Trump gives highly classified information to the Russians

[Charles]

As the saying goes, "Just because it's an ad hominem doesn't mean it's wrong."

:-)

Or as your own saying goes:

Some may call me foolish, and some may call me dumb
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of Trump

[Sparko]

So in conclusion, the evidence points to Trump sleeping with Putin, faking the moon landing, colluding with the alien UFOs who destroyed the world trade center, and keeping Big Foot as a pet in his basement.

[Mountain Man]

We know it's true because there's no evidence. Think about it: if Trump was innocent then he wouldn't have had to cover it up and there would be evidence, but since there is no evidence, that's conclusive proof that he's guilty. Wake up, people!

[JimL]

And the prize for "Epic Unintentional Irony" goes to...

Jimmy!

I already laid out the whole thing about "evidence" earlier in the thread, in case you missed it:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post443975

Yes, you did, and that didn't make any sense either.

Basically, the statue of "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" exists so that morons like you who might wind up on a jury don't convict someone of a crime because there is "circumstantial evidence" that he happened to live on the same street as the murder victim but no evidence that he actually committed a crime.

And why are you bringing up "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?" No one is saying that there is proof that Trump is guilty of anything, whats going on is that there is evidence of possible collusion between his campaign and the Russians, and being that it is his campaign then the evidence directly ties back to Trump himself. It could be that his associates are guilty, and that Trump is just to much of an idiot to have been aware of it, or it could be that all of the evidence of communications between Trump associates and Russian operatives, bankers, exchanges of money, etc etc, and the denials of such communications, is all just coincidental and innocent. Highly unlikely. But to suggest that there is no evidence of anything, and that U.S. Intelligence is just out to get Trump is just idiotic, and frankly un-american.

[Mountain Man]

...there is evidence of possible collusion...

No there isn't! All we have are vague suspicions and innuendo which morons like you mistake for "evidence".

But to suggest that there is no evidence of anything, and that U.S. Intelligence is just out to get Trump is just idiotic, and frankly un-american.

I'm not saying it, a number of high-profile people have gone on record and even testified under oath that there is no evidence linking Trump to Russia.

[JimL]

No there isn't! All we have are vague suspicions and innuendo which morons like you mistake for "evidence".


I'm not saying it, a number of high-profile people have gone on record and even testified under oath that there is no evidence linking Trump to Russia.

I know that you want to focus your argument on Trump, but the focus of the investigation is on Trumps associates, you know, the fall guys, not Trump himself. What makes one suspicious of Trump himself is his constant attempts to cover-up, stall, or shut down the investigation.

[Mountain Man]

I know that you want to focus your argument on Trump, but the focus of the investigation is on Trumps associates, you know, the fall guys, not Trump himself. What makes one suspicious of Trump himself is his constant attempts to cover-up, stall, or shut down the investigation.

That's an almost impressive amount of spin.

[Tassman]

I know that you want to focus your argument on Trump, but the focus of the investigation is on Trumps associates, you know, the fall guys, not Trump himself. What makes one suspicious of Trump himself is his constant attempts to cover-up, stall, or shut down the investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.d12cda5e8b2a

[Charles]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.d12cda5e8b2a

Yes. It sure is getting interesting. It will take some time before we know, but I guess you can say we are living in interesting times (and depressing as well since a lot of damage has been done no matter the outcome of the investigation).

[Mountain Man]

More vague suspicious and innuendo. Why do you guys fall for this every single time?

[Mountain Man]

Every president who allows "back channel communications" in his administration should be imprisoned! Can I get an "amen" from my liberal brethren?

Oh, look what I found...

Source: PJ Media

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah's rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Ever since, President Obama's quest for an alliance with Iran has been conducted through at least four channels: Iraq, Switzerland (the official U.S. representative to Tehran), Oman, and a variety of American intermediaries, the most notable of whom is probably Valerie Jarrett, his closest adviser. In recent months, Middle Eastern leaders reported personal visits from Ms. Jarrett, who briefed them on her efforts to manage the Iranian relationship. This was confirmed to me by a former high-ranking American official who says he was so informed by several Middle Eastern leaders.

https://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/20...e-no-strategy/

© Copyright Original Source

[Tassman]

Every president who allows "back channel communications" in his administration should be imprisoned! Can I get an "amen" from my liberal brethren?

Oh, look what I found...

Source: PJ Media

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah's rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Ever since, President Obama's quest for an alliance with Iran has been conducted through at least four channels: Iraq, Switzerland (the official U.S. representative to Tehran), Oman, and a variety of American intermediaries, the most notable of whom is probably Valerie Jarrett, his closest adviser. In recent months, Middle Eastern leaders reported personal visits from Ms. Jarrett, who briefed them on her efforts to manage the Iranian relationship. This was confirmed to me by a former high-ranking American official who says he was so informed by several Middle Eastern leaders.

https://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/20...e-no-strategy/

© Copyright Original Source

You can pivot to Obama and Clinton as often as you like, the noose around Trump's neck is getting ever tighter. Not that anything could shift your commendable (if misguided) loyalty to the appalling Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.61a7ff5183b9

[Mountain Man]

I see, so secret back channels are ok for Obama but not Trump?

Of course it should be noted that, first of all, there is no evidence that Kushner actually made this request -- note that once again, this is all coming from anonymous sources leaking details to the press; some have speculated that Russia could be spreading false information in order to undermine confidence in our elected leaders -- and secondly, even if Kushner did ask for it, that's not illegal in and of itself.

Like I said, it's all vague suspicions and innuendo, and you morons keep eating it up.

[JimL]

I see, so secret back channels are ok for Obama but not Trump?

Of course it should be noted that, first of all, there is no evidence that Kushner actually made this request -- note that once again, this is all coming from anonymous sources leaking details to the press; some have speculated that Russia could be spreading false information in order to undermine confidence in our elected leaders -- and secondly, even if Kushner did ask for it, that's not illegal in and of itself.

Like I said, it's all vague suspicions and innuendo, and you morons keep eating it up.

Back channels are not out of the reach of U.S. intelligence, Kushners desired back channel was, it was to be through the Russian embassy, on Russian communication equiptment. And btw, your Brietbart fake news story concerning Obama's back channel with Iran, which was run through the State Dept., is Brietbarts usual BS spin meant for the consumption of fools like yourself.

[Charles]

Back channels are not out of the reach of U.S. intelligence, Kushners desired back channel was, it was to be through the Russian embassy, on Russian communication equiptment. And btw, your Brietbart fake news story concerning Obama's back channel with Iran, which was run through the State Dept., is Brietbarts usual BS spin meant for the consumption of fools like yourself.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ations-channel