce all of our laws.
 
I stopped watching the press over 12 years ago. Like someone else said, the press pushed for the Iraq war. I want real journalists that are credible, not spoon feeding us the "news" already filtered for us. .

The War in Iraq happened due to the press? Weren't they just parroting what they were being told by the POTUS/our intelligence services at the time?
 
I want real journalists that are credible, not spoon feeding us the "news" already filtered for us.

If you want that, there is press out there that will give you that. We have all types of news organizations in this country. Yes, many have a bias but that is the nature of a "free" press.

In terms of being honest, that depends on what you mean by the word "honest". Is it honest to report about Russian interference in our election and the role the Trump campaign played in that? Or is that considered dishonestly? Honesty, in terms of politics and the press, can be in the eyes of the beholder.

I'll just take a free press, warts and all.
 
Last edited:
Like someone else said, the press pushed for the Iraq war.

Actually, the Bush adminstration pushed for the Iraq war. The media reported what the Bush adminstration was saying and claiming. I also recall a number of news organizations that were not beating the war drums and were questioning the Bush administration claims.

Most of them had a strong liberal slant, but that just goes to show that bias in the media isn't necessarily a negative.
 
Like someone else said, the press pushed for the Iraq war.

That was me. Also, the NY Times ran a front page editorial from Joseph Wilson screaming that the intel was wrong and then the admin went after his wife to retaliate. Scooter Libby got convicted. I still don't see how any conservative could ever bitch about liberals after their own party lied to start a war and retaliated against people that tried to tell the truth.
 
Regime change and "spreading democracy" by force was never "conservative" -- it was neoconservative.

Massive difference.

Neoconservatives overwhelmingly backed Hillary in the last election, playing the role of "neoliberals."

Do your research.


 
  • Like
Reactions: BIGOSUFAN
DEd2O8GWsAAtW3A.jpg
 
Your President.

Depends on what the investigation uncovers.

Trump, his children, and/or campaign staff could be charged with a number of crimes . . . conspiracy to commit election fraud, conspiracy to obtain information from a foreign adversary, obstruction of justice, etc.
 
Gl97, ah there were a ton of democrats that voted to go to war with Iraq. There were also a plethora of political figures on both sides that believed Iraq had WMD...

Since you're only interested in hanging this on Bush, here are a few democrats and their thoughts. Your first mistake is assuming everyone that voted for Bush was for this war, second is that everyone wanting actual proof (you know something then innuendo from anonymous sources) of collusion isn't buying this crap yet and lastly that we are all blindly in for Trump no matter what, is wrong.

I'll also add that a politician running for political office would go to Hell and give Satan a hummer for dirt on their opponent. To think otherwise is just flat out butt ignorant. Doesn't make it right, just reality and shouldn't be mush a point of angst.

Democrat Quotes on Iraq
Weapons of Mass Destruction

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002


"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002


"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
\-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.

-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003
 
Gl97, ah there were a ton of democrats that voted to go to war with Iraq.

Yes there were. Many people, regardless of party, supported the Iraq war, from hawkish Democrats to Donald Trump.

There were those on the left though who opposed the Iraq war and such views and questioning of the Bush adminstration were found in some news organizations at the time...



Since you're only interested in hanging this on Bush, here are a few democrats and their thoughts.

I posted that it was the Bush adminstration that pushed for the war, which it did. Bush was President at the time, not any of those other people you quoted.

I never posted that many Democrats didn't support Bush's policy of war with Iraq nor did I post that all Bush voters supported the Iraq war. You are creating strawmen to respond too.

and lastly that we are all blindly in for Trump no matter what, is wrong.

This is yet to be seen.

All I see so far from diehard Trump supporters is denial, deflection, and even among some . . . defenses of potential collusion and electoral fraud.
 
Last edited:
Yes there were. Many people, regardless of party, supported the Iraq war, from hawkish Democrats to Donald Trump.

There were those on the left though who opposed the Iraq war and such views and questioning of the Bush adminstration were found in some news organizations at the time...






I posted that it was the Bush adminstration that pushed for the war, which it did. Bush was President at the time, not any of those other people you quoted.

I never posted that many Democrats didn't support Bush's policy of war with Iraq nor did I post that all Bush voters supported the Iraq war. You are creating strawmen to respond too.

This is yet to be seen.

All I see so far from diehard Trump supporters is denial, deflection, and even among some . . . defenses of potential collusion and electoral fraud.

The whole pretext to that list is that dems/libs believed the same thing so why does Bush get special credit just because he acted on what appears to be a very commonly held belief? I'm personally never in favor of a future war unless we are going Old Testament. If you don't go to win with a minimal of lose of American life's, minimal of time and minimal of treasury, then STFO. We quit trying to win wars after WWII and it appears to have gotten progressively worse.

Not sure how your alleging I'm creating straw men, unless you are advocating that anything that happens under a particular presidents watch is in fact that presidents responsibility. If that is indeed what you are saying then it would be good to know.

Not sure who you consider "die-hard Trump" supporters, but to be clear from my end. I will be one of the first in line to drag him out of the WH, if any of these scurrilous allegations are proven to be true (proven the operative word, not alleged by "anonymous sources). He is really nothing more to me then a 2 conservative SCOTUS appointing president, a business friendly president who will put American workers above H1B1 workers, a president who understands the need to build up the military, a president who wants to kill off obysmal care and a president who hopefully will choke off the endless stream of illegal alien parasites invading this country.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. Almost forgot that one. We should also include Jade Helm and the Sandyhook conspiracy, since we're including conservative talking points.
I don't know what those are. I was just adding another random date since I thought putting dates next to things automatically makes them connected in some logical way.
 
The whole pretext to that list is that dems/libs believed the same thing so why does Bush get special credit just because he acted on what appears to be a very commonly held belief?

Because he was President and he led the way.

Bush was the one who led the push to war. He was the one who went to the UN and asked for enforcement of the resolutions against Iraq. He was the one who asked for the Iraq resolution from Congress. A resolution that 263 Republicans in both the House and Senate supported while only 7 opposed. Among Democrats, 147 opposed and 111 supported.

Not sure how your alleging I'm creating straw men, unless you are advocating that anything that happens under a particular presidents watch is in fact that presidents responsibility.

You were creating strawmen because you were assuming things you thought I was claiming and then responding to those assumptions. For example, I never said there were not Democrats who didn't support the Iraq war. I simply posted the Bush adminstration pushed for the war . . . which it did.

And no, everything that happens under a particular President's watch isn't his fault or responsibility. However, the Iraq war was and is Bush's fault and responsibility. He was the one that led this country into that war. It was his decision, his policy. Do you really disagree with that?
 
Very good GL97, then we are in agreement that Syria and Libya are the ex rodent-in-chiefs babies, right?

If you mean your former President, what do you mean by "babies"? We have never gone to war in either Syria or Libya like we did in Iraq.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT