If Trump has information that others were involved in the hacking let him provide itFBI, CIA and NSA all claim Russia was involved in the hacking. Only Trump is in denial without ANY facts to the contraryRussia committed a crimeWhat you just described is called a self serving assumption.
I already addressed that, and you were completely unable to even address it.
Here is my point again. YOu are welcome to read it, I'm sure it will seem new to you, and you can even try addressing it now, if you can.
You assume trade when parallel interests are even more likely.
Did all the foreign leaders trying to help Hillary by attacking Trump have to be in contact with Hillary and getting deals under the table, or did the just see that they had an interest in HIllary winning?
Trump benefitted from that crime
Don't you believe it is proper to investigate Trumps dealings with Russia ?
No, other leaders supporting Hillary or not liking Trump is not criminal.
1. Unproven.
2. Based on your self serving assumptions.
3. NO.
4. I didn't say it was criminal. Following your logic, I should ASSUME that a crime was committed and demand investigations, with predetermined results. But I don't. Which was my point. Which you played dumb and ignored. As I expected. Because it is normal for a lib.
YES Trump benefitted from the crime. He used those leaked emails about Hillary on a weekly basis
Why wouldn't you want Trump cleared? He has the Stink of Russia all over his presidency. Wouldn't you want an investigation to prove he is totally clean?
Your logic is flawed. Other nations are allowed to say who they support and who they don't support. illegally hacking the computers of the candidate you don't support is not the same thing
THis is the same intelligence industry that was sure that Saddam had WMDs.
By putting all the blame on BUhs, you managed to avoid learning anything, and are now trying to make the same mistake.
Trump cannot be said to have benefited from a crime, if it the crime has not been proven.
Nothing will stop the lefty smear campaign on Trump. If it is not this lie, you will gin up another one. SO there is not upside to any possible investigation.
My logic is fine. YOu assume under the table deals with given and take. THis can work just as easily for public statements as for covert leaks. THus my comparison stands. THose leaders tried to sway the election in Hillary's favor and by YOUR LOGIC we should assume an illegal deal and investigate.
YOu are a hypocrite if you say otherwise.
Otherwise, we just have to assume he is lying like he did about Obama tapping his lines at Trumo tower
Wow. That came out of nowhere and addressed none of my several points.
Is this where you want to admit that I made a number of good points that you will spend a couple of days thinking about, and then bring up a new point to discuss?