It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Says, "Hell yes, Putin wanted Trump for President

page: 21
63
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yawn. It was a summary from Vox. Quoted parts are direct from the report.

www.vox.com...




posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


There's NOTHING to excuse!

Every single accusation you've made IS ENTIRELY UNPROVEN

What Russia did is on them. Unless you have proof PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY CONSPIRED TO BREAK THE LAW none of that matters! Your mere opinion simply isn't good enough! It isn't evidence! It isn't fact. It is YOUR OPINION.

You "BELIEVE" Trump used campaign money to pay the degenerate prostitute off - where's your PROOF?
You "BELIEVE" Trump unlawfully conspired with "Russia" (WHO in Russia? WHEN?) to break an ACTUAL US law? (not "collusion" - that is not a crime - must be an ACTUAL violation of federal law)

Meanwhile, YOU have ignored every single piece of contradictory information presented.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


There's NOTHING to excuse!

Every single accusation you've made IS ENTIRELY UNPROVEN

What Russia did is on them. Unless you have proof PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTLY CONSPIRED TO BREAK THE LAW none of that matters! Your mere opinion simply isn't good enough! It isn't evidence! It isn't fact. It is YOUR OPINION.

You "BELIEVE" Trump used campaign money to pay the degenerate prostitute off - where's your PROOF?
You "BELIEVE" Trump unlawfully conspired with "Russia" (WHO in Russia? WHEN?) to break an ACTUAL US law? (not "collusion" - that is not a crime - must be an ACTUAL violation of federal law)

Meanwhile, YOU have ignored every single piece of contradictory information presented.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I haven't made any accusations Burnie.

Wow, you seem really triggered.

Don't spoil your 4th.




posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yawn. It was a summary from Vox. Quoted parts are direct from the report.

www.vox.com...


You're quoting Vox, a well-known leftist rag?

Pfft.

Jesus. Go outside and get some air. Please.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

We have proof his some, Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort AT THE VERY LEAST wanted to collide with Russian agents...


We know Russian agents contacted them..


We know Jr replied “I love it! Especially later this summer!”

We know they went to the meeting with Russian agents..


We know the emails stolen by the Russians were leaked in later that summer..

We know trump is a control freak so it is doubtful he all of that happened without his knowledge.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

perhaps after you have rested and relaxed, we can discuss your link. If you read it, it states very clearly that the Senate agrees with the findings of the ICA. Never does the findings of the ICA become clear of are even discussed, so after reading this, I know 2 things. 1, the senate agrees with the ICA. 2. I still have no idea what Russia did to us.

If I missed it, perhaps someone can link it. It's only 7 pages.

Maybe Phage has answers..........



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: JBurns

We have proof his some, Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort AT THE VERY LEAST wanted to collide with Russian agents...


We know Russian agents contacted them..


We know Jr replied “I love it! Especially later this summer!”

We know they went to the meeting with Russian agents..


We know the emails stolen by the Russians were leaked in later that summer..

We know trump is a control freak so it is doubtful he all of that happened without his knowledge.






I hope nobody was hurt in the collision.

But aside from that, if it was a setup, would that change anything? And (this is key) what campaign on the planet Earth, would say "no, I don't want any dirt on my opponent, that would be wrong" ? And lastly, is that illegal yet?

Again, hopes and prayers for all those involved in the collision.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Well that’s a totally different question now isn’t it??

And an unknowable answer unless someone is gonna poll every registered voter.,


Could it have swung a close election where with winner lost the popular vote???

Absolutely.,

Could hillary have been so ilunlikeable she loses reguardless??

Absolutely..



The actual question is “was trump in on it?”

And the email released by his son would suggest he absolutely did..



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Joshua, these folks aren't interested in the information they keep crying for ... because it's all been provided repeatedly before and directly in the Senate's preliminary report.

They're just deploying tactics to try to, in their own minds, provide cover for Mr. Trump ... when as far as I can see, he STILL isn't under investigation personally (at least on Russian collusion.)

His admiration for Mr. Putin is obvious ... but that doesn't mean he's guilty of anything.

They are just ... what ... trembling to the core that Mr. Trump is in political danger somehow.

Do they know something the rest of us don't know?

Hmmm

edit on 4-7-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noated



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: network dude

Well that’s a totally different question now isn’t it??

And an unknowable answer unless someone is gonna poll every registered voter.,


Could it have swung a close election where with winner lost the popular vote???

Absolutely.,

Could hillary have been so ilunlikeable she loses reguardless??

Absolutely..



The actual question is “was trump in on it?”

And the email released by his son would suggest he absolutely did..


"in on it"? in on what? The phone call that offered dirt on Hillary? If you want the real answer, I'd say, Trump was aware of everything that went on. He put his son on this meeting probably due to the likelihood of it being a set up. He could deny it if it went bad, or was really a set up, as it looks like it was.

But regardless, it is a crime to accept dirt on your political opponent? (that is a simple yes, or no )



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Just wait for the swing once that starts pissing people off..

See trump has had his cake and eaten it too..

He lowered taxes and raised spending WITHOUT CUTTING SERVICES..


Just wait till he starts cutting services like the work mandate for welfare..


See once you start cutting services or the supremes start making decisions that actually effect lives, all the political hype falls away..

Then you create people with a tangible and immediate reason to hate your guts..


I’ve wanted the gop to take charge for awhile now because their political theory has already been a disaster.. they aren’t offering anything new..


That’s the only way to get rid of them is to watch their ideology fail.. as it has failed in every civilization in history.

We already had a time when abortion was illegal.. it was such an issue they changed it..


We already had a time with no welfare system.. it was such a disaster they changed the system..


We already had a time when the corporate robber barons were unregulated and it was a disaster.. so we changed it..


See that’s the problem with conservatism..

It is never offering anything new.. just recylcing the same old failed strategies..



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Are you saying that Trump approved of his son meeting directly with Russian agents to acquire valuable information?

Well, that is concerning.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Joshua, these folks aren't interested in the information they keep crying for ... because it's all been provided repeatedly before and directly in the Senate's preliminary report.

They're just deploying tactics to try to, in their own minds, provide cover for Mr. Trump ... when as far as I can see, he STILL isn't under investigation personally (at least on Russian collusion.)

His admiration for Mr. Putin is obvious ... but that doesn't mean he's guilty of anything.

They are just ... what ... trembling to the core that Mr. Trump is in political danger somehow.

Do they know something the rest of us don't know?

Hmmm


If Trump is guilty of something, put him in jail, impeach him, and welcome in President Pence. But if what we have this far is it, don't you have to admit there isn't any "there" there? I mean, if there was, wouldn't he be impeached?

I continue to get the same responses on my questions regarding the Russia collusion, and while I'm sure you have good intentions, if people are honest with themselves, they will realize they don't know either. If they did, they would answer. I plan on another thread to ask just that, and have it ignored and misdirected, because it doesn't seem there is anyone who understands this beyond, "they told us this was how it was, so I'm good with that".



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude

Are you saying that Trump approved of his son meeting directly with Russian agents to acquire valuable information?

Well, that is concerning.


Yea, I was there.

So it is against the law to get dirt on your opponent? (again, easy answer, yes, or no)



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

No the email saying “ the Russian government wants to give trump dirt on hillary as part of the russian governments support for trump.. “

Then the son replied “I love it, especially later in the summer”


Then the top 3 members of the campaign went to the meeting with Russian government agents..


You know exactly what the email said. You just choose to pretend it didn’t happen so you can spout nonsense like ..

“There is no evidence trump colluded”.

Lmao



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude

Are you saying that Trump approved of his son meeting directly with Russian agents to acquire valuable information?

Well, that is concerning.


Yea, I was there.

So it is against the law to get dirt on your opponent? (again, easy answer, yes, or no)


Hell no it's not against the law to get dirt ... but who you get it from and what you pay for it can be concerning.

Again, you said it, not me. I'm sure someone's looking into it.




posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I myself said, above, that President Trump isn't as far as we know under investigation.

You guys are one-trick ponies.

You continue to get the same responses because you continue pretend to ignore what you know, Dude.

It's a tactic ... just not a very good one, IMO.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Ah yes, "Trump's sanctions".

The sanctions he was legally bound to after Congress passed it with such a majority that it was veto-proof.

The very same sanctions the bill required of him (with a deadline of almost four weeks earlier) before he finally got around to begrudgingly implementing them after weeks of stalling and dragging his feet.

Yeah, "Trump's sanctions".

If you think those sanctions help your case... not so much.



posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude

I myself said, above, that President Trump isn't as far as we know under investigation.

You guys are one-trick ponies.

You continue to get the same responses because you continue pretend to ignore what you know, Dude.

It's a tactic ... just not a very good one, IMO.


LOL, a tactic? you mean like admitting there was no crime, but pretending to be morally outraged over the ethics of it? Puh-leeze. obvious dumbassery is obvious.

was it illegal? no.

And I told you what I know, or rather what I think I know. If there was more to it, I'd think a smart person would explain it, so far, they haven't, so am I to believe that I am correct?




top topics



 
63
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join