EXCLUSIVE: Trump says he would take information again if foreigners offered dirt on opponents

Here’s the problem: whether or not something is relevant is not clearly defined. Team Trump insists that the Russians provided irrelevant information on Clinton. There needs to be more clarification or perhaps a law stating that all information provided by a foreign government should be reported to the FBI or CIA.

Read the Mueller report. Trump could shoot Melania on 5th Avenue tomorrow and not get indicted.

The reality is that the administration spent years trying to pretend the very thing he now brags about doing in 2020 never occurred. And why? Because they lie constantly about basically everything and so many have just come to accept it as okay as long as “the libs” are being owned.

I wouldn’t call listening to what a foreigner or even a foreign state has to say collusion. I’d call it free speech. A further act would be required for it to be collusion, some sort of criminal conspiracy. It is not a crime to hear what they have to say, otherwise we wouldn’t have all heard just how much many foreign leaders despised Trump and why before the election, because it would have been illegal for us to hear it.

Did you read the statement of the FEC chairman?

It was that the crime that wasn’t fully proven. There was evidence but apparently not enough. The Report didn’t absolve him.


  1. secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Did Trump’s people engage in secret meetings with Russians aimed at obtaining illegally hacked “dirt” on their political opponents? Yes.

Was Trump engaged in business dealings with Russia throughout much of the campaign? Yes.

Did several of Trump’s associates have communications with Russian officials that they claimed never took place? Yes.

Did Trump’s campaign go out of it’s way to weaken the Republican Party platform when it came to Russia’s invasion of Crimea? Yes.

Did the Trump administration contact Russia to let them know of their intention to remove sanctions put in place by President Obama after the election meddling? Yes.

Did Trump repeatedly ignore every intelligence and law enforcement agency by claiming Russia had nothing to do with the election meddling or hacking? Yes.

Certainly seems like some secretive cooperation took place and it also is more than evident that there was an attempt to deceive others, hence the rampant lying. The actions by the Trump campaign and Russia should definitely be considered collusion.

1 Like

Yes, I reject your appeal to authority. She doesn’t make the law.

The President is the first pro-collusion candidate of 2020.

It’s a bold strategy, Cotton.

1 Like

Not proven to my knowledge

Not illegal.

Not illegal


Not proven to my knowledge.

Not illegal

Let me know when you have evidence they broke the law. However the topic here is what he said in the interview regarding being willing to listen to what a foreigner or foreign government had to say regarding dirt on an opponent. Which is not illegal. Presidents, just like all Americans, have every right to listen to what anyone has to say, foreign or domestic.

That’s like saying we shouldn’t accept Barr’s summary about conspiracy (he call’s it collusion knowing there is no such crime) because he didn’t make the laws.

We already have evidence he broke the law. Nothing can be done about it other than impeachment, which will never happen because Mitch McConnell controls the Senate and Republicans value trolling liberals more than they do the health and reputation of America.

Trump could sell nuclear secrets to Venezuela tomorrow and nothing would be done about it. The GOP would call it a smart business decision and the Democrats would be too scared of polling numbers out of rural Ohio to do anything.

1 Like

Actually it is and Mueller stated had jr known about the laws he would have been charged…but why other with facts

No he did not say that, but why bother with facts?
He also said there was a question as to whether the “information” had any value that could be determined…and that “value” had to be established before the statute applied.
He also admitted that there was a first amendment question as to whether one can listen to the reporting of factual information.

“They have information — I think I’d take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI — if I thought it was something wrong.”

Excellent answer. If there were information concerning potential illegalities, it would be the correct and patriotic thing to find out what it was. Once illegal activity is established you report it to the FBI. If it turns out to be junk, you throw it away.

P.S. Bigger question…why does Trump sit there and do extemporaneous responses to questions by the likes of Stephanopolous?

Oh, so Trump himself gets to be the arbiter of whether or not “there is something wrong”?

Do you not see the logical inconsistency there?

1 Like

Because he’s stupid.

1 Like

If it’s good for Trump there’s nothing wrong with the information. Very reliable!

No. Any individual makes his own determination of whether to report something to the authorities.
Why report a nothing?

Sure, Trump Junior should have alerted Comey, Brennan, McCabe, and Clapper to the fact that the Russian woman they sent to make the claim that she had Russian dirt on Clinton was claiming she had Russian dirt on Clinton. And then what would those agency heads have done?

And I don’t get that. Where else does ignorance excuse you? It should be here least of all.