Jump to content

Trump and Russia


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Manafort was Trumps campaign manager, you think that makes him a Clinton person? :lol:

 

 

  I wish that I could selectively ignore the world such as you do.  Did any of your paychecks have a Clinton Foundation header on them?  You could probably list it on E-bay.  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Now it is said Manafort has had ties to the Clinton's.  The Putin love is all in your mind.  That aside you could masterbate with like minded libs who attend area universities.  Surely, it has to be unrewarding to come here day after day with no emotional reward even if you are getting 15 dollars per hour from some lib think tank to post here.

I'm not sure that's spelled right. You could probably ask Tiberius, I'm sure he would know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2017 at 9:31 AM, Logic said:

Just wanted to pop in to say that anyone who honestly thinks Trump did not collude with Russians to sway the election is either not paying attention, is blinded by partisan politics, or is being willfully ignorant.

There is smoke, and more smoke, and more smoke.

Follow Louise Mensch, John Schindler, or Malcolm Nance on Twitter. All well connected and intelligent people with connections (and/or former employment) in the intelligence community. And before you say "They're liberals with an axe to grind!"...no they're not. Schindler and Mensch in particular are conservatives. They're just honest, patriotic conservatives, unlike the multitudes of spineless jellyfish that call themselves congressmen.

Read the Trump Dossier, spend even 10 minutes really looking at all of the confirmed instances of Trump's people meeting and working with Russia, and you'll see that the issue is cut and dry. Page, Manafort, Flynn, Sessions, etc, etc...is anyone REALLY still saying there's nothing there? C'mon!

 

The National Review?

Wait, so you're telling me that conservative outlets like Fox News and the National Review are trying to push the idea that Trump is innocent? Get right out of town!

Party before country. Shameful.

 

 

 

0:)

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's recap the highlights: 

 

* Fall of 2016: Trump is accused of being a traitor who knowingly conspired with Putin to steal the 2016 election. There is no evidence provided to support this contention beyond the highly dubious and partisan ICA which, we now know with proof, was a sham of a document stuffed with falsehoods and pushed onto the public in 44's last hours in office.

 

* Fall of 2016 through 2017: Candidate Trump and then PRESIDENT Trump is under active FISA surveillance for over a year. Not just Trump, but his AG and entire cabinet were as well. The FISA allowed the investigators to comb through Trump's entire life and the lives of anyone he'd ever spoken to. They had access to search his financial history, taxes, shady business deals, and yes Russian collusion/conspiracy. They used the most powerful and invasive tools in their toolbox to do this job with the hopes of finding any crime they could use, or even the appearance of a crime, to discredit and oust Trump from office. The result? They found zero crimes, financial shenanigans, or Russian collusion/conspiracy

 

* Spring of 2017 - 2019: The SCO is tasked with creating a political anchor to tie around Trump's neck, one designed to set perjury traps and trip the political rookie up. The goal was never to find Russian collusion/conspiracy (they already knew that didn't exist), it was to create a pretext for impeachment. And even that failed, abysmally. The best they could muster were 11 examples, dubious in nature, of possible obstruction... of a crime that never happened in the first place. Tough sell to make on the American public. 

 

Now that all that has failed... 

 

Image

  • Awesome! (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Politifact awards Trump four Pinocchios for this statement as it is understood that since nothing is literally no thing, then it is impossible to have less of no thing if you have no thing from which there could be less.

 

Tibs: Impeach him for his lies!!!

  • Haha (+1) 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...