What Exactly are the High Crimes and Misdemeanors Trump Is Being Charged With?

[IM2]

I don't believe you would, as there were no meetings between Trump and the Russians

Much like any boss involved in criminal activity, they have others to do the dirty work and maintain plausible deniability. The question is....did they order the meetings or were they informed of what was going on

well my main point is that while i think the investigations are made up bullshit by the left mad at losing, look if you must. i agree a ton was spent on hillary and hey - "turn about is fair play" is our mantra anymore. not being smart, not doing the RIGHT thing - but "payback"

so if we need to wait for someone to come in and sort it all out, fine. no issues with that and let them look to verify which side is "right" so the other side can cry FOUL once more.

my only point is to tell people who keep lying and saying TRUMP HIMSELF is under investigation, are wrong.

Which part is "made up bullshit"?

The Russian hacking of DNC computers?
Trump benefitting from the release of information?
That members of Trumps campaign were meeting with the Russians at the time?

show me a link that says for a fact russia did it. not saying they didn't, but the person the leaks came from has said time and again not the russians. since you don't seem to agree with assange, he's a liar i suppose and RUSSIA cause...well i don't know at this point but if you want to believe assange is a liar then what difference does it make? you're going to believe what you want.

benefiting - maybe. except what was the KILLER was more of comey coming back after finding a stockpile of hillarys mail on weiners laptop. (say that with a straight face, go ahead) what came off the DNC hacks that anyone really gave a damn about in the end?

meeting with russians at the time. is meeting illegal?

What does Assange know about where the leak originated from? No, Putin never called Assange and said...I have some leaks for you
They have intermediaries to do that. But the cyber trail leads to Russia. FBI says it, CIA says it. Obama admitted it, Trump admitted it and even Putin admits it.

Did Trump benefit from the leaks? Well, he benefitted in terms that he used the leaks on a weekly basis. He used the information to confirm his claims about "Crooked Hillary"....so yes, that is a benefit

Meeting with Russians is not illegal if you are discussing legal business. However, if you are discussing illegal activities or offering policy concessions in return for leaked information....that is illegal and that is what the FBI is investigating

well i do believe a lot of these leaks also said that our own FBI can make things LOOK like they came from russia. funny how we go NO WE COULD NEVER DO THAT.... and never saw links of trump and putin saying Yes, we did that".

benefit is being twisted up here so you can say it's a benefit.

and since you just said the meetings can be legal, what evidence do we have to show there *could* be something illegal or do we just investigate ANYONE talking to Russia at all - period?

that being the case there's a whole lot of people to investigate.

Any excuse for Trump.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Hacking into someone else's computer is a crime

Even Dershowitz knows that

Which has nothing to do with president Trump or his campaign.

That is the question...

Trump was benefitting from the crime. Why were his people meeting with the Russians at the time information was being released?

If the meetings were routine....why can't Trump explain what they were talking about?

No different than Hillary meeting Loretta Lymch on a tarmac. Why was the head of the Attorney General of he United States and a woman under FBI investigation choosing that particular location to meet privately, as we would later find she has been cleared with a "no indictment" announcement by Comey? What exactly was being said at that meeting to her benefit?

You see speculation and assumptions with no evidence to prompt and support it, is simply that. It's not a crime, emails were released LONG before that meeting democrats are so sure had to be "illegal" as if no one traveled and met with a foreign diplomat. Now had he accepting large amounts of money from a foreign government to place into a personal ( 'ahem' ) foundation, that would be more suggestive of a "favor" than simply meeting face to face. Based on the democrats apparent standards, there appears to be more speculation, convenient benefit, as well as a trail of evidence to prompt curiousity and the need to investigate another candidate further with only the two stated examples I outlined above. As well as, there is as much evidence on Trump working with the Russians as apparently there is of Clinton giving uranium to them.

Care to try your luck again? Your argument doesn't appear to be doing so well.

It was Bill Clinton who met with Lynch, but your points are just as valid.

No they aren't

State another private meeting that brings the same alluring suspicion and clout (if the left is still desperate to insist on creating one of Trump) towards benefiting someone's pursuit of the presidency, and they still can't give a justifiable answer for it.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't believe you would, as there were no meetings between Trump and the Russians

Much like any boss involved in criminal activity, they have others to do the dirty work and maintain plausible deniability. The question is....did they order the meetings or were they informed of what was going on

well my main point is that while i think the investigations are made up bullshit by the left mad at losing, look if you must. i agree a ton was spent on hillary and hey - "turn about is fair play" is our mantra anymore. not being smart, not doing the RIGHT thing - but "payback"

so if we need to wait for someone to come in and sort it all out, fine. no issues with that and let them look to verify which side is "right" so the other side can cry FOUL once more.

my only point is to tell people who keep lying and saying TRUMP HIMSELF is under investigation, are wrong.

Which part is "made up bullshit"?

The Russian hacking of DNC computers?
Trump benefitting from the release of information?
That members of Trumps campaign were meeting with the Russians at the time?

show me a link that says for a fact russia did it. not saying they didn't, but the person the leaks came from has said time and again not the russians. since you don't seem to agree with assange, he's a liar i suppose and RUSSIA cause...well i don't know at this point but if you want to believe assange is a liar then what difference does it make? you're going to believe what you want.

benefiting - maybe. except what was the KILLER was more of comey coming back after finding a stockpile of hillarys mail on weiners laptop. (say that with a straight face, go ahead) what came off the DNC hacks that anyone really gave a damn about in the end?

meeting with russians at the time. is meeting illegal?

What does Assange know about where the leak originated from? No, Putin never called Assange and said...I have some leaks for you
They have intermediaries to do that. But the cyber trail leads to Russia. FBI says it, CIA says it. Obama admitted it, Trump admitted it and even Putin admits it.

Did Trump benefit from the leaks? Well, he benefitted in terms that he used the leaks on a weekly basis. He used the information to confirm his claims about "Crooked Hillary"....so yes, that is a benefit

Meeting with Russians is not illegal if you are discussing legal business. However, if you are discussing illegal activities or offering policy concessions in return for leaked information....that is illegal and that is what the FBI is investigating

well i do believe a lot of these leaks also said that our own FBI can make things LOOK like they came from russia. funny how we go NO WE COULD NEVER DO THAT.... and never saw links of trump and putin saying Yes, we did that".

benefit is being twisted up here so you can say it's a benefit.

and since you just said the meetings can be legal, what evidence do we have to show there *could* be something illegal or do we just investigate ANYONE talking to Russia at all - period?

that being the case there's a whole lot of people to investigate.

That is why we have investigations....to determine if a crime was committed

Suppose the crime was arson. There are two restaurants in town and one of them is burnt to the ground. We know who the arsonist is but are concerned that the owner of the other restaurant was seen talking to the arsonist the day before the fire

Isn't it expected that the other restaurant owner would be investigated on why he was meeting with the arsonist?

 

[IM2]

Which has nothing to do with president Trump or his campaign.

That is the question...

Trump was benefitting from the crime. Why were his people meeting with the Russians at the time information was being released?

If the meetings were routine....why can't Trump explain what they were talking about?

No different than Hillary meeting Loretta Lymch on a tarmac. Why was the head of the Attorney General of he United States and a woman under FBI investigation choosing that particular location to meet privately, as we would later find she has been cleared with a "no indictment" announcement by Comey? What exactly was being said at that meeting to her benefit?

You see speculation and assumptions with no evidence to prompt and support it, is simply that. It's not a crime, emails were released LONG before that meeting democrats are so sure had to be "illegal" as if no one traveled and met with a foreign diplomat. Now had he accepting large amounts of money from a foreign government to place into a personal ( 'ahem' ) foundation, that would be more suggestive of a "favor" than simply meeting face to face. Based on the democrats apparent standards, there appears to be more speculation, convenient benefit, as well as a trail of evidence to prompt curiousity and the need to investigate another candidate further with only the two stated examples I outlined above. As well as, there is as much evidence on Trump working with the Russians as apparently there is of Clinton giving uranium to them.

Care to try your luck again? Your argument doesn't appear to be doing so well.

It was Bill Clinton who met with Lynch, but your points are just as valid.

No they aren't

State another private meeting that brings the same alluring suspicion and clout (if the left is still desperate to insist on creating one of Trump) towards benefiting someone's pursuit of the presidency, and they still can't give a justifiable answer for it.

People are not speculating or assuming here folks. Trump is in trouble.

 

[iceberg]

well my main point is that while i think the investigations are made up bullshit by the left mad at losing, look if you must. i agree a ton was spent on hillary and hey - "turn about is fair play" is our mantra anymore. not being smart, not doing the RIGHT thing - but "payback"

so if we need to wait for someone to come in and sort it all out, fine. no issues with that and let them look to verify which side is "right" so the other side can cry FOUL once more.

my only point is to tell people who keep lying and saying TRUMP HIMSELF is under investigation, are wrong.

Which part is "made up bullshit"?

The Russian hacking of DNC computers?
Trump benefitting from the release of information?
That members of Trumps campaign were meeting with the Russians at the time?

show me a link that says for a fact russia did it. not saying they didn't, but the person the leaks came from has said time and again not the russians. since you don't seem to agree with assange, he's a liar i suppose and RUSSIA cause...well i don't know at this point but if you want to believe assange is a liar then what difference does it make? you're going to believe what you want.

benefiting - maybe. except what was the KILLER was more of comey coming back after finding a stockpile of hillarys mail on weiners laptop. (say that with a straight face, go ahead) what came off the DNC hacks that anyone really gave a damn about in the end?

meeting with russians at the time. is meeting illegal?

What does Assange know about where the leak originated from? No, Putin never called Assange and said...I have some leaks for you
They have intermediaries to do that. But the cyber trail leads to Russia. FBI says it, CIA says it. Obama admitted it, Trump admitted it and even Putin admits it.

Did Trump benefit from the leaks? Well, he benefitted in terms that he used the leaks on a weekly basis. He used the information to confirm his claims about "Crooked Hillary"....so yes, that is a benefit

Meeting with Russians is not illegal if you are discussing legal business. However, if you are discussing illegal activities or offering policy concessions in return for leaked information....that is illegal and that is what the FBI is investigating

well i do believe a lot of these leaks also said that our own FBI can make things LOOK like they came from russia. funny how we go NO WE COULD NEVER DO THAT.... and never saw links of trump and putin saying Yes, we did that".

benefit is being twisted up here so you can say it's a benefit.

and since you just said the meetings can be legal, what evidence do we have to show there *could* be something illegal or do we just investigate ANYONE talking to Russia at all - period?

that being the case there's a whole lot of people to investigate.

That is why we have investigations....to determine if a crime was committed

Suppose the crime was arson. There are two restaurants in town and one of them is burnt to the ground. We know who the arsonist is but are concerned that the owner of the other restaurant was seen talking to the arsonist the day before the fire

Isn't it expected that the other restaurant owner would be investigated on why he was meeting with the arsonist?

already said investigate away. i think it's BS but not like we don't have a history of potentially BS investigations anyway.

all i'm saying is so they met. to assume it's a crime is trying to put one there. hillary met with them, what is someone cried FOUL CORRUPTION!!! does that make it true? would it warrant an investigation?

 

[rightwinger]

Which part is "made up bullshit"?

The Russian hacking of DNC computers?
Trump benefitting from the release of information?
That members of Trumps campaign were meeting with the Russians at the time?

show me a link that says for a fact russia did it. not saying they didn't, but the person the leaks came from has said time and again not the russians. since you don't seem to agree with assange, he's a liar i suppose and RUSSIA cause...well i don't know at this point but if you want to believe assange is a liar then what difference does it make? you're going to believe what you want.

benefiting - maybe. except what was the KILLER was more of comey coming back after finding a stockpile of hillarys mail on weiners laptop. (say that with a straight face, go ahead) what came off the DNC hacks that anyone really gave a damn about in the end?

meeting with russians at the time. is meeting illegal?

What does Assange know about where the leak originated from? No, Putin never called Assange and said...I have some leaks for you
They have intermediaries to do that. But the cyber trail leads to Russia. FBI says it, CIA says it. Obama admitted it, Trump admitted it and even Putin admits it.

Did Trump benefit from the leaks? Well, he benefitted in terms that he used the leaks on a weekly basis. He used the information to confirm his claims about "Crooked Hillary"....so yes, that is a benefit

Meeting with Russians is not illegal if you are discussing legal business. However, if you are discussing illegal activities or offering policy concessions in return for leaked information....that is illegal and that is what the FBI is investigating

well i do believe a lot of these leaks also said that our own FBI can make things LOOK like they came from russia. funny how we go NO WE COULD NEVER DO THAT.... and never saw links of trump and putin saying Yes, we did that".

benefit is being twisted up here so you can say it's a benefit.

and since you just said the meetings can be legal, what evidence do we have to show there *could* be something illegal or do we just investigate ANYONE talking to Russia at all - period?

that being the case there's a whole lot of people to investigate.

That is why we have investigations....to determine if a crime was committed

Suppose the crime was arson. There are two restaurants in town and one of them is burnt to the ground. We know who the arsonist is but are concerned that the owner of the other restaurant was seen talking to the arsonist the day before the fire

Isn't it expected that the other restaurant owner would be investigated on why he was meeting with the arsonist?

already said investigate away. i think it's BS but not like we don't have a history of potentially BS investigations anyway.

all i'm saying is so they met. to assume it's a crime is trying to put one there. hillary met with them, what is someone cried FOUL CORRUPTION!!! does that make it true? would it warrant an investigation?

Once again you are ignoring the fact that they are investigating the person who benefitted from the crime
That does not mean you have to investigate EVERYONE who ever talked to the perpetrator of the crime

There are many possible reasons the Trump team could have been meeting with the Russians. But I have not heard them. If the Trump/Russia meetings were routine....Why doesn't Trump just release the records from the meetings so we can end this thing?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

That is the question...

Trump was benefitting from the crime. Why were his people meeting with the Russians at the time information was being released?

If the meetings were routine....why can't Trump explain what they were talking about?

No different than Hillary meeting Loretta Lymch on a tarmac. Why was the head of the Attorney General of he United States and a woman under FBI investigation choosing that particular location to meet privately, as we would later find she has been cleared with a "no indictment" announcement by Comey? What exactly was being said at that meeting to her benefit?

You see speculation and assumptions with no evidence to prompt and support it, is simply that. It's not a crime, emails were released LONG before that meeting democrats are so sure had to be "illegal" as if no one traveled and met with a foreign diplomat. Now had he accepting large amounts of money from a foreign government to place into a personal ( 'ahem' ) foundation, that would be more suggestive of a "favor" than simply meeting face to face. Based on the democrats apparent standards, there appears to be more speculation, convenient benefit, as well as a trail of evidence to prompt curiousity and the need to investigate another candidate further with only the two stated examples I outlined above. As well as, there is as much evidence on Trump working with the Russians as apparently there is of Clinton giving uranium to them.

Care to try your luck again? Your argument doesn't appear to be doing so well.

It was Bill Clinton who met with Lynch, but your points are just as valid.

No they aren't

State another private meeting that brings the same alluring suspicion and clout (if the left is still desperate to insist on creating one of Trump) towards benefiting someone's pursuit of the presidency, and they still can't give a justifiable answer for it.

People are not speculating or assuming here folks. Trump is in trouble.

It's called speculation when it produces no evidence. Diane Feinstein is on record for saying the investigation reveals no evidence of collusion, only talk of (speculation). Just like that tarmac meeting, while a simple meeting with a diplomat is what they are weighing their hopes on. It's been about six months, where is this evidence of a crime? How long did it take to figure out those emails came from Hillary Rhodom Clinton during a timeline when she was Secretary of State? How long did it take to discover emails on Anthony Weiner's personal computer were from Mrs Clinton? It's one thing to be thorough, it's quite another to blow on your dice for a gamble that produces the same repetitious results.

 

[iceberg]

Once again you are ignoring the fact that they are investigating the person who benefitted from the crime That does not mean you have to investigate EVERYONE who ever talked to the perpetrator of the crime

There are many possible reasons the Trump team could have been meeting with the Russians. But I have not heard them. If the Trump/Russia meetings were routine....Why doesn't Trump just release the records from the meetings so we can end this thing?

let me just back up a bit here.

you say there are many possible reasons for the meetings.
you say you've not heard them.
you now assume unsaid / unknown reasons were anything other than routine and from your own words, have no idea if they were or were not.
so trump not wanting to release records is now cause for an investigation and the outcry of GUILTY by so many on a daily basis.

like i said - at this point it's pure emo-driven not factual.

 

[rightwinger]

Once again you are ignoring the fact that they are investigating the person who benefitted from the crime That does not mean you have to investigate EVERYONE who ever talked to the perpetrator of the crime

There are many possible reasons the Trump team could have been meeting with the Russians. But I have not heard them. If the Trump/Russia meetings were routine....Why doesn't Trump just release the records from the meetings so we can end this thing?

let me just back up a bit here.

you say there are many possible reasons for the meetings.
you say you've not heard them.
you now assume unsaid / unknown reasons were anything other than routine and from your own words, have no idea if they were or were not.
so trump not wanting to release records is now cause for an investigation and the outcry of GUILTY by so many on a daily basis.

like i said - at this point it's pure emo-driven not factual.

A crime was committed
We have to verify the meetings were unrelated to that crime

Why can't Trump just release information about what those meetings were about?

That is not emo-driven, it is a common practice in investigating a crime

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

show me a link that says for a fact russia did it. not saying they didn't, but the person the leaks came from has said time and again not the russians. since you don't seem to agree with assange, he's a liar i suppose and RUSSIA cause...well i don't know at this point but if you want to believe assange is a liar then what difference does it make? you're going to believe what you want.

benefiting - maybe. except what was the KILLER was more of comey coming back after finding a stockpile of hillarys mail on weiners laptop. (say that with a straight face, go ahead) what came off the DNC hacks that anyone really gave a damn about in the end?

meeting with russians at the time. is meeting illegal?

What does Assange know about where the leak originated from? No, Putin never called Assange and said...I have some leaks for you
They have intermediaries to do that. But the cyber trail leads to Russia. FBI says it, CIA says it. Obama admitted it, Trump admitted it and even Putin admits it.

Did Trump benefit from the leaks? Well, he benefitted in terms that he used the leaks on a weekly basis. He used the information to confirm his claims about "Crooked Hillary"....so yes, that is a benefit

Meeting with Russians is not illegal if you are discussing legal business. However, if you are discussing illegal activities or offering policy concessions in return for leaked information....that is illegal and that is what the FBI is investigating

well i do believe a lot of these leaks also said that our own FBI can make things LOOK like they came from russia. funny how we go NO WE COULD NEVER DO THAT.... and never saw links of trump and putin saying Yes, we did that".

benefit is being twisted up here so you can say it's a benefit.

and since you just said the meetings can be legal, what evidence do we have to show there *could* be something illegal or do we just investigate ANYONE talking to Russia at all - period?

that being the case there's a whole lot of people to investigate.

That is why we have investigations....to determine if a crime was committed

Suppose the crime was arson. There are two restaurants in town and one of them is burnt to the ground. We know who the arsonist is but are concerned that the owner of the other restaurant was seen talking to the arsonist the day before the fire

Isn't it expected that the other restaurant owner would be investigated on why he was meeting with the arsonist?

already said investigate away. i think it's BS but not like we don't have a history of potentially BS investigations anyway.

all i'm saying is so they met. to assume it's a crime is trying to put one there. hillary met with them, what is someone cried FOUL CORRUPTION!!! does that make it true? would it warrant an investigation?

Once again you are ignoring the fact that they are investigating the person who benefitted from the crime
That does not mean you have to investigate EVERYONE who ever talked to the perpetrator of the crime

There are many possible reasons the Trump team could have been meeting with the Russians. But I have not heard them. If the Trump/Russia meetings were routine....Why doesn't Trump just release the records from the meetings so we can end this thing?

There are rumors that Hillary was interestingly freed from any further investigation following that meeting that Bill Clinton had with Mrs Lunch. Why don't we know what of took place there? How did Hillary get cleared? You can throw all the conspiracies, collusions, and theories you want it still has the same factual HYPE of conclusion as the Russian / uranium deal with Mrs Clinton.

 

[iceberg]

Once again you are ignoring the fact that they are investigating the person who benefitted from the crime That does not mean you have to investigate EVERYONE who ever talked to the perpetrator of the crime

There are many possible reasons the Trump team could have been meeting with the Russians. But I have not heard them. If the Trump/Russia meetings were routine....Why doesn't Trump just release the records from the meetings so we can end this thing?

let me just back up a bit here.

you say there are many possible reasons for the meetings.
you say you've not heard them.
you now assume unsaid / unknown reasons were anything other than routine and from your own words, have no idea if they were or were not.
so trump not wanting to release records is now cause for an investigation and the outcry of GUILTY by so many on a daily basis.

like i said - at this point it's pure emo-driven not factual.

A crime was committed
We have to verify the meetings were unrelated to that crime

Why can't Trump just release information about what those meetings were about?

That is not emo-driven, it is a common practice in investigating a crime

how do we know a crime was committed? WHAT CRIME AND BY WHAT EVIDENCE.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Once again you are ignoring the fact that they are investigating the person who benefitted from the crime That does not mean you have to investigate EVERYONE who ever talked to the perpetrator of the crime

There are many possible reasons the Trump team could have been meeting with the Russians. But I have not heard them. If the Trump/Russia meetings were routine....Why doesn't Trump just release the records from the meetings so we can end this thing?

let me just back up a bit here.

you say there are many possible reasons for the meetings.
you say you've not heard them.
you now assume unsaid / unknown reasons were anything other than routine and from your own words, have no idea if they were or were not.
so trump not wanting to release records is now cause for an investigation and the outcry of GUILTY by so many on a daily basis.

like i said - at this point it's pure emo-driven not factual.

Historically it's all going to blow up in the democrats face, especially just coming right out of an administration with cries that republicans were the obstructionists starting of the wall impeachment inquiries over race. Yes we can see all those cries to RESIST now don't we?

 

[iceberg]

Once again you are ignoring the fact that they are investigating the person who benefitted from the crime That does not mean you have to investigate EVERYONE who ever talked to the perpetrator of the crime

There are many possible reasons the Trump team could have been meeting with the Russians. But I have not heard them. If the Trump/Russia meetings were routine....Why doesn't Trump just release the records from the meetings so we can end this thing?

let me just back up a bit here.

you say there are many possible reasons for the meetings.
you say you've not heard them.
you now assume unsaid / unknown reasons were anything other than routine and from your own words, have no idea if they were or were not.
so trump not wanting to release records is now cause for an investigation and the outcry of GUILTY by so many on a daily basis.

like i said - at this point it's pure emo-driven not factual.

Historically it's all going to blow up in the democrats face, especially just coming from an administration with cries that republicans were the obstructionists starting of the wall impeachment inquiries over race.

well i've been trying to be fair and open minded and simply ask for the facts but to this point the "facts" are still emo-mad.

THEY MET - DID YOU NOT SEE THAT? WE MUST PROVE IT WASN'T NEFARIOUS!

um...guilty til proven innocent when you don't like someone. innocent fuck off if you do.

that has to end.

 

[rightwinger]

Once again you are ignoring the fact that they are investigating the person who benefitted from the crime That does not mean you have to investigate EVERYONE who ever talked to the perpetrator of the crime

There are many possible reasons the Trump team could have been meeting with the Russians. But I have not heard them. If the Trump/Russia meetings were routine....Why doesn't Trump just release the records from the meetings so we can end this thing?

let me just back up a bit here.

you say there are many possible reasons for the meetings.
you say you've not heard them.
you now assume unsaid / unknown reasons were anything other than routine and from your own words, have no idea if they were or were not.
so trump not wanting to release records is now cause for an investigation and the outcry of GUILTY by so many on a daily basis.

like i said - at this point it's pure emo-driven not factual.

A crime was committed
We have to verify the meetings were unrelated to that crime

Why can't Trump just release information about what those meetings were about?

That is not emo-driven, it is a common practice in investigating a crime

how do we know a crime was committed? WHAT CRIME AND BY WHAT EVIDENCE.

Why do we keep going over this again and again?
You keep asking, are told the crime (HACKING) and then rinse and repeat

 

[iceberg]

Once again you are ignoring the fact that they are investigating the person who benefitted from the crime That does not mean you have to investigate EVERYONE who ever talked to the perpetrator of the crime

There are many possible reasons the Trump team could have been meeting with the Russians. But I have not heard them. If the Trump/Russia meetings were routine....Why doesn't Trump just release the records from the meetings so we can end this thing?

let me just back up a bit here.

you say there are many possible reasons for the meetings.
you say you've not heard them.
you now assume unsaid / unknown reasons were anything other than routine and from your own words, have no idea if they were or were not.
so trump not wanting to release records is now cause for an investigation and the outcry of GUILTY by so many on a daily basis.

like i said - at this point it's pure emo-driven not factual.

A crime was committed
We have to verify the meetings were unrelated to that crime

Why can't Trump just release information about what those meetings were about?

That is not emo-driven, it is a common practice in investigating a crime

how do we know a crime was committed? WHAT CRIME AND BY WHAT EVIDENCE.

Why do we keep going over this again and again?
You keep asking, are told the crime (HACKING) and then rinse and repeat

so trump was behind the hacking? is that why we're investigating things?

Wait–Former U.S. Intelligence Operatives Hacked The DNC And Then Gave That Information To Wikileaks?

Obama ignores evidence Russia didn’t hack DNC, Podesta

and again - asasange denies the russians were his source. so you're still wallowing at best in speculation and desire as there certainly isn't verifiable proof the russians did much of anything at all.

so if all you have is DNC hacking and "meetings" with trumps team and russia - there isn't shit here. but feel free to dig around in the feces but at least admit there is no definitive proof of any crime at this time.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Once again you are ignoring the fact that they are investigating the person who benefitted from the crime That does not mean you have to investigate EVERYONE who ever talked to the perpetrator of the crime

There are many possible reasons the Trump team could have been meeting with the Russians. But I have not heard them. If the Trump/Russia meetings were routine....Why doesn't Trump just release the records from the meetings so we can end this thing?

let me just back up a bit here.

you say there are many possible reasons for the meetings.
you say you've not heard them.
you now assume unsaid / unknown reasons were anything other than routine and from your own words, have no idea if they were or were not.
so trump not wanting to release records is now cause for an investigation and the outcry of GUILTY by so many on a daily basis.

like i said - at this point it's pure emo-driven not factual.

Historically it's all going to blow up in the democrats face, especially just coming from an administration with cries that republicans were the obstructionists starting of the wall impeachment inquiries over race.

well i've been trying to be fair and open minded and simply ask for the facts but to this point the "facts" are still emo-mad.

THEY MET - DID YOU NOT SEE THAT? WE MUST PROVE IT WASN'T NEFARIOUS!

um...guilty til proven innocent when you don't like someone. innocent fuck off if you do.

that has to end.

I just find it interesting when you bring out similar situations, another peculiar meeting, some interjection of collusion to the advantage of a candidate under investigation, using their position as Secretay of State to receive large financial payouts from foreign governments, an actual Russian uranium deal, I mean you can go on and on if you want to show "collusion". Yet, all rightwinger has is a meeting, and like you said, he is not even sure how to categorize it.

 

[iceberg]

Once again you are ignoring the fact that they are investigating the person who benefitted from the crime That does not mean you have to investigate EVERYONE who ever talked to the perpetrator of the crime

There are many possible reasons the Trump team could have been meeting with the Russians. But I have not heard them. If the Trump/Russia meetings were routine....Why doesn't Trump just release the records from the meetings so we can end this thing?

let me just back up a bit here.

you say there are many possible reasons for the meetings.
you say you've not heard them.
you now assume unsaid / unknown reasons were anything other than routine and from your own words, have no idea if they were or were not.
so trump not wanting to release records is now cause for an investigation and the outcry of GUILTY by so many on a daily basis.

like i said - at this point it's pure emo-driven not factual.

Historically it's all going to blow up in the democrats face, especially just coming from an administration with cries that republicans were the obstructionists starting of the wall impeachment inquiries over race.

well i've been trying to be fair and open minded and simply ask for the facts but to this point the "facts" are still emo-mad.

THEY MET - DID YOU NOT SEE THAT? WE MUST PROVE IT WASN'T NEFARIOUS!

um...guilty til proven innocent when you don't like someone. innocent fuck off if you do.

that has to end.

I just find it interesting when you bring out similar situations, another peculiar meeting, some interjection of collusion to the advantage of a candidate under investigation, using their position as Secretay of State to receive large financial payouts from foreign governments, an actual Russian uranium deal, I mean you can go on and on if you want to show "collusion". Yet, all rightwinger has is a meeting, and like you said, he is not even sure how to categorize it.

i'm trying to narrow this down to something specific we can agree on and some people simply won't allow that. vague accusations and mythical links are enough for them but they'd never allow it in return to their side.

we need to find some common ground in which to judge things and ensure we work to that common ground not our own views or we'll be stuck in bullshit forever.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Senate Judiciary Chairman Confirms Trump Is Not Under FBI Investigation - Breitbart

No, Trump Isn’t Under Criminal Investigation by the FBI

Kudlow: It's Fake News to Claim Trump Is Under Investigation

the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.

Read more at: No, Trump Isn’t Under Criminal Investigation by the FBI


That looks like a criminal investigation to me

yep. people in his campaign seem to be under investigation but i don't see trump on that list.

I don't believe you would, as there were no meetings between Trump and the Russians

Much like any boss involved in criminal activity, they have others to do the dirty work and maintain plausible deniability. The question is....did they order the meetings or were they informed of what was going on

well my main point is that while i think the investigations are made up bullshit by the left mad at losing, look if you must. i agree a ton was spent on hillary and hey - "turn about is fair play" is our mantra anymore. not being smart, not doing the RIGHT thing - but "payback"

so if we need to wait for someone to come in and sort it all out, fine. no issues with that and let them look to verify which side is "right" so the other side can cry FOUL once more.

my only point is to tell people who keep lying and saying TRUMP HIMSELF is under investigation, are wrong.

Which part is "made up bullshit"?

The Russian hacking of DNC computers?
Trump benefitting from the release of information?
That members of Trumps campaign were meeting with the Russians at the time?

the release of information




I am confused what information was released..what was so bad in that information?

.

 

[rightwinger]

Once again you are ignoring the fact that they are investigating the person who benefitted from the crime That does not mean you have to investigate EVERYONE who ever talked to the perpetrator of the crime

There are many possible reasons the Trump team could have been meeting with the Russians. But I have not heard them. If the Trump/Russia meetings were routine....Why doesn't Trump just release the records from the meetings so we can end this thing?

let me just back up a bit here.

you say there are many possible reasons for the meetings.
you say you've not heard them.
you now assume unsaid / unknown reasons were anything other than routine and from your own words, have no idea if they were or were not.
so trump not wanting to release records is now cause for an investigation and the outcry of GUILTY by so many on a daily basis.

like i said - at this point it's pure emo-driven not factual.

A crime was committed
We have to verify the meetings were unrelated to that crime

Why can't Trump just release information about what those meetings were about?

That is not emo-driven, it is a common practice in investigating a crime

how do we know a crime was committed? WHAT CRIME AND BY WHAT EVIDENCE.

Why do we keep going over this again and again?
You keep asking, are told the crime (HACKING) and then rinse and repeat

so trump was behind the hacking? is that why we're investigating things?

Wait–Former U.S. Intelligence Operatives Hacked The DNC And Then Gave That Information To Wikileaks?

Obama ignores evidence Russia didn’t hack DNC, Podesta

and again - asasange denies the russians were his source. so you're still wallowing at best in speculation and desire as there certainly isn't verifiable proof the russians did much of anything at all.

so if all you have is DNC hacking and "meetings" with trumps team and russia - there isn't shit here. but feel free to dig around in the feces but at least admit there is no definitive proof of any crime at this time.

Are you really that daft?

Lets go back to what Comey said about the investigation

the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.

 

[iceberg]

let me just back up a bit here.

you say there are many possible reasons for the meetings.
you say you've not heard them.
you now assume unsaid / unknown reasons were anything other than routine and from your own words, have no idea if they were or were not.
so trump not wanting to release records is now cause for an investigation and the outcry of GUILTY by so many on a daily basis.

like i said - at this point it's pure emo-driven not factual.

A crime was committed
We have to verify the meetings were unrelated to that crime

Why can't Trump just release information about what those meetings were about?

That is not emo-driven, it is a common practice in investigating a crime

how do we know a crime was committed? WHAT CRIME AND BY WHAT EVIDENCE.

Why do we keep going over this again and again?
You keep asking, are told the crime (HACKING) and then rinse and repeat

so trump was behind the hacking? is that why we're investigating things?

Wait–Former U.S. Intelligence Operatives Hacked The DNC And Then Gave That Information To Wikileaks?

Obama ignores evidence Russia didn’t hack DNC, Podesta

and again - asasange denies the russians were his source. so you're still wallowing at best in speculation and desire as there certainly isn't verifiable proof the russians did much of anything at all.

so if all you have is DNC hacking and "meetings" with trumps team and russia - there isn't shit here. but feel free to dig around in the feces but at least admit there is no definitive proof of any crime at this time.

Are you really that daft?

Lets go back to what Comey said about the investigation

the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.

so to date no crimes have proven to have been committed.

correct?