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.
originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: theantediluvian
Lol, how many times have you claimed a smoking gun? How many times have you needed to move on to a new smoking gun, proving the old one wasn't actually a smoking gun at all?
The only people triggered by this are lefty's who believe the russian narrative.
But let me personally destroy your little plastic squirt gun:
1) who is goldstone? a UK tabloid guy, and friend of Trump's. That's who you're hanging your hat on.
2) If collusion was ongoing, why the need for such an email?
3) None of this happened, regardless of Jr's willingness to do it.
4) The kremlin supporting trump (again, your source for this is an email written by a tabloid mogul) does not mean there was collusion. Even if trump was aware that they supported him.
5) If this was the smoking gun you think it is, why is the lawyer who attended the meeting still alive? Putin doesn't allow loose ends.
6) If there was collusion in this meeting (which there's no evidence that there was) then it proves hillary was indeed in bed with the russians. Think about that.
I love watching you guys lose your minds over and over about nothing. It's hilarious!
While you spin your wheels about collusion that never happened, consider this:
thehill.com...
originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: RazorV66
And from a legal standpoint this is the point I was trying to make by attempting to walk people through how to make a legal argument. There isn't anyway to make such an argument that a judge could take seriously...Well except maybe the 9th circus =P
originally posted by: AntiDoppleganger
lets see, there's "trumpkins", "trumpers", "trumpeteers", and "trumptards". Stay classy. Calling people who do not agree with you names should certainly get them to see your view point right?
...you wouldn't be trolling?
originally posted by: RazorV66
These Leftist clowns don't give a rat's ass about out in the open, indisputable facts.
It's all part of the Leftist higher ups grand plan to push this propaganda out so hard and so frequently against Trump, that the common Leftist leaning morons are so overwhelmed with the rapid fire information rush and believe it must be true.
It's been documented that Liberalism is a mental disorder, so they have a problem with thinking critically for themselves to begin with....the more times the Leftist media perpetuate a lie about Trump, the easier and faster the common Leftists will begin to parrot the narrative.
originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Lucidparadox
You mean like this: www.politico.com...
But no, this is not a campaign contribution. Dirt on your opponent isn't a campaign contribution. That would go absolutely nowhere in a court case.
originally posted by: Lucidparadox
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
originally posted by: antoinemarionette
a reply to: GuidedKill
I think solicitation is what underscores collusion.
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
The Russian was supposed to offer information not money or assets and furthermore there was no mention of any sort of monetary exchange for the information. Can you cite where it is illegal to receive free information from a foreign national?
The providing of information is a service, a service that has value.
The law states that getting money, items, or anything with value from a forein nation to aid in an election is illegal.
Thats the law.
It was broken/attempted
Thats collusion with a foreign power
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Sublimecraft
Hannity...
Woho I am sure he will be unbiased and go for the truth.
Pfft...
originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: YapYapYap
We are way past that and it's not going to happen even the OP gets that. The OP's point how he conveyed it and very summarized was even though it's not criminally wrong it's morally wrong and not the type of person the OP supports. Although you'll learn a lot just reading the whole thread
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Sublimecraft
Hannity...
Woho I am sure he will be unbiased and go for the truth.
Pfft...
Donald Trump Jnr is who I was referring to so unless you live under a rock - grow up.