Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit

completely and totally off the mark.

yeah he can all he wants but that is not the question at hand.

so it might help to get your point heard (And me off your back) if you just say if you think the indictments are likely true or likely false

I didn't ask for that, I asked for what he believes is interfering. Would you care to answer that? Or are you just going to side step it as usual?

sounds like a question of semantics, not sure I am intrested.

what I am interested is to understand if you think most of the indictments are false or true, not how the meaning of the facts are parsed.

cant have a conversation about the meaning of the facts if we dont even agree on the facts..so we would need to get that part done first.

side note: to paraphrase Sun Tzu. it appears to me you are getting into a battle looking for a win, instead of winning first and then getting into battle. your trying to find a way out

Haven't read the indictments, not really concerned if they are true or not. If I had to guess, they are probably true, as indictments usually don't come without some backing (unless you are an urban minority). Yes or no question, have you ever seen me comment on them? You struggle with generalizing people, that is a bigoted trait, you should work on that.

Are you going to continue to with this action?

You keep bringing that up, and I keep saying, I'm not trying win anything. That's not how you have a discussion. If you go in looking to win, you can't listen to what the other person is saying. I know its hard for you to understand that, but I feel you might get it one day, a better day.

@tryit: Why do you care so much about what I think about the indictments? The criticism Trump is facing is that he "sided with Russia against the FBI". That is the topic.and literally in the title of the thread. My assertion is simply that given the history of the FBI, it is OK for Trump to criticize them, while some others are calling it treason. Sorry I didn't follow you down your rabbit hole.

@Fuhrer_D said:

@tryit said:

@Fuhrer_D said:

@tryit said:

@Fuhrer_D said:

Define interfered. That's the hang up I always have; did they stop people from voting, did they change people's vote, did they intimidate people at the polls? Those are interference, and I haven't seen any evidence of that happening.

read the indictments to find your answer

they really arent terribly long

I didn't ask for that, I asked for what he believes is interfering. Would you care to answer that? Or are you just going to side step it as usual?

sounds like a question of semantics, not sure I am intrested.

what I am interested is to understand if you think most of the indictments are false or true, not how the meaning of the facts are parsed.

cant have a conversation about the meaning of the facts if we dont even agree on the facts..so we would need to get that part done first.

side note: to paraphrase Sun Tzu. it appears to me you are getting into a battle looking for a win, instead of winning first and then getting into battle. your trying to find a way out

Haven't read the indictments, not really concerned if they are true or not. If I had to guess, they are probably true, as indictments usually don't come without some backing (unless you are an urban minority). Yes or no question, have you ever seen me comment on them? You struggle with generalizing people, that is a bigoted trait, you should work on that.

Are you going to continue to with this action?

You keep bringing that up, and I keep saying, I'm not trying win anything. That's not how you have a discussion. If you go in looking to win, you can't listen to what the other person is saying. I know its hard for you to understand that, but I feel you might get it one day, a better day.

not a bad response.

regarding bigotry I dont care if I am a bigot or not so you are wasting your time with that. those tactics never work against me.

I am also not interested in conversation over semantics.

what I am interested in is people on the Right reading the indictments (or at least information around the indictments) and understanding that this latest indictments is absolutely positively extremely strong evidence of 'collusion' of which I would assume you would claim you never suggested 'it wasnt'...right? (and yes I already know 'collusion' is not a legal term so keep that in mind if you try to say 'the indictment doesnt charge collusion' try honesty.

because the indictments are very clearly evidence of knowing collusion (and yes I know 'collusion' is not a legal term thus it will not show up in the indictment'

so...are you asking me why I care what you think about the evidence of collusion?

I see there are plenty of Russian stooges on this forum.

You Trump bootlickers are all out of excuses, you don't deserve any respect.

@tryit: I thought you were asking about the indictments but now your asking about collusion. Make up your mind (unless you're conflating the 2). I clearly asked why you care about my opinion of the indictments because that is off topic and I don't understand the purpose.

well first off none of that prevents you from giving your opinion on both instead of neither. I grant you permission to reveal information you feel relevant even if I dont ask for it.

That said, I should be clear on one thing I said

Trump has now admitted that election interference with the election has taken place.

I am saying however the evidence is very clear that collusion has happened, the only question is who is Person 1. we know it could be many people including Donald Jr.

that is something I would like to get your feedback on.

I can post the news article again, with the quotes in question if you need it, would you like me to do that?

That is not what I asked him, please reread and reply.

@tryit said:

@Fuhrer_D said:

@tryit said:

@Fuhrer_D said:

@tryit said:

read the indictments to find your answer

they really arent terribly long

I didn't ask for that, I asked for what he believes is interfering. Would you care to answer that? Or are you just going to side step it as usual?

sounds like a question of semantics, not sure I am intrested.

what I am interested is to understand if you think most of the indictments are false or true, not how the meaning of the facts are parsed.

cant have a conversation about the meaning of the facts if we dont even agree on the facts..so we would need to get that part done first.

side note: to paraphrase Sun Tzu. it appears to me you are getting into a battle looking for a win, instead of winning first and then getting into battle. your trying to find a way out

Haven't read the indictments, not really concerned if they are true or not. If I had to guess, they are probably true, as indictments usually don't come without some backing (unless you are an urban minority). Yes or no question, have you ever seen me comment on them? You struggle with generalizing people, that is a bigoted trait, you should work on that.

Are you going to continue to with this action?

You keep bringing that up, and I keep saying, I'm not trying win anything. That's not how you have a discussion. If you go in looking to win, you can't listen to what the other person is saying. I know its hard for you to understand that, but I feel you might get it one day, a better day.

not a bad response.

regarding bigotry I dont care if I am a bigot or not so you are wasting your time with that. those tactics never work against me.

I am also not interested in conversation over semantics.

what I am interested in is people on the Right reading the indictments (or at least information around the indictments) and understanding that this latest indictments is absolutely positively extremely strong evidence of 'collusion' of which I would assume you would claim you never suggested 'it wasnt'...right? (and yes I already know 'collusion' is not a legal term so keep that in mind if you try to say 'the indictment doesnt charge collusion' try honesty.

Ok, well I'm not on the right so you aren't concerned with me reading the indictments. I guess that ends that part of the discussion.

Why are assuming? Have you ever seen me use the word collusion or make reference to it on this board or any?

You need to stop pigeon holding people to you beliefs about them, and actually engage them in real discussion.

I bet you are a pro at the Cupid Shuffle. Try honesty.

@Fuhrer_D said:

@tryit said:

@DaBrainz said:

@tryit: Why do you care so much about what I think about the indictments? The criticism Trump is facing is that he "sided with Russia against the FBI". That is the topic.and literally in the title of the thread. My assertion is simply that given the history of the FBI, it is OK for Trump to criticize them, while some others are calling it treason. Sorry I didn't follow you down your rabbit hole.

because the indictments are very clearly evidence of knowing collusion (and yes I know 'collusion' is not a legal term thus it will not show up in the indictment'

so...are you asking me why I care what you think about the evidence of collusion?

That is not what I asked him, please reread and reply.

@tryit said:

@Fuhrer_D said:

@tryit said:

@Fuhrer_D said:

I didn't ask for that, I asked for what he believes is interfering. Would you care to answer that? Or are you just going to side step it as usual?

sounds like a question of semantics, not sure I am intrested.

what I am interested is to understand if you think most of the indictments are false or true, not how the meaning of the facts are parsed.

cant have a conversation about the meaning of the facts if we dont even agree on the facts..so we would need to get that part done first.

side note: to paraphrase Sun Tzu. it appears to me you are getting into a battle looking for a win, instead of winning first and then getting into battle. your trying to find a way out

Haven't read the indictments, not really concerned if they are true or not. If I had to guess, they are probably true, as indictments usually don't come without some backing (unless you are an urban minority). Yes or no question, have you ever seen me comment on them? You struggle with generalizing people, that is a bigoted trait, you should work on that.

Are you going to continue to with this action?

You keep bringing that up, and I keep saying, I'm not trying win anything. That's not how you have a discussion. If you go in looking to win, you can't listen to what the other person is saying. I know its hard for you to understand that, but I feel you might get it one day, a better day.

not a bad response.

regarding bigotry I dont care if I am a bigot or not so you are wasting your time with that. those tactics never work against me.

I am also not interested in conversation over semantics.

what I am interested in is people on the Right reading the indictments (or at least information around the indictments) and understanding that this latest indictments is absolutely positively extremely strong evidence of 'collusion' of which I would assume you would claim you never suggested 'it wasnt'...right? (and yes I already know 'collusion' is not a legal term so keep that in mind if you try to say 'the indictment doesnt charge collusion' try honesty.

Ok, well I'm not on the right so you aren't concerned with me reading the indictments. I guess that ends that part of the discussion.

Why are assuming? Have you ever seen me use the word collusion or make reference to it on this board or any?

You need to stop pigeon holding people to you beliefs about them, and actually engage them in real discussion.

I bet you are a pro at the Cupid Shuffle. Try honesty.

I would still like a response to my question to you. It seems fairly easy to do regardless of everything you have just said.

why cant you do it?

@tryit: OK I'll lay it out for you:

We have the Flynn and Manafort charges that have nothing to do with the election = Not collusion

We have the indictments for the Russian troll farm = Not collusion

We have the indictment for the DNC hacking = Not collusion

We have the indictment of the Russian gun lobbyist that failed to notify through FARA = Not collusion

Even if all these people get convicted. None of it points to collusion of the Trump campaign with the Russian government. I would classify it as attempted interference.

sorry but nope.

the russian gun lobbyists being collusion has literally nothing whatsoever to do with registration. it has to do with what she said and to whom.

do you know what she said and to whom?

regarding the other investigations they are still on going so it would be moronic to say it does not show collusion or frankly that it does show collusion, that is why its an 'on going investigation'

actually you have inspired me to look deepeer into your claims regarding Flynn and manafort, I think you are actually technically wrong in that claim

@tryit said:

@Fuhrer_D said:

@tryit said:

@DaBrainz said:

@tryit: Why do you care so much about what I think about the indictments? The criticism Trump is facing is that he "sided with Russia against the FBI". That is the topic.and literally in the title of the thread. My assertion is simply that given the history of the FBI, it is OK for Trump to criticize them, while some others are calling it treason. Sorry I didn't follow you down your rabbit hole.

because the indictments are very clearly evidence of knowing collusion (and yes I know 'collusion' is not a legal term thus it will not show up in the indictment'

so...are you asking me why I care what you think about the evidence of collusion?

That is not what I asked him, please reread and reply.

@tryit said:

@Fuhrer_D said:

@tryit said:

sounds like a question of semantics, not sure I am intrested.

what I am interested is to understand if you think most of the indictments are false or true, not how the meaning of the facts are parsed.

cant have a conversation about the meaning of the facts if we dont even agree on the facts..so we would need to get that part done first.

side note: to paraphrase Sun Tzu. it appears to me you are getting into a battle looking for a win, instead of winning first and then getting into battle. your trying to find a way out

Haven't read the indictments, not really concerned if they are true or not. If I had to guess, they are probably true, as indictments usually don't come without some backing (unless you are an urban minority). Yes or no question, have you ever seen me comment on them? You struggle with generalizing people, that is a bigoted trait, you should work on that.

Are you going to continue to with this action?

You keep bringing that up, and I keep saying, I'm not trying win anything. That's not how you have a discussion. If you go in looking to win, you can't listen to what the other person is saying. I know its hard for you to understand that, but I feel you might get it one day, a better day.

not a bad response.

regarding bigotry I dont care if I am a bigot or not so you are wasting your time with that. those tactics never work against me.

I am also not interested in conversation over semantics.

what I am interested in is people on the Right reading the indictments (or at least information around the indictments) and understanding that this latest indictments is absolutely positively extremely strong evidence of 'collusion' of which I would assume you would claim you never suggested 'it wasnt'...right? (and yes I already know 'collusion' is not a legal term so keep that in mind if you try to say 'the indictment doesnt charge collusion' try honesty.

Ok, well I'm not on the right so you aren't concerned with me reading the indictments. I guess that ends that part of the discussion.

Why are assuming? Have you ever seen me use the word collusion or make reference to it on this board or any?

You need to stop pigeon holding people to you beliefs about them, and actually engage them in real discussion.

I bet you are a pro at the Cupid Shuffle. Try honesty.

I would still like a response to my question to you. It seems fairly easy to do regardless of everything you have just said.

why cant you do it?

I will reciprocate (though I have already answered them) when you answer the questions I have asked.

@Fuhrer_D said:

@tryit said:

@Fuhrer_D said:

@tryit said:

@DaBrainz said:

@tryit: Why do you care so much about what I think about the indictments? The criticism Trump is facing is that he "sided with Russia against the FBI". That is the topic.and literally in the title of the thread. My assertion is simply that given the history of the FBI, it is OK for Trump to criticize them, while some others are calling it treason. Sorry I didn't follow you down your rabbit hole.

because the indictments are very clearly evidence of knowing collusion (and yes I know 'collusion' is not a legal term thus it will not show up in the indictment'

so...are you asking me why I care what you think about the evidence of collusion?

That is not what I asked him, please reread and reply.

@tryit said:

@Fuhrer_D said:

Haven't read the indictments, not really concerned if they are true or not. If I had to guess, they are probably true, as indictments usually don't come without some backing (unless you are an urban minority). Yes or no question, have you ever seen me comment on them? You struggle with generalizing people, that is a bigoted trait, you should work on that.

Are you going to continue to with this action?

You keep bringing that up, and I keep saying, I'm not trying win anything. That's not how you have a discussion. If you go in looking to win, you can't listen to what the other person is saying. I know its hard for you to understand that, but I feel you might get it one day, a better day.

not a bad response.

regarding bigotry I dont care if I am a bigot or not so you are wasting your time with that. those tactics never work against me.

I am also not interested in conversation over semantics.

what I am interested in is people on the Right reading the indictments (or at least information around the indictments) and understanding that this latest indictments is absolutely positively extremely strong evidence of 'collusion' of which I would assume you would claim you never suggested 'it wasnt'...right? (and yes I already know 'collusion' is not a legal term so keep that in mind if you try to say 'the indictment doesnt charge collusion' try honesty.

Ok, well I'm not on the right so you aren't concerned with me reading the indictments. I guess that ends that part of the discussion.

Why are assuming? Have you ever seen me use the word collusion or make reference to it on this board or any?

You need to stop pigeon holding people to you beliefs about them, and actually engage them in real discussion.

I bet you are a pro at the Cupid Shuffle. Try honesty.

I would still like a response to my question to you. It seems fairly easy to do regardless of everything you have just said.

why cant you do it?

I will reciprocate (though I have already answered them) when you answer the questions I have asked.

ok I will go with the my assumed understanding then that you do see how the case of this young woman clearly shows Colllusion with someone in the united states and that person was a knowing participate.

now given she is in U.S. Custody its just a matter of time before we find out who that person is.

but for the love of god could you PLEASE help get people on the Right off this serious denial kick. I mean finally Trump at least has admitted that he agrees with the intelligence on this. although not sure why such an admitance really matters anymore, what most people think he is up to is rather clear.

@tryit:

You don't have to assume anything, I already said one, that I think Russia hacked the DNC, and two that collusion may have happened.

Neither of those are apart of the list I laid out as interference.

Have you seen evidence of anything listed happening?

that has absolutely completely nothing remotely to do with my questions.

its about as relevant of an answer as what you had for breakfast. give me a second I and I will repost the question

what part of the following do you feel is not factual

• In the unsealed indictment, the department accused Butina of conspiring to infiltrate American political groups and advance the agenda of the Kremlin through her network of high profile American contacts in politics and media.
• The indictment includes the first formal accusation against an American citizen of conspiring with the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election — and provides new details about the Russian government's attempts to curry favor among prominent Americans.

and for fun maybe you can have a predictable response to this:

'In another email, sent on October 4, 2016, US Person 1 allegedly said to an acquaintance, "Unrelated to specific presidential campaigns, I've been involved in securing a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key [GOP] leaders through, of all conduits, the [NRA]."

my claim in one of collusion, not WHO the collision is with...

Trump just flip-flopped. Says he mis-spoke, LMAO!

It was obvious he would. He's more interested in protecting his own back-side than the interests of his country.

@quadknight: Perfect gif.

Trump is a traitor. Regardless if you want complete transparencies or not, Trump is a treasonous orange snake. He's completely compromised. Mueller needs to follow the money, get a court order to get his tax returns and expose his lying ass.

No one should be buying it, because he did it multiple times in that same press conference. Not just that 1 sentence/word.

Oh and he's said it several times over the last 2 years as well.

@zaryia: Yeah the “I misspoke” argument makes no sense at all in context of everything he said before and after that one specific remark.

“Whoops, sorry intel community, I meant wouldn’t!”

What an absolute joke. And people said Obama looked weak? At least he didn’t clean Putin’s crack with his tongue. It’s excruciating as an American to watch how Trump is making us look.

I'll ask again. When did I state that any of that was false? I think all that happened.

Now, since I've answered that; is there evidence of real interference, such as the changing of votes, intimidation of voters, actively stopping people from voting at the polls?

As long as there are Democrats that won't happen.

I am more concerned about the domestic spies.

Hillary, was the one colluding with the Russians and we all know that and Trump still beat her.

You think he doesn't have the countries best interest at heart here is something for you to read.

https://spectator.org/everyone-is-smart-except-trump/

I am honest and that is why I can post what I do. I am also on the right side of history.

I am going to ask you again and all you have to do to settle this is just answer the question. if you do not see anything that is false, then just say so

what part of the following do you feel is false, if you do not see anything that is false please feel free to say so. I give you permission to answer un-exact questions and what you think might be implications:

• In the unsealed indictment, the department accused Butina of conspiring to infiltrate American political groups and advance the agenda of the Kremlin through her network of high profile American contacts in politics and media.
• The indictment includes the first formal accusation against an American citizen of conspiring with the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election — and provides new details about the Russian government's attempts to curry favor among prominent Americans.
• 'In another email, sent on October 4, 2016, US Person 1 allegedly said to an acquaintance, "Unrelated to specific presidential campaigns, I've been involved in securing a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin and key [GOP] leaders through, of all conduits, the [NRA]."

I am not going to have a conversation about the impact of the facts until you are very clear you about my question

so there IS collusion despite suggesting that there isnt..intresting

No he doesn't. He's uneducated in areas the job requires, bordering on illiterate, has zero diplomacy and puts his interests first.

@JimB: 1. Collusion with an outside country is a crime United States. Do not kid your self.

2.Hilary is the last person who is with the Russians. She's a war hawk who want to make no fly zones over russia's allies.

Hillary colluded with Russia to beat Trump. Remember the Russian Dossier she paid for and the FBI used to set up surveillance on Trump's campaign and to get FISA warrants to spy on Trump.

Obama sure didn't have our best interest at heart neither did Hillary.

'best intrests'

'his intrests'

its like reading a response to a completely different conversation

You seem very, very confused. The Steele Dossier was written by a former British MI6 intelligence agent who spied on the Russians to get the information. Hillary didn't collude with them. She was conducting espionage against them. Stop parroting completely wrong information that you get from Breitbart and Russian trolls.

more over, people on the right trying to make this about evidence that Hillary was colluding are skipping a very critical part of that strategy.

they would have to admit that the facts of the cases in order to talk about who is at fault

My guess is that Russia has two things on Trump: weird sex stuff, and the fact that he was laundering money for them.

No legitimate banks would loan Trump money after his 6 bankruptcies. Russian oligarchs/mobsters would loan him money, but only if he laundered their dirty organized crime money in return. It's hilarious that Trump called Hillary the most corrupt candidate in history when his real job in recent years has been laundering money for the Russian mob.

I don't think anyone cares that much about him being pissed on by Russian whores while masturbating furiously to a picture of Obama. But him laundering drug and hooker money for the mob is another story. The FBI doesn't just randomly investigate people. They know he's mixed up in that crap.

yup..extremely likely

I suspect Putin also has dirt on Pence and Ryan. I know if I were him I would at least try to sure up those two as well. making a 4 year of influence a lock

@JimB: you think a woman Trying to make war with Russia is working with russia?

I wonder if Jim is going to use the evidence in the indictments to build his case on that

I'm not sure what the dirt is on Ryan.

I suspect the dirt on Pence is that he's gay. He's very fit and impeccably dressed. He likes Broadway. He's homophobic. He calls his wife "mother."

Ya, FBI and police enforcements never begin investigations because there is nothing there.

At least you admit that Clinton is guilty.

But this Russia thing, I never thought I would experience McCarthyism in real life, but holy shit it´s almost like the Democrats have learned nothing from history.

LOL

That is first time I heard that

so for the record and to be clear, you feel that basically all the guilty pleas, all the indictments (not just the ones a few days ago) this most recent arrest of a russian woman and even Choens raid on his office is all a bunch of nothing.

that if you read the indictments, you could see how they were all factually misleading and inaccurate.

do I have your position correct?

Well, again the indictments are not guilty verdicts, and I assume you mean the 12 Russians, well the chance of that ever coming to court is as likely as it is for you to become president.

And the pleas are all unrelated to Russia and also Trump, it´s in regards to dealings which happened over a decade ago.

So yes so far it´s a big bunch of nothing. And the Russian old lady who got caught is as funny as the Democratic senator who went "where is Wally" on every picture taken in the white house and found nothing, but somehow decided that some random red haired lady was her.