Whats The Difference Between Collusion Talk And Counterfeit Votes Talk?

I posted the link from which the summary of the findings came, and I never gave any indication that I wrote them myself. I even indented it to make it clear that its quoted. Why are you accusing me of lying?

If you wanted earlier posts in the thread that mention reasons to be suspicious beyond normal business discussions, see earlier posts from @Nolen and me. It's not a long thread -- you can find them.

 

No he doesn't.

 

I'm not sure which of my posts you are referring to. Post 28 was written by you ... https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/...erfeit-votes-talk.308582/page-2#post-13232953

Edit: n/m I see it now. Post 58.

No one is forcing you to argue anything. You claimed there wasn't any reason to be suspicious of ties between Trump campaign and Russia. I posted a summary of points, documented in the Mueller report, that would make someone suspicious. If you don't want to actually consider those points, that's up to you. It just means when you started this thread with a question in the title, you weren't serious about engaging with an answer to that question that you disagree with. I'll keep that in mind in the future before responding to your posts.

 

@pgabriel -- to be clear, I am not myself alleging "collusion". Only that there are sufficient grounds to have been concerned about it, given the connections, the politically motivated email hacking (encouraged by Trump), and also considering the general unprincipled character of Trump and the sort of people he surrounded himself with. The investigation was warranted. Stopping or reversing the election of Trump on those grounds would not have been warranted.

A person could reasonably have been led to believe that there was collusion between Trump campaign officials and people in Russia. I don't believe a person can reasonably be led to believe that Trump actually won the 2020 election and a massive conspiracy/fraud was perpetrated to swing the result over to Biden. So, that's the difference. Just my opinion.

 

You just colluded with yourself.

 

Hilarious self own on this one.

 

Who alleged collusion?

 

I repeat, Trump was never accused of collusion - which isn't a crime. Trump was never accused of any crime by the FBI by the way, nor was Trump ever under investigation himself.

The investigation was centered around people in his campaign who had contact with Russians who were known as spies or connected to spies. This is the job of the FBI. This is what they do. They investigate suspicious behavior and these people were acting in a way that was highly suspicious. That is why they are the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They do not bring charges forth or make accusations. They investigate to see if a crime may have occurred. They collect evidence, and if the evidence is sufficient, they may make an arrest and present the evidence to another entity that makes the charge.

So once again, Trump was never accused of collusion. This is just a propaganda narrative you have bought into. Trump was never accused of anything, nor was he exonerated of anything. He may have broken the law, and he may have obstructed justice. The FBI produces a report of what they found in their INVESTIGATION. It's up to another body - in this case Congress, to do something with that evidence in the report. They decided to impeach Trump, followed by a sham trial in the Senate without witnesses.

So what are you actually saying here? Because it doesn't sound like you even understand how the legal system works at all.

 

A Twitter thread on the false equivalence between Russia allegations and voter fraud allegations:

 

That's a good one. Gonna copy&paste it here for those who can't click through to Twitter at work:

From David French:

I'm not sure if you're noticing, but there's been a recent shift in the anti-anti-Trump defense of Trump's deranged behavior from "these lawsuits might have merit" to "hahahaha this is revenge for the 'Russia hoax' and impeachment." This is absurd, for many reasons.

Trump's defenders constantly want to memory-hole his campaign's misconduct, but there were real reasons to investigate his campaign. His son, campaign chair, and son-in-law met with a Russian lawyer in the attempt to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Trump's campaign chair, Paul Manafort, was in active, clandestine communication with a Russian agent and provided the agent with internal campaign information. The campaign attempted to use Roger Stone to set up a back-channel communication with Wikileaks, a Russian asset.

Senate intel assessed that Trump spoke with Stone and members of his campaign about those contacts -- even as Trump told the special counsel that he did not recall discussing Wikileaks with Stone.

Also, the Trump organization was in talks during the campaign about forging business relationships in Russia, and Trump's lawyer lied to Congress about those contacts. Moreover, the campaign's key foreign policy adviser was an unregistered foreign agent for Turkey.

On the impeachment front, the evidence is overwhelming (including from the "perfect" transcript) that Trump attempted to condition vital foreign aid on a desperate ally's pledge to investigate a political opponent AND an absurd Crowdstrike conspiracy theory.

None of these events justify the Steele Dossier, FISA abuses, or wild speculations about voting machines being hacked, but the Trump team's conduct was improper and it should have been subject to intense investigation and bipartisan condemnation.

In the months and years after Trump leaves office, there will be an intense effort on the right to whitewash his corruption, and rationalizing or minimizing the events above will be part of that effort. It should not succeed.

By contrast, the current Trump legal effort to overturn the election is built on nothing at all of any consequence. Its lawsuits are frivolous. Its conspiracy theories are nonsense. And even as "revenge" they're nonsensical.

Delaying the transition doesn't teach liberal media a lesson, but it may harm national security. Filing clownish lawsuits doesn't stop Biden, but it does discredit the attorneys and their media apologists and bilk sad and angry Trump supporters out of money.

Revenge? No. It's a sad and pathetic temper tantrum that hurts no one more than the Trump and his enablers. They're driving their legal clown car into their own political crowd.


which reaction will we get from OP?
A) doesn't address my point
B) nuh uh
C) both

 

once Trump is out of office we will finally see which one actually holds up in court

 

Are you talking about the Trump Tower meeting involving Don Jr, Kushner, Manafort, and the Russian lawyer? It didn't happen?