Southern Chicken
Verified User
We Do? Or does it mean not one way or the other? Like the Mueller report states
Nancy has been waiting because she wants more than just impeachment-JAIL!!
- Thread starter Bill
- Start date
We Do? Or does it mean not one way or the other? Like the Mueller report states
This is what I'm saying. Everyone says read the report. I read the report. If you think Trump is guilty you should say why. Not just say read the report
Sharing polling data is illegal? I didn't know that. Why would that be illegal and what does that have to do with Trump. I don't see Trump's name in your response.
You read the rreport?
Then what do you make of this:
Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a "backdoor" way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html
That's campaign collusion, isn't it?
Might not be illegal, but it is definitely collusion, right?
Didn't Trump say "no one in my campaign had any contact with Russia"?
He did say that.
So he lied.
So since he lied about that, what else is he lying about?
I never said it was...
What i said was that it was collusion.
Also, you all said that Trump's people "had no contact with Russia".
That's not true, is it?
It's also not true that there's no collusion, since Manafort colluded with Russia to share them polling data from PA, MI, WI, and MN...all states Mueller says were targeted by Russian trolls at the IRA, to whom Manafort's Russian buddy is tied. When Manafort colluded with Russia, he was Trump's campaign chairman.
How about Trump's attempt to get McGahn to fire Mueller?
Or Trump's Counsel reaching out to dangle a pardon to Flynn when he learned Flynn was cooperating with the SC?
The Manafort stuff just establishes that Trump's team colluded with Russia. Whether or not that collusion is illegal doesn't matter; collusion is collusion.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Barr has an impeccable reputation
If Congress thinks he lied they should do something about it. Since they aren’t he didn’t. Simple
Nothing in your post shows illegality, not one word of it. You will have to do better than that to get a conviction and an impeachment trial.
Well, at least you're not denying that Manafort colluded with Russia.
Baby steps, I guess.
So if you understand and accept that Manafort colluded with Russia, what does it matter if that collusion was illegal? It was still collusion, so your "no collusion" narrative falls completely apart.
I never said it was illegal!
What I said was that it was collusion.
Collusion can still happen and not be illegal.
Trump's people colluded with Russia...so there goes your "no collusion" narrative, doofus!
Yes, it is collusion.
And he didn't "show" him the data...he gave it to him over the entire campaign and election, just like Mueller's report says.
That does not fit the definition of illegal collusion. He can show data to anyone he wants. Manaforte is not in prison for anything related to the campaign.
Its not illegal collusion nor election tampering. Not even close.
That's because there is no legal definition of illegal collusion.
So..you moved the bar from "No collusion" to "No illegal collusion".
So great...so you're admitting there was collusion.
Wow.
This isn't going well for you.
It's not illegal collusion because there is no legal definition of illegal collusion.
So it's just plain, old, regular collusion.
Now, if you're trying to shift the goalposts to say that collusion is OK, that's cool, but just know that you can't argue "no collusion" anymore when you're admitting collusion took place.
So that's why you're moving the goalposts to "illegal collusion", isn't it?
GOALPOST SHIFT!
So before, you were saying "no collusion".
Now, you're saying "no illegal collusion".
So you're admitting there was collusion.
Good job.
So before, you were saying "no collusion".
Now, you're saying "no illegal collusion".
So you're admitting there was collusion.
Good job.
You are the only one saying collusion occurred. All of the legal scholars and even democrats do not see collusion in the campaign or Mueller's report. That is why they moved on to obstruction but the investigation was not obstructed.
Why did Manafort collude with Russian spies by sharing polling data with them for PA, MI, WI, and MN for months during the campaign and election?
Why did Trump's Counsel reach out to Flynn when they learned Flynn was cooperating with Mueller?
These questions aren't ever going to go away, so you better start thinking how you're going to answer them better.