I think that it is quite suggestive, for instance, that the Obama administration (AG Lynch) colluded with the Clinton campaign given that Clinton would be the Democrat’s choice over that of Trump. — raza

In what way did they collude, and how does that way suggest that the Trump Tower meeting was set up by the DNC?

The Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theory isn’t anything other than a theory. — raza

And your DNC/Russia Trump-entrapment collusion conspiracy theory is just a theory. Except it's a nonsense theory with nothing even approaching circumstantial evidence to support it, whereas Trump just yesterday admitted that members of his campaign met with a Russian to get dirt on Clinton (and who was known to be representing the Russian government).

What aspect, exactly, of the collusion "theory" do you think isn't true or doesn't have sufficient evidence?

So you're saying that Trump's collusion with Russia is actually one big trap that was set by Obama and Hillary in order to try and get him impeached once he won the election? — VagabondSpectre


Stzrok: “insurance policy”. — raza

I'm OK with drawing a connection and investigating to see where it leads, but you've a long way to go to connecting Strzok's comment to this meeting. This sounds along the lines of O.J.'s defense, which consisted of connecting one racist detective to a pervasive conspiracy to frame him.

Most discussions focus on just one problem. Trump creates a new problem every week. — Michael

The problems are political, and every news organization in existence is already obsessed with the man. Trump doesn't have much to do with philosophy, other than asking why humans elect bad leaders and fall prey to populism, and wondering about the failings of democracy in general.

The problems are political, and every news organization in existence is already obsessed with the man. Trump doesn't have much to do with philosophy, other than asking why humans elect bad leaders and fall prey to populism, and wondering about the failings of democracy in general. — Marchesk

Yeah, well, philosophy is overrated. Politics is where it's at. The real deal.

Trump creates a new problem every week. — Michael

It's part of his technique. He sows confusion, chaos and arguments to keep everyone busy and off-balance and to continually change the subject. Works brilliantly, although it ought not to be interpreted to mean that Trump actually knows what he's doing, or has any kind of master plan. The whole thing is simply impulse and ego, always.

Is anything more unseemly than the President of the United States engaging in a slanging match with a professional athlete via Twitter? If the world was sane, he would be immediately impeached for 'demeaning the office of the President'.

On the possible consequences of Trump's stance on Iran and the nuclear deal:

With the threat of new sanctions being imposed by the US, Mr. Rouhani is in danger of appearing to have failed and is likely to be blamed by the hardliners for any renewed hardships suffered by the Iranian people.

Meanwhile Iran's hardliners, who were against entering any sort of agreement with the US, have been celebrating.

They have long accused Mr. Rouhani and his government of surrendering too many of Iran's rights to the West as part of the nuclear deal.

Some of his detractors are influential. They include the powerful Revolutionary Guards as well as conservative members of the clergy and the ruling elite.

These hardliners may now use Mr. Trump's decision to push for a tougher stance from Mr. Rouhani or seek to have him replaced by someone who will pursue one.


The move by the US president is likely to have a detrimental effect on bringing Iran back to the negotiating table with the US.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said of the decision: "I said from the first day: don't trust America."

Some Iranian citizens have also taken to social media to accuse the US of being deceptive and dishonest. — BBC News

It seems much more plausible and likely that the Trump campaign just colluded of its own accord. Proposing that it's actually a Dem conspiracy sounds crazier than anything the Dems say about Trump. Nobody will believe i — VagabondSpectre

Well. All the facts may eventually be revealed. Be sure to hang around to see. You can be sure I will be commenting if or when they do.

just yesterday admitted that members of his campaign met with a Russian to get dirt on Clinton (and who was known to be representing the Russian government). — Michael

Yep. If she wasn’t the plant she appears to have been, or if it was someone else other than her, her or their information could have been well worth every American hearing.

In what way did they collude, and how does that way suggest that the Trump Tower meeting was set up by the DNC? — Michael

Much in the same vein as Lynch meeting Bill Clinton on a runway prior to her decision to recuse herself from the investigation of Bill’s wife.

Just typical incestuousness behaviour, to be expected given the history of the Clintons.

Much in the same vein as Lynch meeting Bill Clinton on a runway prior to her decision to recuse herself from the investigation of Bill’s wife.

Just typical incestuousness behaviour, to be expected given the history of the Clintons. — raza

What? You're saying that because Lynch met with Bill Clinton on a runway then the DNC colluded with Fusion GPS and a Russian lawyer to entrap members of Trump's campaign?

What are you smoking?

Yep. If she wasn’t the plant she appears to have been, or if it was someone else other than her, her or their information could have been well worth every American hearing. — raza

So now you accept that there was collusion between Trump's campaign and representatives of the Russian government.

So now you accept that there was collusion between Trump's campaign and representatives of the Russian government. — Michael

I’m not. But, first of all, collusion isn’t a crime. Secondly, oppo research is common, has always been common, and “opposition research” was a term the Clinton campaign also used for their spying-like excuses.

What? You're saying that because Lynch met with Bill Clinton on a runway then the DNC colluded with Fusion GPS and a Russian lawyer to entrap members of Trump's campaign — Michael

It’s a pattern.

What are you smoking? — Michael

I’m smoking because I’m on fire. The opposite temperature to the snowflake you represent.

But, first of all, collusion isn’t a crime. — raza

It is if the manner of the collusion is a crime, e.g. soliciting or accepting a thing of value from a foreign national in connection to an election or conspiring to commit an offense or to defraud the United States/aiding and abetting a crime (e.g. hacking).

Secondly, oppo research is common, has always been common, and “opposition research” was a term the Clinton campaign also used for their spying-like excuses. — raza

Purchasing the services of a commercial research and strategic intelligence firm based in the United States (e.g. Fusion GPS) is not the same thing as accepting information from the representative of a foreign government who are hoping for a foreign policy that favours them.

Here's a timely article that explains the difference.

I’m smoking because I’m on fire. The opposite temperature to the snowflake you represent. — raza

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

It’s a pattern. — raza

What's a pattern? How does Lynch meeting Bill on the runway of an airport show a "pattern" that indicates that the Trump Tower meeting was DNC-coordinated entrapment? You're just talking nonsense and, again, being a huge hypocrite. You'll buy into this ridiculous conspiracy but then demand personal access to irrefutable proof before you will accept that the various investigations into Trump's campaign are warranted or that Russia hacked the DNC and tried to hack the election.

You'll buy into this ridiculous conspiracy but then demand personal access to irrefutable proof before you will accept that the various investigations into Trump's campaign are warranted or that Russia hacked the DNC and tried to hack the election. — Michael

At least this is an admission from you that no irrefutable proof exists of your accusation.

As for the Wapo article you submitted, it is wapo. Wapo is owned by the oligarch Jeff Bezos. Bezos has a $600,000,000 contract with the CIA. Bezos owns Amazon packaging sweatshops where workers do not get proper breaks. He is quite the dubious character.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean — Michael

I’m not surprised because it is original and not like the baaaa baaa sheep-like calls such as “what you smoking?”

At least this is an admission from you that no irrefutable proof exists of your accusation. — raza

No, it's an admission that there's no public irrefutable proof. And it's still the case that you're a hypocrite, so don't think that you can deflect away.

And what accusation have I made?

As for the Wapo article you submitted, it is wapo. Wapo is owned by the oligarch Jeff Bezos. Bezos has a $600,000,000 contract with the CIA. Bezos owns Amazon packaging sweatshops where workers do not get proper breaks. He is quite the dubious character. — raza

So because the owner has a contract with the CIA and owns a business that abuses workers then the article that quotes the former chief counsel for the Federal Election Commission saying that there's a legal difference between the Steele Dossier and the Trump Tower meeting is wrong?

You seriously have issues with critical thinking. But then you've been making that abundantly clear for a while.

You seriously have issues with... thinking. — Michael

Fixed it.

No, it's an admission that there's no public irrefutable proof. And it's still the case that you're a hypocrite, so don't think that you can deflect away. — Michael

And you come under the definition of “public”. Therefore you cannot present irrefutable proof. For you, someone just has to say “irrefutable proof” exists and that is evidence for you.

Please do not ever accept to do jury duty for the sake of justice.

the article that quotes the former chief counsel for the Federal Election Commission saying that there's a legal difference between the Steele Dossier and the Trump Tower meeting is wrong? — Michael

Emphasis should be on “former” chief counsel. This means he has no horse in the race which futher means he can say whatever he likes without threat to a position he no longer holds within which he would be forced to take care with his words.

Presumably he was in that role under Obama.

Maybe Wapo should endeavor get some information from the currently employed chief counsel.

For you, someone just has to say “irrefutable proof” exists and that is evidence for you. — raza

How did you come to that conclusion?

Perhaps you have trouble understanding my words, so I'll try to be clearer. You have repeatedly said that you haven't personally seen evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russian government, and so you don't support the accusation that he did, and yet you accuse the DNC of colluding with Fusion GPS and a Russian lawyer to entrap members of the Trump campaign despite the fact that you haven't personally seen such evidence. You're a hypocrite.

Presumably he was in that role under Obama. — raza

Lawrence Noble, served as Deputy General Counsel from 1983 to 1987 and General Counsel from 1987 to 2000. FYI, both appointments under Reagan.

Emphasis should be on “former” chief counsel. This means he has no horse in the race which futher means he can say whatever he likes without threat to a position he no longer holds within which he would be forced to take care with his words. — raza

So because he can say whatever he likes he's either lying or mistaken? Or, perhaps, he's knowledgable and telling the truth.

Perhaps you have trouble understanding my words, so I'll try to be clearer. You have repeatedly said that you haven't personally seen evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russian government, and so you don't support the accusation that he did, and yet you accuse the DNC of colluding with Fusion GPS and a Russian lawyer to entrap members of the Trump campaign despite the fact that you haven't personally seen such evidence. You're a hypocrite. — Michael

It is what I am going with. As I have said countless times about this case, we shall just have to wait and see.

You have a narrative and opinion you are going with, without seeing irrefutable evidence, and I have my opinion based on what I have come across.

So, I am no less a hypocrite than you. .

Lawrence Noble, served as Deputy General Counsel from 1983 to 1987 and General Counsel from 1987 to 2000. FYI, both appointments under Reagan. — Michael

Ok. So what? As I said, maybe Wapo should seek the opinion of the current occupier of that position.

Do you think I am some loyal republican or something?

So because he can say whatever he likes he's either lying or mistaken? Or, perhaps, he's knowledgable and telling the truth. — Michael

Time may tell.

Ok. So what? As I said, maybe Wapo should seek the opinion of the current occupier of that position.

Do you think I am some loyal republican or something? — raza

I was correcting your false presumption that he served under Obama.

It is what I am going with. As I have said countless times about this case, we shall just have to wait and see.

You have a narrative and opinion you are going with, without seeing irrefutable evidence, and I have my opinion based on what I have come across.

So, I am no less a hypocrite than you. . — raza

I'm reporting what the various intelligence agencies and investigations have officially confirmed (that Russia hacked the DNC and influenced the election to help Trump) and what Trump himself has confirmed (that members of his campaign met with a representative of the Russian government to get dirt on Clinton).

Whereas you're fabricating conspiracy theories from the wildest of leaps.

Our positions aren't anything alike.

Just a quick question - doesn't the large chain of now completely verifiable lies about the Trump Tower meeting give you any pause? I mean they went from complete denial the meeting happened, to it was with a lawyer about adoptions, to it was 4 others with some ambiguous chat - than back to adoption, to NYT breaking emails, beat to the punch by DJT that it was about getting dirt, to 5 people, to 6 people, to 7 people etc. on and on.

there were many many chances along the way from late 2016 to just tell the truth. Does it not bother you that the President, his son, and his staff, continually and badly lied about this meeting?

a presumption is a presumption. To call a presumption a false presumption is like calling a question a false question or a doubt a false doubt.

I could have looked him up but I just couldn’t be bothered due to it’s, in my opinion, irrelevancy.