Definitely Collusion, I think. But is that a bad thing?

If we stipulate that Natalia Veselnitskaya had links to the Russian government. If we go so far as to say she worked directly with Putin. Does that mean it is wrong for anyone to meet with her? IF that is so, then do we need a state department at all. Or is it just Russia that is forbidden? what about anyone that does business with Russia? Should we leave NATO because our allies trade with Russia? Should we shred every treaty with Russia and go to war?

Now if it is wrong for only Trump to meet with anyone from Russia why ae there different rules for Trump than everyone else?

Too many questions I think. But, if 8it wrong for Trump Jr. to meet with her because they were involved in a campaign. Was it also wrong for any other political operative to meet with her? What about a DOJ official, is that wrong?

we know that there was a meeting at Trump tower. We also know that Orr met with the same Russian lawyer. was he colluding to influence the election. We know that she also met with Fusion GPS, was that collusion? How far removed does a presidential candidate have to be in order for a meeting to be ok?

Finally if it was wrong for the Trump campaign, was it ok for the Clinton campaign? why?

I believe this is called transitioning to acceptance.


not really, it was trying to pint out that many people met with that Russian agent and some got a dossier from it, but that seems to be ok

You’re playing the game of false equivalence. It’s admirable, but will lead you to acceptance. It’s all good, you’ll get there eventually.


We’ve definitely hit the “so what” point in defending Trump.


I’m going to focus on the Russia meeting because bringing up Hillary is silly.
In my opinion, as it stands right now, trump did not commit a crime, but Donnie jr might be in a world of ■■■■ with perjury.

Don jr accepted a meeting that was explicitly offering the help of the Russian government. There’s a chasm of difference between that and paying someone to use their contacts to research an opponent.

1 Like

Accepted the meeting after Russian hacking was already in the news, and after the FBI warned the Trump campaign to be alert.

Next up: so what if one candidate solicited hacked voter databases and used them? So what if he offered relief from sanctions in return?

You had any doubts we’d get there?

When this all started, I staked my claim at the beginning that even if something came of the investigation…nothing would come of it.

There’s no honor or principle anymore…they’re just winning and sticking it to your opponents.

Because your opponents aren’t just wrong- they’re evil.

1 Like

Who won the pool? I know a number of posters predicted that.

While kicking and screaming.

Come on OP…

Here are some key quotes from the email transcripts:

“Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday.” And then…“This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump" And that it includes “official documents and information” about Democrat Hillary Clinton. And finally Trump Jr. said- "If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer”


Is this a crime? What law is broken? Natalia Veselnitskaya is not a Russian government official. Don Jr. lied to the press, however, there was no collusion directly with a foreign government…end of story!

I don’t think we’re in the final stage. I think Trump supporters have one more to go, if in fact the ■■■■ hits the fan. Its the final “what are you going to do about it” stage.

1 Like

Reread my previous post of the email transcripts. It’s pretty much plain as day.

You guys are scrambling now. Take a deep breath and get your stories straight. I know you lot wants to run cover for Trump regardless, but these current cover stories are a mess.

Rhetoric is the best way to respond when you don’t have any pertinent info.

Here is Trump Jrs testimony to the Senate-

Q:What was the ‘it’ that you loved in that e-mail?”
A: Potential information about an opponent.
Q: Potential incriminating information on Hillary Clinton?
A: Yes.
Q: And what about the thing that says, “It is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr . Trump.” Did you also love that?
A: I don’t know. I don’t recall.
Q. Did you understand that that would be problematic?
A. I didn’t think that listening to someone with information relevant to the fitness and character of a Presidential candidate would be an issue, no.

Yeah- ugly.

We’ve all heard that “end of story” thing here for over a year. And the investigation keeps slowly plugging along and more details emerge seemingly daily. This thing is probably two years from being over.