Trump Tower Meet....and Steele's dossier...

[LordBrownTrout]

Except....mueller has no evidence

...which, you just made up.

Made nothing up. He has no evidence other than some process crimes. I understand that you need to keep it going though.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Made nothing up.

Of course you did. You made up the assertion that he has no evidence. You could not possibly know what evidence he does or does not possess. So yes, you made it up.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Made nothing up.

Of course you did. You made up the assertion that he has no evidence. You could not possibly know what evidence he does or does not possess. So yes, you made it up.

Wrong again.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Made nothing up.

Of course you did. You made up the assertion that he has no evidence. You could not possibly know what evidence he does or does not possess. So yes, you made it up.

Wrong again.

Nope, I am 100% correct.

 

[kaz]

Quid pro quo

That would be an awfully tough one to prove.

Actually, it's an easy thing to prove. Like five people involved in the deal gave Hillary money. Slick was paid twice his usual fee by Russians in cash. If Hillary were anyone else, she'd be in jail

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Made nothing up.

Of course you did. You made up the assertion that he has no evidence. You could not possibly know what evidence he does or does not possess. So yes, you made it up.

Wrong again.

Nope, I am 100% correct.

You're 100 percent wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, it's an easy thing to prove.

Then quick, assemble a team of lawyers!

 

[kaz]

You're unreal.

Settle down, I am not claiming that is what happened.

And no, I have no problem with the dossier. Neither does anyone else, really. You have been fooled by people into getting worked up over it.

And Fort Fun loses it, bam! Wow you're upset. Calm down. Breathe into a bag if you have to.

You said your standard was getting information from the Russians. Hillary did, Trump didn't

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Made nothing up.

Of course you did. You made up the assertion that he has no evidence. You could not possibly know what evidence he does or does not possess. So yes, you made it up.

Wrong again.

Nope, I am 100% correct.

You're 100 percent wrong.

That's nice.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You said your standard was getting information from the Russians.

I did not.

 

[kaz]

Actually, it's an easy thing to prove.

Then quick, assemble a team of lawyers!

To do what?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, it's an easy thing to prove.

Then quick, assemble a team of lawyers!

To do what?

To prosecute or sue her! 20 more years of investigations ought to do it. Or maybe not.

 

[kaz]

Actually, it's an easy thing to prove.

Then quick, assemble a team of lawyers!

To do what?

To prosecute or sue her! 20 more years of investigations ought to do it. Or maybe not.

How would I do that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, it's an easy thing to prove.

Then quick, assemble a team of lawyers!

To do what?

To prosecute or sue her! 20 more years of investigations ought to do it. Or maybe not.

How would I do that?

Just as anyone does...sue her. Or, If you have evidence that she should be prosecuted, then submit it to the authorities.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You showed no info, transaction or impairment.

Nor did I need to do so, for my statement to be factual. You really are not following this.

Be sure to let me know when your theory is proven.

I stated no theory. You're not making sense.

I stated no theory.

That's nice. But meeting with them amd getting information as part of a transactional realtionshio, then lying about it both defrauds our elections and is a crime.

Trump Tower Meet....and Steele's dossier...

Dude!

 

[kaz]

Actually, it's an easy thing to prove.

Then quick, assemble a team of lawyers!

To do what?

To prosecute or sue her! 20 more years of investigations ought to do it. Or maybe not.

How would I do that?

Just as anyone does...sue her. Or, If you have evidence that she should be prosecuted, then submit it to the authorities.

I wouldn't have standing to sue her for accepting bribes from Russia. Your knowledge of our legal system is woefully pathetic

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But meeting with them amd getting information as part of a transactional realtionshio, then lying about it both defrauds our elections and is a crime.

Which is a factual statement. That would,indeed, be a crime. And if you slow down and wipe away those tears, you will see that my statement was no different than yours, in this respect:

"Meeting with a Russian and getting no evidence of Hillary's corruption does not impair US elections."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I wouldn't have standing to sue her for accepting bribes from Russia.

Yes, I know. Nor do you have any evidence to provide to anyone.

I think you are finally getting my point about your fantasy.

 

[rightwinger]

Inevitably, Trump "defenders" will attempt to address the criticism of the [possibly criminal] meeting by Junior, Kushner and Manafort and Russian operatives, with a typical, "what about Clinton paying Steele for a dossier on Trump"???

Objectively, there is some lop-sided "logic" to this divertive defense........BUT, two factors must also be considered:

First, Steele is from a nation that is our closest ALLY, versus the attempt to gather opposition research by a country that is a long time ADVERSARY to the U.S.

Second, as we have long learned from the Watergate scandal, the initial wrong-doing PALES in comparison to the attempt to cover up the mistake......Trump has flip-flopped several times in his attempt to covering up the fiasco....directly implicating himself and his family.

Like most ANTI Trump threads on this forum, I expect this one to soon disappear....so, give it a shot in addressing it before the inevitable.

You could have made this really short and sweet and just said, "It's different because I like Hillary and hate Trump."

Difference is ...Crooked Donnie is going to jail

 

[rightwinger]

Then quick, assemble a team of lawyers!

To do what?

To prosecute or sue her! 20 more years of investigations ought to do it. Or maybe not.

How would I do that?

Just as anyone does...sue her. Or, If you have evidence that she should be prosecuted, then submit it to the authorities.

I wouldn't have standing to sue her for accepting bribes from Russia. Your knowledge of our legal system is woefully pathetic

Maybe you can start with some evidence