(1/3) Let's make sense of all these Russia claims

[LoneLaugher]

One of the big problems with all this Russia business are there are so many different issues and people are trying to combine them into one issue. Liberal media (and far left in general) actually WANT to combine them all into one issue hoping for the smoking gun they need to impeach Trump. Others are just getting confused by everything. So, lets' break these down in a multipart thread over the next few days to sort this out.

Claim #1: Russia meddled in the 2016 election and caused Trump to get elected.

My take...

Likelihood: Highly Probable they meddled...Highly Unlikely they were the reason he was elected.

Discussion: Basically no evidence exists that indicates Russia actually messed with the votes. However, it is the consensus of the Intelligence Community (confirmed by social media outlets) that Russia had a "fake news" media campaign going to influence the election and was working with WikiLeaks to leak things damaging to HRC. Russia wanted Trump to win...why? I think it's simple. Trump's policies lean more toward domestic concerns, he is more pragmatic than ideological, he less globalist, more critical of NATO. These days U.S. is way more of a hegemon than Russia and Russia doesn't like an ideological, globalist hegemon messing around in their backyard and telling them how to live their life.

If True: We should all have bi-partisan concern that another country is meddling with our political process and focus on fixing things for 2020. Not really Trump's fault though so blaming him is just partisan warfare.

If Russia meddled, it wasn't the first time, but social media-based meddling is a real issue, given how we just love to believe anything we see on the internet.

If Russia meddled, we need to deal with it somehow. But that would take communication and cooperation between parties, so most likely nothing will be done.

Russia's meddling only pertains to Trump if he or one of his people conspired with the Russians to do it. If that can be proven, then it's game over for Trump.

If there was that kind of collusion, it doesn't matter whether it worked or not. The collusion is the issue.

As far as I know, such collusion has not been proven, yet.
.

Has obstruction of justice been proven yet....as far as you know?

 

[Mac1958]

Has obstruction of justice been proven yet....as far as you know?

I dunno, on what station is the trial?

I've been missing it?

But thanks for trying, troll.
.

 

[Mac1958]

All the wingers on both ends have this whole thing all figured out.


.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Has obstruction of justice been proven yet....as far as you know?

I dunno, on what station is the trial?

I've been missing it?

But thanks for trying, troll.
.

You don't believe that Trump admitted to firing Comey because of the investigation on TV while talking with Lester Holt?

Is that partisan spin?

 

[LoneLaugher]

All the wingers on both ends have this whole thing all figured out.


.

Since I don't have it figured out, I must not be a "winger". Cool.

 

[Mac1958]

Has obstruction of justice been proven yet....as far as you know?

I dunno, on what station is the trial?

I've been missing it?

But thanks for trying, troll.
.

You don't believe that Trump admitted to firing Comey because of the investigation on TV while talking with Lester Holt?

Is that partisan spin?

I must have missed that part of the trial. That's where this will be litigated, as normal people know.

Why won't you provide the station it's on, troll?
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Has obstruction of justice been proven yet....as far as you know?

I dunno, on what station is the trial?

I've been missing it?

But thanks for trying, troll.
.

You don't believe that Trump admitted to firing Comey because of the investigation on TV while talking with Lester Holt?

Is that partisan spin?

I must have missed that part of the trial. That's where this will be litigated, as normal people know.

Why won't you provide the station it's on, troll?
.

That's cool. You are waiting for a trial before expressing your opinion on the matter. That is a very reasoned approach. Totally understandable.

I'm confused though. You said that collusion hasn't been, as far as you know, proven yet. That sounds like you don't think waiting for a trial before expressing an opinion is necessary.

Which is it?

 

[Mac1958]

Has obstruction of justice been proven yet....as far as you know?

I dunno, on what station is the trial?

I've been missing it?

But thanks for trying, troll.
.

You don't believe that Trump admitted to firing Comey because of the investigation on TV while talking with Lester Holt?

Is that partisan spin?

I must have missed that part of the trial. That's where this will be litigated, as normal people know.

Why won't you provide the station it's on, troll?
.

That's cool. You are waiting for a trial before expressing your opinion on the matter. That is a very reasoned approach. Totally understandable.

I'm confused though. You said that collusion hasn't been, as far as you know, proven yet. That sounds like you don't think waiting for a trial before expressing an opinion is necessary.

Which is it?

Aw, you're confused again. Sorry.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Has obstruction of justice been proven yet....as far as you know?

I dunno, on what station is the trial?

I've been missing it?

But thanks for trying, troll.
.

You don't believe that Trump admitted to firing Comey because of the investigation on TV while talking with Lester Holt?

Is that partisan spin?

I must have missed that part of the trial. That's where this will be litigated, as normal people know.

Why won't you provide the station it's on, troll?
.

That's cool. You are waiting for a trial before expressing your opinion on the matter. That is a very reasoned approach. Totally understandable.

I'm confused though. You said that collusion hasn't been, as far as you know, proven yet. That sounds like you don't think waiting for a trial before expressing an opinion is necessary.

Which is it?

Aw, you're confused again. Sorry.
.

Yep. Your standards are unclear.

Have you no opinion regarding whether or not Trump obstructed justice? Or, are you refraining from offering an opinion until after a trial occurs?

 

[Mac1958]

I dunno, on what station is the trial?

I've been missing it?

But thanks for trying, troll.
.

You don't believe that Trump admitted to firing Comey because of the investigation on TV while talking with Lester Holt?

Is that partisan spin?

I must have missed that part of the trial. That's where this will be litigated, as normal people know.

Why won't you provide the station it's on, troll?
.

That's cool. You are waiting for a trial before expressing your opinion on the matter. That is a very reasoned approach. Totally understandable.

I'm confused though. You said that collusion hasn't been, as far as you know, proven yet. That sounds like you don't think waiting for a trial before expressing an opinion is necessary.

Which is it?

Aw, you're confused again. Sorry.
.

Yep. Your standards are unclear.

Have you no opinion regarding whether or not Trump obstructed justice? Or, are you refraining from offering an opinion until after a trial occurs?

As you know, as I've told you many times, I have zero (0) interest in communicating with you.

Please feel free to draw any conclusions about me that you wish. Run with them. Trumpet them to the world.

Your opinion is irrelevant to me. There. I said it yet again.

End of conversation.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You don't believe that Trump admitted to firing Comey because of the investigation on TV while talking with Lester Holt?

Is that partisan spin?

I must have missed that part of the trial. That's where this will be litigated, as normal people know.

Why won't you provide the station it's on, troll?
.

That's cool. You are waiting for a trial before expressing your opinion on the matter. That is a very reasoned approach. Totally understandable.

I'm confused though. You said that collusion hasn't been, as far as you know, proven yet. That sounds like you don't think waiting for a trial before expressing an opinion is necessary.

Which is it?

Aw, you're confused again. Sorry.
.

Yep. Your standards are unclear.

Have you no opinion regarding whether or not Trump obstructed justice? Or, are you refraining from offering an opinion until after a trial occurs?

As you know, as I've told you many times, I have zero (0) interest in communicating with you.

Please feel free to draw any conclusions about me that you wish. Run with them. Trumpet them to the world.

Your opinion is irrelevant to me. There. I said it yet again.

End of conversation.
.

Nope. I would never believe you when you spout such nonsense. You've keen interest in my opinion of you. That's clear for all to see.

Rather than lash out with weird passive aggressive rants when you've been inconsistent, as in this thread, why not simply acknowledge it and move on.

Only then can we have a mature, honest discussion of the issue at hand.