just like libs claimed Bush should have known about 9-11 because he was warned. Yeah… along with hundreds of other warnings about possible methods and possible dates and possible places of attack. Yeah… he was warned.
I thought I already answered this. Maybe not. Let me elucidate.
You are putting the cart before the horse like so many other trumpers. You have the investigation to discover crimes - not the other way around.
and Mueller is the Aflac duck, the Geico gecko, Progressive’s ‘Flo’, Allstate’s hands, and State Farm’s good neighbor all rolled into one.
1 Like
So, you wouldn’t agree the bar should be pretty high as to confidence a crime has been committed to launch an investigation of your opposition parties Presidential campaign during a hotly contested election?
there is always some event and evidence of a possible crime that precipitates an investigation. What was the event?
Hillary Clinton’s loss on November 8, 2016.
The bar was high. You just ignore that.
Well that’s the assertion anyway, I think proof is warranted.
Patience grasshopper.
There are substantial missing dots that require connecting for this statement to be even close to true. We all know that…
2 Likes
Trump sycophants cannot be bothered with context. It ruins the conspiracy theory.
The intelligence community had extremely high confidence that Russia had attacked our sovereignty, attempted to influence the outcome of our election, favoring Trump and seeking to damage Clinton, and was actively working to infiltrate the campaign of Trump. The situation sailed past that high bar.
What makes you think the bar wasn’t high?
That sounds like a good reason to warn the Trump campaign and work with them to ferret out nefarious Russians, not investigate the Trump campaign during an election.
1 Like
I think it needs to proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was.
And no, I am not willing to take anyone’s word for it.
Why should the bar be any different for a presidential campaign than anyone else?
you forgot to say something about “threatened the Republic”
That you have to ask speaks volumes.
You want special protections for some Americans.
I think that’s wrong. Equal protection.
1 Like
Well then it makes sense that the Trump campaign was in fact warned that Russia may try to infiltrate their campaign and to be on the lookout and to inform the intelligence community of anything suspicious.
And no, it does not make sense to not investigate whether or not this was actually occurring, or whether anyone associated with the campaign was coordinating with Russia. That is just silly.
How would that conversation go exactly in your mind?
Agent 1: “Hey team, we know Russia is working to influence the election on behalf of Trump. We have multiple examples of shady people working for the Trump campaign with extensive ties to Russia. We know Trump even publicly asked Russia to release any stolen emails they may posses. What should we do?”
Agent 2: “We should probably turn a blind eye and not look into this.”
Agent 1: “Good call.”
1 Like
