bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,328
- 2,180
The campaign didn't ask him to go to Russia or pay for his trip. The campaign's responsibility is nil.
He went to Russia on behalf of the campaign with the knowledge of the campaign. We know this because he admitted it.
What the hell is "on behalf of the campaign" supposed to mean? The answer is, nothing. He wasn't asked to go there. That's the bottom line. "With the knowledge of the campaign" means nothing. The campaign wasn't paying him anything, so what power did it have to stop him?
In typical lib fashion, you're abusing English to make a nothing burger sound like something. The word "collusion" is an example of the same thing.