- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Doesn't the Trump, Jr. meeting prove that the Trump campaign WAS NOT "colluding" ....
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:18 am
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:18 am
with the Russians?
If Trump was colluding with the Russians then he would have had someone on the inside who he could have discussed this woman with and could have easily have figured out that this woman was not working on behalf of the Russian government and had nothing to offer with respect to "dirt" on sHitlary. This would have all been done before any meeting.
I mean, if you are seriously colluding with the Russians, wouldn't Trump had called his "point man" and asked who this woman is and why is she calling "outside the chain of command"?
If Trump was colluding with the Russians then he would have had someone on the inside who he could have discussed this woman with and could have easily have figured out that this woman was not working on behalf of the Russian government and had nothing to offer with respect to "dirt" on sHitlary. This would have all been done before any meeting.
I mean, if you are seriously colluding with the Russians, wouldn't Trump had called his "point man" and asked who this woman is and why is she calling "outside the chain of command"?
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 11:20 am
11
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:27 am to MMauler
This question is the difference between the majority of conservatives vs. the majority of liberals.
This is a logical question. And, every time it is posed, the liberals run from it because they truly didn't realize it and because they think they are winning on the issue anyway.
This is a logical question. And, every time it is posed, the liberals run from it because they truly didn't realize it and because they think they are winning on the issue anyway.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:30 am to MMauler
That takes a couple layers of thought.
The "SQUIRREL!" Approach Is easier..
The "SQUIRREL!" Approach Is easier..
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:31 am to MMauler
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:33 am to MMauler
Maybe. So that just leaves Jr being stupid and gullible as hell, and a bald faced liar. 
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:35 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
So that just leaves Jr being stupid and gullible as hell, and a bald faced liar.
If being stupid, gullible, and/or a liar was a crime, we'd have to lock up all Liberals and most Conservatives.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:36 am to MMauler
Potentially conspiracy to collude, which seems like a massive stretch. The only thing I've heard that possibly has any weight to it was on NPR this morning when they were saying it might be a foreign campaign contribution. Frankly I'd love to see that can of worms opened.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:37 am to MMauler
quote:
If Trump was colluding with the Russians then he would have had someone on the inside who he could have discussed this woman with and could have easily have figured out that this woman was not working on behalf of the Russian government and had nothing to offer with respect to "dirt" on sHitlary. This would have all been done before any meeting.
I mean, if you are seriously colluding with the Russians, wouldn't Trump had called his "point man" and asked who this woman is and why is she calling "outside the chain of command"?
desperation?
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:39 am to MMauler
quote:you mean like his presidential campaign manager or something?
If Trump was colluding with the Russians then he would have had someone on the inside
because, yes, Paul Manafort was also at the meeting, along with Jared Kushner.
great job at disproving your own point.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 11:40 am
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:41 am to MMauler
quote:
Doesn't the Trump, Jr. meeting prove that the Trump campaign WAS NOT "colluding" ....
No, it proves they were.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:41 am to BamaAtl
quote:
No, it proves they were.
How does someone not colluding prove they were colluding?
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:42 am to BamaAtl
quote:
No, it proves they were.
What was the quid pro quo?
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:43 am to MMauler
quote:Reasoning backwards from the assumption that Trump always does things competently is pretty fraught.
If Trump was colluding with the Russians then he would have had someone on the inside who he could have discussed this woman with and could have easily have figured out that this woman was not working on behalf of the Russian government and had nothing to offer with respect to "dirt" on sHitlary. This would have all been done before any meeting.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:48 am to MastrShake
quote:
quote:
If Trump was colluding with the Russians then he would have had someone on the inside
you mean like his presidential campaign manager or something?
because, yes, Paul Manafort was also at the meeting, along with Jared Kushner.
great job at disproving your own point.
NO, you f*cking moron. I CLEARLY meant SOMEONE ON THE INSIDE OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT -- IDIOT!
According to all the Libtards, Putin was running this show entirely.
If someone with the Russian government (as the libtards are claiming this woman was) e-mails out of the blue claiming to have dirt on sHitlary, then why didn't Trump (or Manafort) just give Vlad a call and ask why is this woman going outside the "chain of command" of collusion?
You seriously can't be THIS F*CKING STUPID.
This post was edited on 7/12/17 at 11:49 am
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:48 am to BugAC
quote:
What was the quid pro quo?
Sanctions relief, or money to Kushner/Trump companies.
That's why financial crimes are getting involved in Mueller's investigation.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:52 am to BamaAtl
quote:
Sanctions relief, or money to Kushner/Trump companies.
LINK?
The e-mails show what this was all about.
So, either provide a link or admit that you are just making it up as you are clearly suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome and you are hoping that any false allegation will stick.
And, I don't recall you being full with such faux-self-righteous indignation when it was revealed that sHitlary actually sold her office as SoS in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars from the Russians.
THAT has been proven. And, yet, you still walked into a voting booth and pulled the lever for the most vile, evil, piece of pure f*cking CRIMINAL filth to ever come down the political pike.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:53 am to MMauler
So you're allowed your original hypothetical, but this other poster is not? Seems legit.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:54 am to junkfunky
quote:
foreign campaign contribution. Frankly I'd love to see that can of worms opened.
Wouldn't that be Christmas in July???
Posted on 7/12/17 at 11:56 am to MMauler
quote:
You seriously can't be THIS F*CKING STUPID.
Nope - they just assume the position - I is part of their job description.
Hard to get good work these days.
Posted on 7/12/17 at 12:00 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
original hypothetical
The OP isn't a hypothetical...it was a question...maybe poorly worded...
Does the meeting prove the campaign was NOT colluding?
No, it does not PROVE, but it is also "NOT COLLUDING"
So, we are still up to zero evidence of collusion between the campaign and Russian government.
We do however have tons of quid pro quo evidence in the Hillary campaign...but no one really cares about that fat cankled shitstained bitch.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News