2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,977
- 52,254
- 2,290
Here are a couple of columns on the latest, sad, desperately sad, pitiful attempt by the left to wring blood from the Russian collusion stone...
On collusion, the media is all screwed up
The main point I want to make is that there is nothing wrong with such a meeting and such discussions, though in this case the discussion is said never to have gotten off the ground because the Russian lawyer had nothing to offer. A campaign should never turn down the opportunity to be presented with adverse information about an opponent from any source, within the bounds of the law.
(Of course, if the Trump campaign had actually been colluding with the Russian government, it’s highly doubtful that it would have met with this lawyer in the hope of obtaining adverse information about Clinton. Russian intelligence presumably would have been supplying whatever info Russia had that Team Trump could use.)
And I like the title of this one from PJmedia.......when Will Graham, the original with the other english guy, not Anthony hopkins, stated....You have disadvantages, you're insane....
The Left Won't Let Go of the 'Russian Collusion' Meme
Now the top story on the Drudge Report, the top Must-Read on Lucianne.com and listed on Real Clear Politics: my latest column for the New York Post regarding the ridiculous stories in the New York Times about "Russian collusion."
The news was delivered by the New York Times in the breathless tones that might announce a cure for cancer or the discovery of life on Mars: “President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, according to three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.”
To which a rational response is … who wouldn’t? And also: So what? A third response is unprintable.
As I said on the Dennis Prager radio show an hour ago: think David Mamet.
On collusion, the media is all screwed up
The main point I want to make is that there is nothing wrong with such a meeting and such discussions, though in this case the discussion is said never to have gotten off the ground because the Russian lawyer had nothing to offer. A campaign should never turn down the opportunity to be presented with adverse information about an opponent from any source, within the bounds of the law.
(Of course, if the Trump campaign had actually been colluding with the Russian government, it’s highly doubtful that it would have met with this lawyer in the hope of obtaining adverse information about Clinton. Russian intelligence presumably would have been supplying whatever info Russia had that Team Trump could use.)
And I like the title of this one from PJmedia.......when Will Graham, the original with the other english guy, not Anthony hopkins, stated....You have disadvantages, you're insane....
The Left Won't Let Go of the 'Russian Collusion' Meme
Now the top story on the Drudge Report, the top Must-Read on Lucianne.com and listed on Real Clear Politics: my latest column for the New York Post regarding the ridiculous stories in the New York Times about "Russian collusion."
The news was delivered by the New York Times in the breathless tones that might announce a cure for cancer or the discovery of life on Mars: “President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, according to three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it.”
To which a rational response is … who wouldn’t? And also: So what? A third response is unprintable.
As I said on the Dennis Prager radio show an hour ago: think David Mamet.
Last edited:
