Did the British spy on Trump and tell Obama?

DougBH · 2019-04-25T00:14:22.761Z

JayJay:

DougBH:

I consider it a duty. Any such information could be handed over to the proper authorities, with assurances that it also go to the media.
Why the media?
Should Strzok be the one to determine what happens to pro Trump and anti Hillary information?

Obviously that information could not have been used without the authorities knowning about it.

I’m sure Trump’s campaign staff would have handed over anything they got to the media and then the authorities.

I mean, they showed such a willingness to be transparent about the meetings they were having in the first place…

What would have been the point of getting stuff on Hillary and keeping it away from the media and away from the authorities?
If they used it in their campaign that would have immediately have notified both.
You think they were going to put it in a safe somewhere?

JayJay · 2019-04-25T00:25:31.060Z

I always have a hard time believing you’re serious about half the stuff you post…

DougBH · 2019-04-25T00:27:09.860Z

JayJay:

I always have a hard time believing you’re serious about half the stuff you post…

Admit you didn’t think it through. If they got something showing hillary did something illegal then the very nature of using it would have notified the authorities. It would have been impossible to use it without notifying them.
Why would they not want to notify the authorities?

JayJay · 2019-04-25T00:30:07.704Z

DougBH:

JayJay:

I always have a hard time believing you’re serious about half the stuff you post…

Admit you didn’t think it through. If they got something showing hillary did something illegal then the very nature of using it would have notified the authorities. It would have been impossible to use it without notifying them.
Why would they not want to notify the authorities?

I thought it through completely.

They wouldn’t give it to the authorities and the media by saying “Hey! Look what the Russians are doing!”

Which would be my translation of what you meant by you considering it your duty to take the materials.

They would USE the materials and not tell anyone where they got it.

Now…if you meant something else by it being your duty, you can explain.

In the meantime, my point stands…I have a hard time believing you’re serious about half the stuff you post.

It’s just reflexive defense of anything Trump and his guys do.

DougBH · 2019-04-25T00:33:08.860Z

Ok. I don’t believe youre serious either. There. We’re even.

Anything they got would have been meaningless unless the source were proven. Which is reason enough why the Democrats couldn’t use their Dossier. They couldn’t prove anything.

If Don Jr. had gotten information you have no idea what he would have done with it. That is just idle speculation on how you feel about Trump.

JayJay · 2019-04-25T00:39:13.991Z

DougBH:

Ok. I don’t believe youre serious either. There. We’re even.

Anything they got would have been meaningless unless the source were proven. Which is reason enough why the Democrats couldn’t use their Dossier. They couldn’t prove anything.

If Don Jr. had gotten information you have no idea what he would have done with it. That is just idle speculation on how you feel about Trump.

Anything would have been meaningless without the source proven?

This is what I mean.

You know how people’s minds work- you know that’s absolutely not true.

DougBH · 2019-04-25T00:42:32.689Z

One could start an unsupported rumor without any proof or any source. All you have to do is look at the last two years of wasted speculation on Trump/Russia collusion to see that.
Eventually it catches up if there is no proof.
Using what they had, if they had gotten anything, would have required providing evidence.
Again, since they got nothing you have no idea what they would have done with the evidence if they had gotten it.
If they just went public with the evidence, you don’t thing someone would have asked how they knew or where they got it from?
Seriously?
You are basically trying to condemn them for something that never happened but that you imagine would have happened a certain way if it had happened.

Jezcoe · 2019-04-25T00:52:16.829Z

DougBH:

One could start an unsupported rumor without any proof or any source. All you have to do is look at the last two years of wasted speculation on Trump/Russia collusion to see that.
Eventually it catches up if there is no proof.
Using what they had, if they had gotten anything, would have required providing evidence.
Again, since they got nothing you have no idea what they would have done with the evidence if they had gotten it.
If they just went public with the evidence, you don’t thing someone would have asked how they knew or where they got it from?
Seriously?
You are basically trying to condemn them for something that never happened but that you imagine would have happened a certain way if it had happened.

And as we know from the Trump campaign… Candidate Trump shied away from making claims about his opponents that weren’t 100% verified.

DougBH · 2019-04-25T01:26:04.083Z

Jezcoe:

And as we know from the Trump campaign… Candidate Trump shied away from making claims about his opponents that weren’t 100% verified.

Again, as the two year Russia/Trump hysteria proved, you don’t need real evidence to make claims about illegal activities. If you have real evidence, you have to prove it and the authorities will be asking about it.

Zander · 2019-04-25T01:38:20.517Z

The information would have been meaningless unless they divulged the ultimate source? That statement cannot be taken seriously. I agree with the other poster. There is no way you possibly believe that’s true.

What in the literal world makes you think the trump campaign would have felt any obligation to divulge the source? Trump won’t even release his own tax returns, and we’re supposed to believe his campaign was preoccupied with transparency and sourcing information?

I can see it now…Don Jr. holds a press conference to reveal to the public that the dirt he obtained in Hillary actually originated from Russian intelligence services. ■■■■ out of here dude.

Zander · 2019-04-25T01:41:34.437Z

DougBH:

Jezcoe:

And as we know from the Trump campaign… Candidate Trump shied away from making claims about his opponents that weren’t 100% verified.

Again, as the two year Russia/Trump hysteria proved, you don’t need real evidence to make claims about illegal activities. If you have real evidence, you have to prove it and the authorities will be asking about it.

Exactly. You don’t need evidence to make claims. And if you do have “evidence,” in the context of a campaign, you sure as hell don’t have to divulge it, ever.

zantax · 2019-04-25T08:31:30.319Z

Adam:

Cratic3947:

Jezcoe:

Cratic3947:

After the no collusion conclusion, it does… Look at all the countries that interfered in our elections.

If one reads the Mueller report, one would see a willingness on the part of the Trump campaign to meet with assets that were considered Russian Intelligence.

The fact that it was so brazen that British Intelligence thought it was crazy should tell you something.

How come the left keeps making such claims without any quotes from the report. The tower meeting was debunked long ago. No American was found to collude. And that’s 12 angry dems looking for it…

Jesus. Here’s what the report said about that meeting:

“On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful," the report reads. “The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context.”

Mueller declined to charge Donald Trump Jr. for meeting with Russian lawyer

They didn’t think they’d be able to prove that Junior and the others knew what they were doing was illegal. Does that help you? I know you’ll just ignore this.

Information, had they been given any, does not constitute a contribution. And if it was, Hillary and the DNC would be just as guilty.

akiko · 2019-04-25T08:54:17.707Z

2 weeks

SimplyTrying · 2019-04-25T09:35:24.422Z

ohknow35:

If nothing was done wrong or illegally, then I’m sure dimocrats won’t mind it happening to their candidates.

Thanks in advance.

No, I don’t want Russia picking my president.

DougBH · 2019-04-25T13:15:11.892Z

Zander:

The information would have been meaningless unless they divulged the ultimate source? That statement cannot be taken seriously. I agree with the other poster. There is no way you possibly believe that’s true.

What in the literal world makes you think the trump campaign would have felt any obligation to divulge the source? Trump won’t even release his own tax returns, and we’re supposed to believe his campaign was preoccupied with transparency and sourcing information?

I can see it now…Don Jr. holds a press conference to reveal to the public that the dirt he obtained in Hillary actually originated from Russian intelligence services. ■■■■ out of here dude.

Lets fantasize it happens your way. Don Jr. holds a press conference saying that Hillary did bad stuff but I can’t tell you the evidence or where it came from.
Yeah. CNN is going to let it go at that and blast Hillary for unsourced accusations.
You don’t really believe that. (see…anybody can say you don’t believe it)

Borgia_dude · 2019-04-25T14:40:41.339Z

conan:

The Report confirms that the June 9, 2016 meeting was just what Don said it was, and nothing more,

Oh? So it was just about Russian adoptions and nothing more?

rolltide · 2019-04-25T15:25:50.185Z

Cratic3947:

Here’s an article from 2017 that says they did. And they were not the only ones…

Always a conspiracy. Always a fairy-tale.
That stuff is great in kindergarten, not in the adult world.

conan · 2019-04-25T15:35:23.658Z

Do you have proof otherwise?

Borgia_dude · 2019-04-25T15:41:38.782Z

conan:

Do you have proof otherwise?

You think the Trump meeting was just about Russian adoptions like Don Jr said?

adroit · 2019-04-25T15:46:46.255Z

zantax:

Information, had they been given any, does not constitute a contribution. And if it was, Hillary and the DNC would be just as guilty.

If it’s not paid for, it sure as hell does.