If "collusion" is such a crime, then why have Democrats cornered the market on it?

[WTP]

Why did Democrats beg for Russian interference over six times in several US elections, including when Hillary paid the KJB to create a fake Dossier?

Kennedy-KGB collaboration

5 Times Democrats Tried To Work With The Russians To Swing Elections

Collusion? What About Chinagate and Ted Kennedy's Outreach to the USSR? | RealClearPolitics

Carr: Forget Donald Trump, Teddy Kennedy was Moscow’s bestie

Oh

Why did Democrats beg for Russian interference over six times in several US elections, including when Hillary paid the KJB to create a fake Dossier?

Kennedy-KGB collaboration

5 Times Democrats Tried To Work With The Russians To Swing Elections

Collusion? What About Chinagate and Ted Kennedy's Outreach to the USSR? | RealClearPolitics

Carr: Forget Donald Trump, Teddy Kennedy was Moscow’s bestie

Yet another "but...but...but" attempt by a dumbass Trumpette to give Trump's collusion cover.

It is one thing to work with Russia to accomplish something for the US that voters would like.

It is another to work with Russian hackers to spread misinformation in directed locations to win an election.

Yet no one has made a credible case that any votes were changed.

They sure have: The Election Was Stolen – Here’s How... - Greg Palast

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX_w2KK3i00



Analysis | This anti-voter-fraud program gets it wrong over 99 percent of the time. The GOP wants to take it nationwide.

ttps://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/new-cambridge-analytica-revelations-connect-trump-russia-dots-1250043459593?playlist=associated

There Are 868 Fewer Places to Vote in 2016 Because the Supreme Court Gutted the Voting Rights Act

Is this enough, or do you need more?

 

[WTP]

So let's this straight, Hillary can collude and pay "legally" for a fake dossier created by the KJB in order to use it against her opponent, both before and after the election, but Don Jr. Can't meet with a Russian lawyer who says she has dirt in the Hillary campaign? Ha ha ha. Ya gotta love the Leftard logic!

Hillary PAID to have a foreign agent smear Donald Trump right before the election and hid what she was doing by going through a "cut out" law firm!
Hillary didn't pay any foreign agents and the information from the dossier was not used during the campaign.

Did the junior Trump use anything from the meeting with the Russian against Hillary in the campaign?

Irrelevant argument. Any attempt to defraud the U.S.in a presidential election with a foreign adversary is a crime. Whether you've got something or not.

 

[abu afak]

It's dossiers plural and many parts of those dossiers have been shown to be false. Let's face facts here, Kiddies! Steele took verified "Dates, Times, Meetings, people" and then wove a tapestry of lies around them to smear Donald Trump. He put those dossiers out to compliant media outlets right before the election trying to get them to run the story before what he claimed could be verified. Amazingly...most of those media outlets hesitated because the claims WERE unverified! It wasn't until Steele got Mother Jones to bite on his scam that the story was made public and then the other media outlets were free to cover what Mother Jones had revealed.

Completely jerkoff.
Again NO Part of the Dossier has been shown false.
Your ALLEGATION that he "wove/Lied" stuff into it is ... EMPTY.

Trump–Russia dossier - Wikipedia
......

The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which have been publicly verified while many others remain publicly unverified but Not disproven.
In some cases, public verification is hindered because information is classified.[20] According to Adam Schiff, a major portion of the dossier's content is about Russian efforts to help Trump, and those allegations "turned out to be true".[83]
Trump and Putin have repeatedly denied the allegations, with Trump labeling the dossier as "discredited", "debunked", "fictitious", and "fake news".[84][85]​

And you unwittingly also acknowledged the responsible behavior of MSM re the Dossier and it's contents.
Take care now.
`

 

[Oldstyle]

It's dossiers plural and many parts of those dossiers have been shown to be false. Let's face facts here, Kiddies! Steele took verified "Dates, Times, Meetings, people" and then wove a tapestry of lies around them to smear Donald Trump. He put those dossiers out to compliant media outlets right before the election trying to get them to run the story before what he claimed could be verified. Amazingly...most of those media outlets hesitated because the claims WERE unverified! It wasn't until Steele got Mother Jones to bite on his scam that the story was made public and then the other media outlets were free to cover what Mother Jones had revealed.

Completely jerkoff.
Again NO Part of the Dossier has been shown false.
Your ALLEGATION that he "wove/Lied" stuff into it is ... EMPTY.

Trump–Russia dossier - Wikipedia
......

The dossier contains multiple allegations, some of which have been publicly verified while many others remain publicly unverified but Not disproven.
In some cases, public verification is hindered because information is classified.[20] According to Adam Schiff, a major portion of the dossier's content is about Russian efforts to help Trump, and those allegations "turned out to be true".[83]
Trump and Putin have repeatedly denied the allegations, with Trump labeling the dossier as "discredited", "debunked", "fictitious", and "fake news".[84][85]​

And you unwittingly also acknowledged the responsible behavior of MSM re the Dossier and it's contents.
Take care now.
`

Simple question for you then, Abu! If no part of the dossier has been shown to be false...then why did Steele claim that they were only "scenarios" of what could have happened and not fact based when he was sued in British court?

Adam Schiff is your "authority" on the dossiers truthfulness? Really, Abu? Now that is some funny shit!

 

[Oldstyle]

The main stream media resisted publishing the dossiers because they were intelligent enough to realize that going with such inflammatory, unsubstantiated charges right before an election would leave them with mud on their faces if it turned out to be a smear tactic by one of Trump's political enemies. Gee, good move on their part...since it turned out that the dossiers were paid for by Hillary Clinton and the author of those dossiers wouldn't stand behind them once he was sued for defamation!

 

[abu afak]

Simple question for you then, Abu! If no part of the dossier has been shown to be false...then why did Steele claim that they were only "scenarios" of what could have happened and not fact based when he was sued in British court?

Adam Schiff is your "authority" on the dossiers truthfulness? Really, Abu? Now that is some funny shit!

Cherry-pIcked LIE.
Schiff is not the source, and certainly not the only one on nothing in the Dossier disproven.
In my above excerpt, the statement ius made before Schiff is mentioned, and the excerpt contains 4 footnotes.

And of course, you haven't been able to Point to any Falsehood in it.
No one has.
It would be so easy. ("X was in a different city that night", etc)

Once I saw the first few words of your reply, I knew was going to be fallacious. Instead of starting with rebuttal, it was the old "Well if that's true....".. Deflection.

Gameover

 

[Sunsettommy]

Since Trump hasn't committed a crime

Of course, you could not possibly know the truth of that. Am I supposed to be impressed that you made something up?

After THREE YEARS of investigation, what crime has he been charged with?

Snicker....

 

[DrainBamage]

Why did Democrats beg for Russian interference over six times in several US elections, including when Hillary paid the KJB to create a fake Dossier?

I've seen you do this a lot, where you point your finger elsewhere thinking that somehow makes or doesn't make something Trump did a crime. It doesn't.

Every investigation is about the facts and the law. "But I think so-and-so did it too" has never been a strong defense in court or reason to halt an investigation because whether an investigation or charges occurred elsewhere does not set legal precedent, the opinions of the judge and jury during a trial or appeal do. Why not focus more on talking about how Trump did not commit any of these collusion related crimes, instead of talking about Clinton?

 

[DrainBamage]

After THREE YEARS of investigation, what crime has he been charged with?

Is there some arbitrary timeline at which innocence is established because charges haven't been filed yet? I have no idea whether Trump will be charged or not, but the investigation is ongoing. When it's concluded and Trump has not been charged then the timeline has vindicated him, not because someone who's not part of the investigation decides that's enough calendar days.

 

[Sunsettommy]

After THREE YEARS of investigation, what crime has he been charged with?

Is there some arbitrary timeline at which innocence is established because charges haven't been filed yet? I have no idea whether Trump will be charged or not, but the investigation is ongoing. When it's concluded and Trump has not been charged then the timeline has vindicated him, not because someone who's not part of the investigation decides that's enough calendar days.

Then you admit he hasn't been charged with a crime, thank you.

 

[DrainBamage]

Then you admit he hasn't been charged with a crime, thank you.

Of course he hasn't, I didn't realize that was being disputed.

He's under investigation, which might or might not lead to charges. However your "snicker" comment seems to imply (and I apologize if I misinterpreted) a belief that the length of the investigation can be used to prove exoneration or lack of culpability, which isn't the case. Mueller was appointed Special Counsel in May 2017, and as of now his investigation is ongoing. Trump might be guilty or might not, he might be charged or might not. I have no idea.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Then you admit he hasn't been charged with a crime, thank you.

Of course he hasn't, I didn't realize that was being disputed.

He's under investigation, which might or might not lead to charges. However your "snicker" comment seems to imply (and I apologize if I misinterpreted) a belief that the length of the investigation can be used to prove exoneration or lack of culpability, which isn't the case. Mueller was appointed Special Counsel in May 2017, and as of now his investigation is ongoing. Trump might be guilty or might not, he might be charged or might not. I have no idea.

Never said he was innocent or didn't break laws, it has been a long time with ZERO results thus far, which for a special prosecutor is heck of a long time since he got most of what easy to collect evidence there was last year. He said back in April that Trump isn't a criminal target , which indicate he either has what he needs or he doesn't have enough to make a charge.

Mueller told Trump’s attorneys the president remains under investigation but is not currently a criminal target

I doubt he has the evidence to charge him with.

 

[abu afak]

SunsetDummby posts Like someone claimed Trump was charged with a Crime
Not so.
He also put's a false Clock/LIE on the Mueller Investigation of "3 YEARS" when its only been half that, and quite Productive/Efficient for it's length.

Most investigations, indictments, and gulty pleas, work their way UP, as this one is doing.

There is already evidence of Collusion in several respects, including his Son, Son-in-Law, and Campaign Manager meeting with the Russians for the expressed purpose of trading dropping sanctions for Dirt on Hillary.

Really so much more that it couldn't all be posted.

And of course, ALL Trump's actions can be explained/predicted by Guilt and .. continued collusion

What was that "Summit" anyway?
Ever seen a "summit" (read Collusion ii/III) with NO agenda except a 2 hour secret conversation between the two alleged colluders?

What a [brazen] move that was!
He owns the place now. He can continue legally under the guise of a "summit."
And NO one else on our side even knows what was said!
Not Sec State, Not DNI, NO one.
What the hell is that?
`

 

[DrainBamage]

Never said he was innocent or didn't break laws, it has been a long time with ZERO results thus far,

ZERO results?

George Papadopolous pleaded guilty
Manafort indicted, on trial
Rick Gates pleaded guilty
Flynn pleaded guilty
Alex van der Zwaan pleaded guilty
A shit ton of Russians and Russian companies were indicted
Whatever is going on with Cohen

That is all since Mueller was appointed Special Counsel in May 2017.

He said back in April that Trump isn't a criminal target , which indicate he either has what he needs or he doesn't have enough to make a charge.

Speculation. You have no idea what he has, where he's going with the investigation.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Never said he was innocent or didn't break laws, it has been a long time with ZERO results thus far,

ZERO results?

George Papadopolous pleaded guilty
Manafort indicted, on trial
Rick Gates pleaded guilty
Flynn pleaded guilty
Alex van der Zwaan pleaded guilty
A shit ton of Russians and Russian companies were indicted
Whatever is going on with Cohen

That is all since Mueller was appointed Special Counsel in May 2017.

He said back in April that Trump isn't a criminal target , which indicate he either has what he needs or he doesn't have enough to make a charge.

Speculation. You have no idea what he has, where he's going with the investigation.

Ha ha ha ha ha,

NONE of it pointing to Trump colluding with Russians to win the election.

Manafort is on trial for alleged financial crimes in banking from the 2005-2015 time frame, nothing about helping Trump collude with the Russians at all.

 

[DrainBamage]

NONE of it pointing to Trump colluding with Russians to win the election

None of what? We've already covered this, Trump hasn't been charged. It doesn't mean he won't be charged and it doesn't mean he will, neither you nor I know.

But defending your statement that this investigation has produced nothing (when it clearly has) by pointing at something else that could still happen, hasn't happened? Fail. Mueller's investigation has produced plenty.

 

[JoeMoma]

So let's this straight, Hillary can collude and pay "legally" for a fake dossier created by the KJB in order to use it against her opponent, both before and after the election, but Don Jr. Can't meet with a Russian lawyer who says she has dirt in the Hillary campaign? Ha ha ha. Ya gotta love the Leftard logic!

Hillary PAID to have a foreign agent smear Donald Trump right before the election and hid what she was doing by going through a "cut out" law firm!
Hillary didn't pay any foreign agents and the information from the dossier was not used during the campaign.

Did the junior Trump use anything from the meeting with the Russian against Hillary in the campaign?

Irrelevant argument. Any attempt to defraud the U.S.in a presidential election with a foreign adversary is a crime. Whether you've got something or not.

Getting true opposition research (dirt) from a foreign source is not necessarily illegal. Having a meeting about the possibility of obtaining opposition research is definitely legal if the meeting turns out to have nothing to do with opposition research once it is held.

 

[Votto]

So let's this straight, Hillary can collude and pay "legally" for a fake dossier created by the KJB in order to use it against her opponent, both before and after the election, but Don Jr. Can't meet with a Russian lawyer who says she has dirt in the Hillary campaign? Ha ha ha. Ya gotta love the Leftard logic!

Yes, that is correct.

Trump bad, Hillary good.

 

[Oldstyle]

Simple question for you then, Abu! If no part of the dossier has been shown to be false...then why did Steele claim that they were only "scenarios" of what could have happened and not fact based when he was sued in British court?

Adam Schiff is your "authority" on the dossiers truthfulness? Really, Abu? Now that is some funny shit!

Cherry-pIcked LIE.
Schiff is not the source, and certainly not the only one on nothing in the Dossier disproven.
In my above excerpt, the statement ius made before Schiff is mentioned, and the excerpt contains 4 footnotes.

And of course, you haven't been able to Point to any Falsehood in it.
No one has.
It would be so easy. ("X was in a different city that night", etc)

Once I saw the first few words of your reply, I knew was going to be fallacious. Instead of starting with rebuttal, it was the old "Well if that's true....".. Deflection.

Gameover

I repeat the question. If Steele's dossiers are based on facts and contain no "fiction" then why did he not stand behind their veracity when he was forced to testify in British court? Why did he change his tune and claim that they were "scenarios" and that he never intended for them to be made public? How does he make THAT claim when it's indisputable that he spent a great deal of effort trying to MAKE them become public?

 

[abu afak]

I repeat the question. If Steele's dossiers are based on facts and contain no "fiction" then why did he not stand behind their veracity when he was forced to testify in British court? Why did he change his tune and claim that they were "scenarios" and that he never intended for them to be made public? How does he make THAT claim when it's indisputable that he spent a great deal of effort trying to MAKE them become public?

I don't know the context of that the statements you allege.
ie, He may have been protecting sources/lives who were involved in trysts, etc

I have said AND posted credible links saying No parts of the Dossier have been shown false..
and you couldn't/can't name an example that was false.
:^)