There Was Spying On The Trump Campaign

[oxmixmudd]

Of course the proposal is on the table, and Trump wants it pushed through the proper legal and political channels. All it really does is expose the hypocrisy of the left when they say we should invite these people in who have broken our laws, but then they balk when Trump says, "Fine, then you take care of them!"

But more importantly, what we don't have is evidence that Trump fired people because they refused to break the law, or told them he would pardon them if they got in trouble, like ox has falsely claimed.

I have only claimed what has been reported in the news. Your choice not to believe those sources does not mean they do not exist or that the claims have not been made by people other than myself.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

No, I quoted Mueller's own words saying that the Trump campaign did nothing shady.

Your dispute is not with me but with the facts.

Since when does 'no evidence of collusion' translate to 'did nothing shady'. No wonder you cant follow my arguments.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Since when does 'no evidence of collusion' translate to 'did nothing shady'. No wonder you cant follow my arguments.

Right.

Here are Mueller's exact words: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

That statement covers both legal activities ("coordinated") and illegal ("conspired"). In other words, there is no evidence that the Trump campaign did anything shady.

Unless you think Mueller got that one wrong...

[oxmixmudd]

Right.

Here are Mueller's exact words: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

That statement covers both legal activities ("coordinated") and illegal ("conspired"). In other words, there is no evidence that the Trump campaign did anything shady.

Unless you think Mueller got that one wrong...

I dont think mueller got anything wrong there, but you apparently have a problem comprehending the english language and/or logic.

Did nothing shady is NOT a consequence of the statement you quote. In fact that statement alone doesn't actually claim there was no activity that appeared to be related to collusion. It just means that conclusion could not be established. i e. The implications and correlations associated with the evidence where not sufficiently strong to warrent claiming such activity had been established.

There is a lot of ground between shady activity and established collusion or conspiracy.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

No. You cut the examples out of my response.

I thought they were goofy examples, so I ignored them. Basically, I'm not as obsessed with Trump as you are, so I'm a bad guy.

I think your obsession with Trump is unhealthy, and I'm not going to feed it anymore.

Unsubscribing.

[NorrinRadd]

...



Then I must not be a 'righteous' Christian.
...

Thank God! They're the worst!

[Cow Poke]

Thank God! They're the worst!

[NorrinRadd]

How about Trumps tweet saying he wanted to unload illegals on santuary cities as payback? That would be ILLEGAL, and it is the pushback on that which factors into her firing.

Your no evidence claim is simply not true

Jim

Veering OT a bit.

In any case...

1) I think it's a GREAT idea, and I fully support it.

2) I've heard many claims it would be illegal, I have heard emphatic claims from people directly involved with immigration law and such that it would NOT be illegal. I don't understand why it would be, given that under the reign of Dear Leader Obama, immigrants were notoriously relocated surreptitiously to various places throughout the country, said places given no warning or preparation.

[Mountain Man]

I dont think mueller got anything wrong there, but you apparently have a problem comprehending the english language and/or logic.

Did nothing shady is NOT a consequence of the statement you quote. In fact that statement alone doesn't actually claim there was no activity that appeared to be related to collusion. It just means that conclusion could not be established. i e. The implications and correlations associated with the evidence where not sufficiently strong to warrent claiming such activity had been established.

There is a lot of ground between shady activity and established collusion or conspiracy.

Gee, and it's just too bad that Dirty Cop Mueller couldn't find evidence of these "shady activities" despite having virtually unlimited resources and the political will to do so.

[rogue06]

Veering OT a bit.

In any case...

1) I think it's a GREAT idea, and I fully support it.

2) I've heard many claims it would be illegal, I have heard emphatic claims from people directly involved with immigration law and such that it would NOT be illegal. I don't understand why it would be, given that under the reign of Dear Leader Obama, immigrants were notoriously relocated surreptitiously to various places throughout the country, said places given no warning or preparation.

And those were to places that usually didn't want them whereas these sanctuary cities welcome these hordes of illegal immigrants so there shouldn't be any complaints.

00000000000000ab000-00eee.jpg

[Mountain Man]

Veering OT a bit.

In any case...

1) I think it's a GREAT idea, and I fully support it.

2) I've heard many claims it would be illegal, I have heard emphatic claims from people directly involved with immigration law and such that it would NOT be illegal. I don't understand why it would be, given that under the reign of Dear Leader Obama, immigrants were notoriously relocated surreptitiously to various places throughout the country, said places given no warning or preparation.

I'm not sure why sanctuary city liberals are so against it anyway since they claim that people who break our laws and enter our country illegally are good, honest folks who just want to make better lives for themselves.

[oxmixmudd]

I thought they were goofy examples, so I ignored them. Basically, I'm not as obsessed with Trump as you are, so I'm a bad guy.

I think your obsession with Trump is unhealthy, and I'm not going to feed it anymore.

Unsubscribing.

Talk about going off the rails. You do realize that the last rational response to anything ive said was 2 or 3 posts ago - right? Ive been trying to see if you could manage to reign it in, but it looks to be a lost cause at this point.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Veering OT a bit.

In any case...

1) I think it's a GREAT idea, and I fully support it.

2) I've heard many claims it would be illegal, I have heard emphatic claims from people directly involved with immigration law and such that it would NOT be illegal. I don't understand why it would be, given that under the reign of Dear Leader Obama, immigrants were notoriously relocated surreptitiously to various places throughout the country, said places given no warning or preparation.

Obviously nielson, to the point of sabotaging her position, thought it a very bad idea. Given she was generally a hard liner on immigration policy and very much a supporter of the trump approach overall, i would say that probably meams it was a very, VERY bad idea.

Jim

[rogue06]

Obviously nielson, to the point of sabotaging her position, thought it a very bad idea. Given she was generally a hard liner on immigration policy and very much a supporter of the trump approach overall, i would say that probably meams it was a very, VERY bad idea.

Jim

There are those that fear that once safely ensconced in a sanctuary city they would be here to stay. Others think that this would be about the only thing that can get these cities to repeal their laws. Given the negative and hostile reaction from various advocates of sanctuary policies to such a move it is not unreasonable supposition.

[Cow Poke]

There are those that fear that once safely ensconced in a sanctuary city they would be here to stay.

And vote.