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

[JBond]

Steele himself said he used active Kremlin agents to create the dossier. Then Clinton and the FBI tried to take out Trump with the dossier.

Blondie INSISTS on the title of MAIN IDIOT on this thread........

If, moron, the dossier was meant to "take out Trump".....why the **** was it published in full by BuzzFeed on January 10th, 2017.....TWO MONTHS AFTER THE DAMN ELECTION????

If, moron, the dossier was meant to "take out Trump"...

The Clinton campaign wasted money to collect a dossier to "not take out Trump"?

Does your moron village know their King is missing?

The Clinton partnership with the FBI and intelligence services is what I was alluding to. They worked hand-in-hand together. She paid for it and Clapper sold it as legit to anyone that would listen.

 

[nat4900]

The Clinton partnership with the FBI and intelligence services is what I was alluding to. They worked hand-in-hand together. She paid for it and Clapper sold it as legit to anyone that would listen.

LOL

 

[JBond]

You guys keep saying that Hillary was the one that originally commissioned the Steele dossier. Hate to tell you guys, but it was actually a conservative group that asked for it. When they found out that Trump was going to be the nominee, that is when it was offered to Hillary.

The dossier was created long after the opposition research from a Repug had ended. The dossier was all Clinton, Obama, the FBI, and the Intelligence community.

 

[JBond]

The Clinton partnership with the FBI and intelligence services is what I was alluding to. They worked hand-in-hand together. She paid for it and Clapper sold it as legit to anyone that would listen.

LOL

View attachment 208871

Clapper hand delivered the dossier to multiple Democrats and sold it as verified. Yes, Clinton and the agencies worked together on this project.

 

[Skylar]

The question on the Trump campaign’s collusion with the Russians is answered.

Of course they did.

.....and for those Trump acolytes who will respond with "well, "collusion" is not against the law".......here's a reminder of synomyms

Fmr FBI Official Chuck Rosenberg: "Collusion" And "Conspiracy" Are ...
View attachment 208863▶ 1:38
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/.../fmr_fbi_official_chuck_rosenbe...
6 days ago - Uploaded by MSNBC
We call it 'conspiracy." ... Fmr FBI Official Chuck Rosenberg: "Collusion" And "Conspiracy" Are Synonyms ...

So. The Russians attacked our country to interfere with our election and give Trump the White House.

And the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Russians.

 

[easyt65]

Meeting to seek out opposition research is NOT illegal.

No Crime.

No Evidence of A Crime.

No case.

 

[JBond]

Steele himself said he used active Kremlin agents to create the dossier. Then Clinton and the FBI tried to take out Trump with the dossier.

Blondie INSISTS on the title of MAIN IDIOT on this thread........

If, moron, the dossier was meant to "take out Trump".....why the **** was it published in full by BuzzFeed on January 10th, 2017.....TWO MONTHS AFTER THE DAMN ELECTION????

It was used for months to spy on the Trump campaign. Are you ******* retarded?

 

[Skylar]

Meeting to seek out opposition research is NOT illegal.

No Crime.

No Evidence of A Crime.

No case.

Trump admitting that the purpose of the meeting between his campaign chairman and a Russian operative was to collect information against Hillary Clinton is most definitely evidence.

Trump dictating lies on that meeting to be told to the public is most definitely evidence.

Trump’s personal attorney admitting that Trump was aware of the meeting is definitely evidence.

The Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. And then lied to try and cover it up.

 

[Meister]

Meeting to seek out opposition research is NOT illegal.

No Crime.

No Evidence of A Crime.

No case.

Trump admitting that the purpose of the meeting between his campaign chairman and a Russian operative was to collect information against Hillary Clinton is most definitely evidence.

Trump dictating lies on that meeting to be told to the public is most definitely evidence.

Trump’s personal attorney admitting that Trump was aware of the meeting is definitely evidence.

The Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. And then lied to try and cover it up.

What crime? Even if that is true

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....remember when Trump insisted that any report of even *contact* between the Russians and the Trump campaign was “fake news”?

......and Mueller hasn’t even completed his investigation.

 

[Meister]

Laughing.....remember when Trump insisted that any report of even *contact* between the Russians and the Trump campaign was “fake news”?

......and Mueller hasn’t even completed his investigation.

What's the crime?

 

[Skylar]

Meeting to seek out opposition research is NOT illegal.

No Crime.

No Evidence of A Crime.

No case.

Trump admitting that the purpose of the meeting between his campaign chairman and a Russian operative was to collect information against Hillary Clinton is most definitely evidence.

Trump dictating lies on that meeting to be told to the public is most definitely evidence.

Trump’s personal attorney admitting that Trump was aware of the meeting is definitely evidence.

The Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. And then lied to try and cover it up.

What crime? Even if that is true

Laughing.....notice how they don’t even try and and argue that the Trump campaign didn’t collide with the Russians now.

And to answer your question.....conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

 

[Care4all]

The candidate/campaign, has to be aware that those supplying the information are foreign nationals or a foreign government....

Did Hillary's campaign know that the British guy, Steele, was getting info from Russians?
Did they know those were foreign nationals?

Unlikely.... The GPS owner was questioned 10 hours before Congress and from what little that was leaked on the under oath testimony, Steele didn't even know that Hillary and the DNC were the clients....

BTW, how do you know who Steele got his information from...?

Was that even reported to us anywhere?

(If they were Russians, they were obviously "Double Agents")

 

[Meister]

Meeting to seek out opposition research is NOT illegal.

No Crime.

No Evidence of A Crime.

No case.

Trump admitting that the purpose of the meeting between his campaign chairman and a Russian operative was to collect information against Hillary Clinton is most definitely evidence.

Trump dictating lies on that meeting to be told to the public is most definitely evidence.

Trump’s personal attorney admitting that Trump was aware of the meeting is definitely evidence.

The Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. And then lied to try and cover it up.

What crime? Even if that is true

Laughing.....notice how they don’t even try and and argue that the Trump campaign didn’t collide with the Russians now.

And to answer your question.....conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Nope, all you're doing is getting ahead of yourself

 

[OKTexas]

Trump himself tweeted 17 July 2017 that most politicians would have taken that meeting. So there were no major revaluations about anything this weekend

Of course, that ia not the same as admitting he lied about both the intent and about knowing the intent. And yes, the reports from people close to him that he had foreknowledge are also new development.s

Go ahead , throw your little hissy. But when you are done, I suggest you send your assurances to the trump aides in the white house. They sure could use the soothing words!

Name the people that said Trump had this foreknowledge. Where's your links?

.

Cohen, Bannon, Nunberg.

Look it up tourself. You should feel embarrassed for the way you have been prancing and dancing and preening through this thread, despite nor being in possession of the most basic facts regarding the topic.

Didn't you say it's NEW information? Simple concept, PROVE IT.

.

 

[Skylar]

Meeting to seek out opposition research is NOT illegal.

No Crime.

No Evidence of A Crime.

No case.

Trump admitting that the purpose of the meeting between his campaign chairman and a Russian operative was to collect information against Hillary Clinton is most definitely evidence.

Trump dictating lies on that meeting to be told to the public is most definitely evidence.

Trump’s personal attorney admitting that Trump was aware of the meeting is definitely evidence.

The Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. And then lied to try and cover it up.

What crime? Even if that is true

Laughing.....notice how they don’t even try and and argue that the Trump campaign didn’t collide with the Russians now.

And to answer your question.....conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Nope, all you're doing is getting ahead of yourself

And exactly as I said, there’s not even an attempt to deny that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.

 

[Meister]

Meeting to seek out opposition research is NOT illegal.

No Crime.

No Evidence of A Crime.

No case.

Trump admitting that the purpose of the meeting between his campaign chairman and a Russian operative was to collect information against Hillary Clinton is most definitely evidence.

Trump dictating lies on that meeting to be told to the public is most definitely evidence.

Trump’s personal attorney admitting that Trump was aware of the meeting is definitely evidence.

The Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. And then lied to try and cover it up.

What crime? Even if that is true

Laughing.....notice how they don’t even try and and argue that the Trump campaign didn’t collide with the Russians now.

And to answer your question.....conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Nope, all you're doing is getting ahead of yourself

And exactly as I said, there’s not even an attempt to deny that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.

I hate to burst your bubble, dude, but, I don't have to deny something that isn't there.
Like I said, your getting ahead of yourself.

 

[nat4900]

What's the crime?

Nothing. nothing....Go back to sleep ...All is well.....LOL

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't have to deny something that isn't there.

Are you saying you are certain the Trump campaign did not do this?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Didn't you say it's NEW information?

I did, and it is. And we know it is new because Trump's statement came out today, while Cohen's and Nunberg's statement were made over the last two weeks.

I should prove to you that 2 weeks is shorter than one year? You're talking gibberish. Get yourself together, man.