Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

50/50 chance this speech ends with "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN"

 

Followed by God Bless America

Edited by retread
Posted

Can a Trump supporter please inform me why, even if there was “no collusion,” you’re okay with the fact that an enemy of our country worked to get your guy elected? And how was it okay for him to praise the interference publicly (i.e. “Russia if you’re listening..” and “I love Wikileaks...”)? Is it okay simply because it was Hillary Clinton? I’m still at a loss how, even if the report is as good as he and Barr claim, this whole situation is okay. From my perspective it’s clearly all about your “team” and hatred for the opposition, essentially anything that keeps a Democrat out of office is okay, including interference from an enemy that supports your team. I just can’t believe that’s where we are in our two party system.

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, 'stache said:

Can a Trump supporter please inform me why, even if there was “no collusion,” you’re okay with the fact that an enemy of our country worked to get your guy elected? And how was it okay for him to praise the interference publicly (i.e. “Russia if you’re listening..” and “I love Wikileaks...”)? Is it okay simply because it was Hillary Clinton? I’m still at a loss how, even if the report is as good as he and Barr claim, this whole situation is okay. From my perspective it’s clearly all about your “team” and hatred for the opposition, essentially anything that keeps a Democrat out of office is okay, including interference from an enemy that supports your team. I just can’t believe that’s where we are in our two party system.

BECUASE HER EMAILS

That was easy. 

  • Like 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Can a Trump supporter please inform me why, even if there was “no collusion,” you’re okay with the fact that an enemy of our country worked to get your guy elected? And how was it okay for him to praise the interference publicly (i.e. “Russia if you’re listening..” and “I love Wikileaks...”)? Is it okay simply because it was Hillary Clinton? I’m still at a loss how, even if the report is as good as he and Barr claim, this whole situation is okay. From my perspective it’s clearly all about your “team” and hatred for the opposition, essentially anything that keeps a Democrat out of office is okay, including interference from an enemy that supports your team. I just can’t believe that’s where we are in our two party system.

Dj2e0w9VAAAraKs.jpg

  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So it wasn't illegal for the Trump campaign to get documents from WikiLeaks and other sources because it would only be illegal if those sources were the ones who hacked the system. What a technicality.

It's also not true. I've defended multiple people charged with "receipt of stolen property."

Unless there's no Federal analogue.

Posted
2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Can a Trump supporter please inform me why, even if there was “no collusion,” you’re okay with the fact that an enemy of our country worked to get your guy elected? And how was it okay for him to praise the interference publicly (i.e. “Russia if you’re listening..” and “I love Wikileaks...”)? Is it okay simply because it was Hillary Clinton? I’m still at a loss how, even if the report is as good as he and Barr claim, this whole situation is okay. From my perspective it’s clearly all about your “team” and hatred for the opposition, essentially anything that keeps a Democrat out of office is okay, including interference from an enemy that supports your team. I just can’t believe that’s where we are in our two party system.

Tax cuts!  Kavanaugh!

Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

Welp fuck, bottom dropped out of the Trump Jr. indictment markets based on the presser.  I'm holding the position until the doc drops. 

What price did you get on it? It's definitely still a good bet... 

Posted
1 minute ago, Red Five said:

Well that sure sounded like total exoneration. Report must be clean as a whistle!

Resummarizing your 4 page summary is a lot like when you're summarizing the Cliff Notes in your essay. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Chet Steadman said:

Don’t really like the guy but Barre sure is smooth.  

I know what you mean, and I agree. He's unfortunately well-versed in dissembling and being a R hack.

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, TxTower said:


Not true.

Yeah the IC has put out a full report on it and now the special counsel has said it too. The executive branch just doesn't care because it was for him.

Edited by SimonBolivar
Posted (edited)

no executive priviledge invoked?

wikileaks and other hack provided info was considered public since no trump associated hacking?  can't collude/obstruct with public information?

mueller-comedy-basketball-ref.jpg

Edited by zork
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted

So basically Trump campaign actively colluded with Wikileaks to distribute material hacked by Russia, but its not technically illegal.  So no collusion.  Got it.

Posted
Just now, Horn Dog said:

So basically Trump campaign actively colluded with Wikileaks to distribute material hacked by Russia, but its not technically illegal.  So no collusion.  Got it.

Exactly.

Posted
Just now, Horn Dog said:

So basically Trump campaign actively colluded with Wikileaks to distribute material hacked by Russia, but its not technically illegal.  So no collusion.  Got it.

Idk about you, but when I'm really frustrated, I find that obstructing justice makes me feel better. 

Posted

so, when donald trump junior met with russians about dirt on hillary, which we know about, because HE released those emails, that was not collusion?

these cockroaches are hiding in plain sight, yall

  • Like 5
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Yeah the IC has put out a full report on it and now the special counsel has said it too. The executive branch just doesn't care because it was for him.

Yep.

DNI released a report in Jan 17 and, I think, another one recently. The forward facing side of our govt (primarily executive) has only tangentially acknowledged the Russian meddling, has shown no outrage about it, has not imposed any significant santions on Russia, and has said 'why would it have been Russia.'

Our intel chiefs appear before Congress every 6-9 months and say, "it's a serious situation, and cyber hacking continues." Then, we hear no more of it.

We basically don't acknowledge the threat.

Edited by retread
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...