Trump had "nothing to do with Russia"

[Dim Bulb]

You have NO proof that Trump "lied" about anything.
You have LIB MSM attempting to string together a lot of 'ifs' and 'could bes' and what ifs' to prove Trump "lied.
Let's wait and see if any of their usual bullshit is true.
Just b/c someone in his multi-billion dollar empire spoke to a (GOD FORBID) Russian about some proposed building doesn't mean President Trump had anything to do with the initial inquiries.

/----/ On a different thread, Libtards give Hildabeast a pass on the Birther Movement by claiming a low level staffer started the rumor. This supposedly vindicated Hillary. But the Libtards also claim Trump is responsible for his lawyer's inquiries two years before he ran for president.
View attachment 146547

Oh. Yes it's outrageous. Is that what you want to hear? Does that excuse President Trump from responsibility for lying somehow? Am I supposed to not care? Help me with your point.

/----/ You need to prove Trump was lying. Your wishful thinking doesn't count as evidence. Here's an example to help you along.
View attachment 146550

I had nothing to do with Russia. Yet his lawyer did. And reported his progress three times. And his son did. What on earth am I missing here that makes this not a lie? The fact that they never built s building? He didn't say "I had some brief conversations between my people and some Russians that never amounted to anything. " That would've been easy. But no he said "I had nothing to do with Russia". That is a lie.

Oh......so discussions by his company on Russia proves he had something to do with Russia personally?

If China talks among themselves about the United States do they have something to do with how our country acts? Does every country that mentions America run this country? If they don't deal with us but simply talk about us in private, does that mean they have something to do with us????

I hate Hillary but did she personally wipe the server clean? If not then you're cool with her lies I guess.

 

[mudwhistle]

/----/ On a different thread, Libtards give Hildabeast a pass on the Birther Movement by claiming a low level staffer started the rumor. This supposedly vindicated Hillary. But the Libtards also claim Trump is responsible for his lawyer's inquiries two years before he ran for president.
View attachment 146547

Oh. Yes it's outrageous. Is that what you want to hear? Does that excuse President Trump from responsibility for lying somehow? Am I supposed to not care? Help me with your point.

/----/ You need to prove Trump was lying. Your wishful thinking doesn't count as evidence. Here's an example to help you along.
View attachment 146550

I had nothing to do with Russia. Yet his lawyer did. And reported his progress three times. And his son did. What on earth am I missing here that makes this not a lie? The fact that they never built s building? He didn't say "I had some brief conversations between my people and some Russians that never amounted to anything. " That would've been easy. But no he said "I had nothing to do with Russia". That is a lie.

Oh......so discussions by his company on Russia proves he had something to do with Russia personally?

If China talks among themselves about the United States do they have something to do with how our country acts? Does every country that mentions America run this country? If they don't deal with us but simply talk about us in private, does that mean they have something to do with us????

I hate Hillary but did she personally wipe the server clean? If not then you're cool with her lies I guess.

You're talking about something that happened as opposed to something that never happened.
In reality Hillary's ILLEGAL IN HOME Server was wiped clean. It is a certainty when she was being evasive "Wiped clean....you mean with a cloth"?...she knew exactly what they meant. She was lying.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Oh. Yes it's outrageous. Is that what you want to hear? Does that excuse President Trump from responsibility for lying somehow? Am I supposed to not care? Help me with your point.

/----/ You need to prove Trump was lying. Your wishful thinking doesn't count as evidence. Here's an example to help you along.
View attachment 146550

I had nothing to do with Russia. Yet his lawyer did. And reported his progress three times. And his son did. What on earth am I missing here that makes this not a lie? The fact that they never built s building? He didn't say "I had some brief conversations between my people and some Russians that never amounted to anything. " That would've been easy. But no he said "I had nothing to do with Russia". That is a lie.

Oh......so discussions by his company on Russia proves he had something to do with Russia personally?

If China talks among themselves about the United States do they have something to do with how our country acts? Does every country that mentions America run this country? If they don't deal with us but simply talk about us in private, does that mean they have something to do with us????

I hate Hillary but did she personally wipe the server clean? If not then you're cool with her lies I guess.

You're talking about something that happened as opposed to something that never happened.
In reality Hillary's ILLEGAL IN HOME Server was wiped clean. It is a certainty when she was being evasive "Wiped clean....you mean with a cloth"?...she knew exactly what they meant. She was lying.

Congratulations. You have become a Clintonnlevel apologist.

 

[nat4900]

Apparently you confuse posting your opinion with providing evidence. My meme simply clarifies my request to PROVE Trump was lying. You won't because you can't.

Whatever helps you delude yourself.....

So, Trump NEVER stated that he had NO dealings with Russia???
So, this latest cute story doe NOT prove him to be a cheap liar??

Fine, Cell........Do what you can to save yourself from a meltdown.........LOL

 

[Cellblock2429]

Apparently you confuse posting your opinion with providing evidence. My meme simply clarifies my request to PROVE Trump was lying. You won't because you can't.

Whatever helps you delude yourself.....

So, Trump NEVER stated that he had NO dealings with Russia???
So, this latest cute story doe NOT prove him to be a cheap liar??

Fine, Cell........Do what you can to save yourself from a meltdown.........LOL

/----/ Prove he did. And the only melt down is on the Left and the Never Trumpers. My guy won and I'm doing fine.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Apparently you confuse posting your opinion with providing evidence. My meme simply clarifies my request to PROVE Trump was lying. You won't because you can't.

Whatever helps you delude yourself.....

So, Trump NEVER stated that he had NO dealings with Russia???
So, this latest cute story doe NOT prove him to be a cheap liar??

Fine, Cell........Do what you can to save yourself from a meltdown.........LOL

/----/ Prove he did. And the only melt down is on the Left and the Never Trumpers. My guy won and I'm doing fine.

Hey. Bill Clinton. It's been admitted y his own lawyer. But you refuse to accept it. Your right to excuse lying, it's a free country. When someone lies to me I call them on it. You're free to lie to yourself.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Wanted to build in spite of the law. No, don't impeach, convict for treason.

What law is that?

List of American companies operating in Russia:

1. 3M
2. Abbott Laboratories
3. AbbVie
4. AECOM
5. Air Products
6. Albermarle Chemicals Representative Office
7. Alcoa SMZ (Alcoa Russia)
8. American Express Russia & CIS
9. AmeRussia St.Petersburg, Russia
10. Amrustrans
11. Amsted Rail Company
12. Amway Russia
13. Apple
14. Armstrong World Industries
15. Autodesk
16. Avis Russia
17. Avon Beauty Products Company
18. Black & Decker, Moscow Representative Office
19. Boeing Russia
20. Bristol-Myers Squibb
21. Brown-Forman Russia
22. Burger King
23. Cameron
24. Cargill
25. Caterpillar Eurasia
26. Caterpillar Tosno
27. Celgene Corporation
28. Chevron
29. Cisco Systems
30. Citi Russia
31. Citibank, Saint-Petersburg Branch
32. Coca-Cola System in Russia
33. Colgate-Palmolive
34. Compressor Controls Corporation
35. CononoPhillips Russia
36. Corning SNG
37. Crate & Barrel
38. Cummins Incorporated
39. Dell
40. Delta Air Lines
41. Dolby
42. Dow Europe
43. DuPont Science and Technologies
44. Eaton
45. Ecolab
46. ExxonMobil
47. Fluor Entrprises Group
48. Ford Sollers Holding
49. Forever 21
50. General Electric
51. General Motors Russia & cIS
52. Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories
53. Goldman Sachs
54. Google
55. Halliburton
56. Herbalife International RS
57. Hewlett Packard Enterprise
58. Hilton Russia
59. Honeywell
60. Huntsman CIS
61. IBM East Europe/Asia (NW Region Branch)
62. IBM East Europe/Asia
63. Intel
64. International Paper Russia, Moscow Branch
65. John Deere Rus
66. Johnson & Johnson
67. Johnson Controls International
68. JP Morgan
69. KBR East
70. Kellogg Rus
71. KFC
72. Kimberly-Clark
73. Kinross Gold Corporation, Moscow Representative Office
74. Krispy Kreme
75. Levi Strauss Moscow
76. Lexmark International
77. Liberty Insurance
78. Lilly Pharma
79. Mars Inc.
80. Mary Kay
81. MasterCard International
82. McDonald’s Russia
83. Medtronic
84. Metlife
85. Microsoft RUS
86. Mondelez International
87. Morgan Stanley
88. Motorola Solutions
89. Motorola Solutions, St. Petersburg Software Design Center
90. MSD Pharmaceuticals
91. NBCUniversal
92. Nike
93. NVIDIA
94. OCV Steklovolokno (Owens Corning)
95. Oracle Development SPB
96. OTIS Lift
97. PepsiCo
98. Pfizer
99. Philip Morris Izhora
100. Philip Morris Sales & Marketing
101. Procter & Gamble
102. Qualcomm Europe, Russia Branch Office
103. RAND Corporation
104. SC Johnson
105. Sealed Air
106. Sherwin-Williams
107. Software Technologies
108. Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services Europe Limited
109. Starbucks
110. Subway Russia
111. Tenneco Automotive Volga
112. The Estee Lauder Companies
113. The Walt Disney Company, CIS
114. Thermo Fisher Scientific
115. Timken-Rus Service Company
116. United Technologies International Operations
117. United Way of Russia
118. Visa
119. Walt Disney Studios Sony Pictures Releasing
120. Western Union
121. Wrigley, A subsidiary of Mars, Incorporated-St. Petersburg Branch
122. Xerox
123. YRIR (YUM! Restaurants International Russia and CIS)

AMERICAN COMPANIES OPERATING IN RUSSIA | Association of Accredited Public Policy Advocates to the European Union

Operating in Russia isn't in and of itself a violation of the sanctions against Russia. Conducting business with certain individuals and/or conducting certain types of business activities is.

Until the batshit crazy left can even point out what law it violates, it's all nonsense.

Until the batshit crazy left can even point out what law it violates, it's all nonsense.

Your expectation is unreasonable. Until a jury returns a guilty verdict, or an indictee pleads "no contest" or "guilty," no action an accused individual is alleged or known to have committed can be said to have violated any law, and, quite frankly, AFAIK, only in criminal cases decided by jury verdict can it be said that one was proven guilty. (Under the law, admissions of guilt and proof of guilt are not the same things, even though they may result in the same or similar penal outcomes.)

How is it unreasonable to ask what law it supposedly even violates?

Before a jury can convict, there has to be charges. Charges can only be brought if there is evidence a law was broken. You need to know what law is (allegedly) being violated. If you can't come up with that, you've got nothing but hot air.

How is it unreasonable to ask what law it supposedly even violates?...You need to know what law is (allegedly) being violated.

What I said was unreasonable was with regard to what you wrote in the prior post.

Until the batshit crazy left can even point out what law it violates, it's all nonsense.

Your expectation is unreasonable. Until a jury returns a guilty verdict, or an indictee pleads "no contest" or "guilty," no action an accused individual is alleged or known to have committed can be said to have violated any law, and, quite frankly, AFAIK, only in criminal cases decided by jury verdict can it be said that one was proven guilty. (Under the law, admissions of guilt and proof of guilt are not the same things, even though they may result in the same or similar penal outcomes.)

In the earlier post, you didn't inquire about the law it "supposedly" violates.

It's not unreasonable to ask what law one allegedly violated; however. doing so requires the other party to identify a specific code section(s).

If one moves to hold another party to the discussion to having to cite U.S. Code sections, fine; I have no problem with that. But once one does so, that is, once one demands input about or identification of this particular law and/or that particular law, it's not unreasonable that the person demanding Code citations be from that moment on held to a legal standard of accuracy and precision. One aspect of that standard is giving discursive credence to the difference between "law it violates" and "law it supposedly violates."

"Supposed," "might have...," "may have...," "alleged to have...," "thought to have...," "suggested to have...," "believe," "suspect," "purport," "imagine," "contend," etc....which term/phrase/syntax/construction you opt to use to indicate conditionality/subjunctivity is of no matter, what matters is that the first time round, you used no such term/phrase/syntax/construction.

It's common knowledge that the U.S. currently and for several years has had standing sanctions against Russia. As for the specific provisions of the sanctions, well, I suspect few but attorneys and non-attorneys who've read the sanctions' text and accompanying guidance will know what law might have been violated. Be that as it may, one can't say legitimately that it was discursively unreasonable to ask the other member to stipulate the law allegedly violated.

 

[cnelsen]

You can't be a traitor to a politician, ass wipe.

Hey moron, you called ME a traitor for bashing your orange clown.....LOL

You are truly one ignorant red sea pedestrian. Your treason consists of your willingness to destroy the presidency and befoul American self-government just to satisfy your own particular preferences.

 

[cnelsen]

What law is that?

List of American companies operating in Russia:

1. 3M
2. Abbott Laboratories
3. AbbVie
4. AECOM
5. Air Products
6. Albermarle Chemicals Representative Office
7. Alcoa SMZ (Alcoa Russia)
8. American Express Russia & CIS
9. AmeRussia St.Petersburg, Russia
10. Amrustrans
11. Amsted Rail Company
12. Amway Russia
13. Apple
14. Armstrong World Industries
15. Autodesk
16. Avis Russia
17. Avon Beauty Products Company
18. Black & Decker, Moscow Representative Office
19. Boeing Russia
20. Bristol-Myers Squibb
21. Brown-Forman Russia
22. Burger King
23. Cameron
24. Cargill
25. Caterpillar Eurasia
26. Caterpillar Tosno
27. Celgene Corporation
28. Chevron
29. Cisco Systems
30. Citi Russia
31. Citibank, Saint-Petersburg Branch
32. Coca-Cola System in Russia
33. Colgate-Palmolive
34. Compressor Controls Corporation
35. CononoPhillips Russia
36. Corning SNG
37. Crate & Barrel
38. Cummins Incorporated
39. Dell
40. Delta Air Lines
41. Dolby
42. Dow Europe
43. DuPont Science and Technologies
44. Eaton
45. Ecolab
46. ExxonMobil
47. Fluor Entrprises Group
48. Ford Sollers Holding
49. Forever 21
50. General Electric
51. General Motors Russia & cIS
52. Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories
53. Goldman Sachs
54. Google
55. Halliburton
56. Herbalife International RS
57. Hewlett Packard Enterprise
58. Hilton Russia
59. Honeywell
60. Huntsman CIS
61. IBM East Europe/Asia (NW Region Branch)
62. IBM East Europe/Asia
63. Intel
64. International Paper Russia, Moscow Branch
65. John Deere Rus
66. Johnson & Johnson
67. Johnson Controls International
68. JP Morgan
69. KBR East
70. Kellogg Rus
71. KFC
72. Kimberly-Clark
73. Kinross Gold Corporation, Moscow Representative Office
74. Krispy Kreme
75. Levi Strauss Moscow
76. Lexmark International
77. Liberty Insurance
78. Lilly Pharma
79. Mars Inc.
80. Mary Kay
81. MasterCard International
82. McDonald’s Russia
83. Medtronic
84. Metlife
85. Microsoft RUS
86. Mondelez International
87. Morgan Stanley
88. Motorola Solutions
89. Motorola Solutions, St. Petersburg Software Design Center
90. MSD Pharmaceuticals
91. NBCUniversal
92. Nike
93. NVIDIA
94. OCV Steklovolokno (Owens Corning)
95. Oracle Development SPB
96. OTIS Lift
97. PepsiCo
98. Pfizer
99. Philip Morris Izhora
100. Philip Morris Sales & Marketing
101. Procter & Gamble
102. Qualcomm Europe, Russia Branch Office
103. RAND Corporation
104. SC Johnson
105. Sealed Air
106. Sherwin-Williams
107. Software Technologies
108. Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services Europe Limited
109. Starbucks
110. Subway Russia
111. Tenneco Automotive Volga
112. The Estee Lauder Companies
113. The Walt Disney Company, CIS
114. Thermo Fisher Scientific
115. Timken-Rus Service Company
116. United Technologies International Operations
117. United Way of Russia
118. Visa
119. Walt Disney Studios Sony Pictures Releasing
120. Western Union
121. Wrigley, A subsidiary of Mars, Incorporated-St. Petersburg Branch
122. Xerox
123. YRIR (YUM! Restaurants International Russia and CIS)

AMERICAN COMPANIES OPERATING IN RUSSIA | Association of Accredited Public Policy Advocates to the European Union

Operating in Russia isn't in and of itself a violation of the sanctions against Russia. Conducting business with certain individuals and/or conducting certain types of business activities is.

Until the batshit crazy left can even point out what law it violates, it's all nonsense.

Until the batshit crazy left can even point out what law it violates, it's all nonsense.

Your expectation is unreasonable. Until a jury returns a guilty verdict, or an indictee pleads "no contest" or "guilty," no action an accused individual is alleged or known to have committed can be said to have violated any law, and, quite frankly, AFAIK, only in criminal cases decided by jury verdict can it be said that one was proven guilty. (Under the law, admissions of guilt and proof of guilt are not the same things, even though they may result in the same or similar penal outcomes.)

How is it unreasonable to ask what law it supposedly even violates?

Before a jury can convict, there has to be charges. Charges can only be brought if there is evidence a law was broken. You need to know what law is (allegedly) being violated. If you can't come up with that, you've got nothing but hot air.

How is it unreasonable to ask what law it supposedly even violates?...You need to know what law is (allegedly) being violated.

What I said was unreasonable was with regard to what you wrote in the prior post.

Until the batshit crazy left can even point out what law it violates, it's all nonsense.

Your expectation is unreasonable. Until a jury returns a guilty verdict, or an indictee pleads "no contest" or "guilty," no action an accused individual is alleged or known to have committed can be said to have violated any law, and, quite frankly, AFAIK, only in criminal cases decided by jury verdict can it be said that one was proven guilty. (Under the law, admissions of guilt and proof of guilt are not the same things, even though they may result in the same or similar penal outcomes.)

In the earlier post, you didn't inquire about the law it "supposedly" violates.

It's not unreasonable to ask what law one allegedly violated; however. doing so requires the other party to identify a specific code section(s).

If one moves to hold another party to the discussion to having to cite U.S. Code sections, fine; I have no problem with that. But once one does so, that is, once one demands input about or identification of this particular law and/or that particular law, it's not unreasonable that the person demanding Code citations be from that moment on held to a legal standard of accuracy and precision. One aspect of that standard is giving discursive credence to the difference between "law it violates" and "law it supposedly violates."

"Supposed," "might have...," "may have...," "alleged to have...," "thought to have...," "suggested to have...," "believe," "suspect," "purport," "imagine," "contend," etc....which term/phrase/syntax/construction you opt to use to indicate conditionality/subjunctivity is of no matter, what matters is that the first time round, you used no such term/phrase/syntax/construction.

It's common knowledge that the U.S. currently and for several years has had standing sanctions against Russia. As for the specific provisions of the sanctions, well, I suspect few but attorneys and non-attorneys who've read the sanctions' text and accompanying guidance will know what law might have been violated. Be that as it may, one can't say legitimately that it was discursively unreasonable to ask the other member to stipulate the law allegedly violated.

Trump needs to EO those sanctions null and void.

 

[cnelsen]

Snouter, what are your thoughts on the fact that dumbshit Donald blatantly lied to you during the campaign about his involvement with Russia?

Please specify what The Donald said that was a falsehood in regards to the fake news "Russian Collusion" narrative? As far as business and potential deals, as you may know the dude that runs Electro-Harmonix discussed the environment in Russia where some of the best audio tubes were made and where he purchased old military factories that produce them as somewhat chaotic and a wild, wild west kind of thing. So if The Donald was considering building a hotel or golf course in Russia, it would be smart to sign off with the top Russian officials to insure no Russian millionaire wannabes **** around with the projects. But that has nothing to do with the election and the fake news', fake Senator's, fake Congressmen's fake ass "Russian meddling" narrative! Holla if ya hear meh.

Do you have any Electro-Harmonix gear? I wonder what that tube compressor is like. That's some crazy shit.

The Donald stated that he didn't have any involvement with, or business deals with Russia, but as we're just now finding out today, his attorney reached out to the Kremlin for assistance in building a Trump Tower in Moscow during the campaign.

Not illegal.

 

[mudwhistle]

/----/ You need to prove Trump was lying. Your wishful thinking doesn't count as evidence. Here's an example to help you along.
View attachment 146550

I had nothing to do with Russia. Yet his lawyer did. And reported his progress three times. And his son did. What on earth am I missing here that makes this not a lie? The fact that they never built s building? He didn't say "I had some brief conversations between my people and some Russians that never amounted to anything. " That would've been easy. But no he said "I had nothing to do with Russia". That is a lie.

Oh......so discussions by his company on Russia proves he had something to do with Russia personally?

If China talks among themselves about the United States do they have something to do with how our country acts? Does every country that mentions America run this country? If they don't deal with us but simply talk about us in private, does that mean they have something to do with us????

I hate Hillary but did she personally wipe the server clean? If not then you're cool with her lies I guess.

You're talking about something that happened as opposed to something that never happened.
In reality Hillary's ILLEGAL IN HOME Server was wiped clean. It is a certainty when she was being evasive "Wiped clean....you mean with a cloth"?...she knew exactly what they meant. She was lying.

Congratulations. You have become a Clintonnlevel apologist.

Obviously you can't read English.

 

[nat4900]

Trump needs to EO those sanctions null and void.

By all means,let Trump do that....After all, THAT is why Putin put him in the WH to do.......

Stick to your part of the bargain, orange clown..... LOL

 

[cnelsen]

What Trump ass-kissers need to contend with.....Questions:

1.Did Trump repeatedly state that he had NO dealings with Russia?....yes or No?

2. Does this potential deal in 2015-2016 NEGATE that he had no dealings with Russia? Yes or No?

3. Were sanctions imposed on Russia during Trump's negotiations with Russia? yes or No?

Address the above questions.......and you too, right wingers, will find yourself in the little mess facing the Trumpster.....

4. Is any of this a legitimate reason to remove a sitting president from office as the outcome of a concerted effort by his political opponents which began before he even took office?

 

[cnelsen]

THAT is why Putin put him in the WH to do.......

You aren't even a serious person.

 

[Dim Bulb]

I had nothing to do with Russia. Yet his lawyer did. And reported his progress three times. And his son did. What on earth am I missing here that makes this not a lie? The fact that they never built s building? He didn't say "I had some brief conversations between my people and some Russians that never amounted to anything. " That would've been easy. But no he said "I had nothing to do with Russia". That is a lie.

Oh......so discussions by his company on Russia proves he had something to do with Russia personally?

If China talks among themselves about the United States do they have something to do with how our country acts? Does every country that mentions America run this country? If they don't deal with us but simply talk about us in private, does that mean they have something to do with us????

I hate Hillary but did she personally wipe the server clean? If not then you're cool with her lies I guess.

You're talking about something that happened as opposed to something that never happened.
In reality Hillary's ILLEGAL IN HOME Server was wiped clean. It is a certainty when she was being evasive "Wiped clean....you mean with a cloth"?...she knew exactly what they meant. She was lying.

Congratulations. You have become a Clintonnlevel apologist.

Obviously you can't read English.

Oh I can read it well enough to see when someone lies to me. You read between the words to find an outcome that matches your beliefs. Like Bill Clinton did. I simply call it for what it is. You say it's not a lie because you don't want it to be a lie and you don't want your hero besmirched in any way. But consider this: he can be your hero and also have flaws. Like lying. Doesn't make him not the President, just makes him --- dare I say it? --- fallible. What's so hard about that?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And now we have the report that Ivanka got to sit in Putin's chair.

pino trump is referred to as "our boy" by russian, but he has no ties to Russia?

Former Trump adviser says in email that he 'arranged for Ivanka to sit in Putin's private chair' during a trip to Moscow

 

[deanrd]

The Donald Trump ---- Russia Timeline ---- from 1979 until today, everything you wanted to know

"Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., said at a real estate conference in 2008, according to a trade publication, eTurboNews.

There is an entire timeline going back to 1979. Trump Jr. having meetings with and boasting about the money pouring in.

But the GOP still says "I don't see anything".

WTF does it take?

Maybe the pie is in the way?

 

[The Original Tree]

I love the Orange Clown comments by all the Hate Filled Leftist who shit on this country every day.

Do you know why?

Because while they are spitting venom, making assassination threats, and are underestimating and ridiculing Trump thinking somehow it is going to benefit them in 2018 and 2020, their fund raising is evaporating. Hell the DNC is actually in Debt.

Meanwhile, the Orange Clown is dismantling The Brown Clown's Legacy of War against the American Economy and The American Economy is rewarding President Trump with record after record...

And while the DNC is falling flat on it's face and in to debt..... THE RNC is setting fund raising records.
The Orange Clown is Winning!

Sucks to be an Effeminate Obama Cum Guzzler getting his ass whipped by an Orange Clown.

How Pathetic is that?

 

[Care4all]

What part of this don't you understand????

"The Trump Moscow proposal was simply one of many development opportunities that the Trump Organization considered and ultimately rejected," Cohen said in a written statement.​

Maxine Waters is so convinced that Bush Colluded with the Russians ,,,yet she never had any evidence,,,,just like she assumed tha Putin invaded Ukraine and dropped a few Mother Of All Bombs on them

waters is a ranking member on the house financial services committee, which is participating in the investigations into russia's interference. she has been privy to classified info.... & you aren't.

She also is a lying Democrat.
I hate to break it to you folks but we knew about Trump owning a multi-national corporation decades ago.
Just releasing shit about their considering building a tower in Russia isn't a secret.
And none of this is or ever was against the law.
This is just old news that the media is releasing that is intended to push their fucked up Russia collusion scam.

I don't think it was against the law to talk, I think it's just another piece of the Russian/Trump connection and possible quid pro quo.

Plus Trump lied about all of his connections....prosecutors and investigators take that as, having something to hide and will dig deeper.

No. It's a hypothetical based on a false narrative floated by Democrats perpetrated by the media. They're lying to you and trying to use unrelated situations to draw a false conclusion.

Whats worse is you dipshits are using a proposal that never became reality to base your arguments from. You have to read so much into your reference material and assume things that never happened for it to be even possible.

Never mind that you don't seem to understand how a large multi-national corporation works. Not every idea originates from the CEO. Trump's companies looked into building in dozens of countries. Russia was only one of them. They decided it was a waste of time, yet this allegedly proves colluding somehow. Grasping at straws much?

"Let's look into building in Russia!"
"Sorry sir, it doesn't make any sense!"
"OK, forget about it!"

This proves Collusion.

How dumb can you get.

Just answer me this mud,

why do you think trump lied about every single connection he and his son in law and everyone on his campaign team having any, even casual, connections with the Russians outside of his Miss Universe contest?

what is your logical reasoning on why Trump would lie on all of it? If it was "all nothing" and normal why did he feel the need to lie about it ALL?

what's your theory?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I cannot count the number of times since January that I've said to myself, "I'm just so done with this guy."

Trump attorney reached out to Kremlin to pursue Moscow Trump Tower project - CNNPolitics

OMG a real estate company wants to build a hotel in a foreign country!

Impeach!

Wanted to build in spite of the law. No, don't impeach, convict for treason.

I don't know whether Trump erecting a hotel or opening a resort in Russia would violate U.S. sanctions against Russia. It could be that what Trump was doing did indeed violate the sanctions because it seems his firm's dealings may have involved Putin himself, or perhaps one of the "designated" Putin cronies.

I'll be honest. I don't have enough details about what Trump Organization's attorney(s) did, and I haven't fully read the sanctions detail.

• Very high level Russia sanctions summary
• Sanctions Overview
• Sanctions Text
• Sanctions "portal" containing supplemental materials, guidance, lists and reference materials, etc.

I think that it is a foregone conclusion that in any large construction deals within Russia (particularly in Moscow) one MUST deal with Russian oligarchs (aka, mafiosos)

It could be that is so; that's certainly plausible and it is to a significant degree of probability. I'm, however, not among the people who know it to be so, and I don't know whether every Russian oligarch is among the "designated" individuals. Thus I don't think it so.

I realize a point of the sanctions is to penalize Putin and his cronies -- I suspect that, more so that penalizing the Russian people, is a big part of their being -- thus the reason for the 14 (?) "designated" individuals. I don't have a problem with that, for I think Putin a despot, and despots are held in place by their cronies. What I don't know, and haven't tried to find out, is how many Russian so-called oligarchs there are and which of them are Putin's cronies. It could be that all of them are, but for now, I'm uncertain as to whether Russia is indeed or in substance an oligarchy. If it is, it stands to reason that all Russian "oligarchs" are Putin cronies because that's how oligarchy works.