the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

The link doesn't work. The question is whether the information in the dossier was true or false. I wouldn't doubt that someone paid for it.

The people who paid for it and their relationships is what makes that interesting.

So a political candidate paid for research on the opposition and it happened to lead back to the Russian government.

And you still support the candidate

Short summary from Ben Shapiro of Trump-Russia collusion vs. Hillary-Russia collusion.

What The Hillary-Russia Collusion Scandal Does – And Doesn’t – Mean

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22843/what-hillary-russia-collusion-scandal-does-%E2%80%93-and-ben-shapiro#

So, the Hillary camp’s confirmed collusion with the Russian government is already more damning than the Trump camp’s suspected collusion with the Russian government.

More damning? If it was about the election, who won? Suppose we just say that the Russians colluded to influence the election. Who should we be investigating?

Besides, the language used is often slippery. I.e., Trump will say that "he" never colluded with anyone; but, evidence shows clearly that members of staff and campaign sought help from Russia (even congratulated Wikileaks for releasing information gained from Russian sources). Otoh, though nothing has been produced showing direct meetings between Clinton and Russians, he'll say that "Hillary" colluded with them.

If Hillary were president, I'm sure this would be valid. As it is, the whole point is to end Mueller's investigation. And, if Hillary should be locked up, the same should happen to team Trump. It's also interesting how the president asks whether he can pardon his family and staff if they're found guilty.

It's just like the sexual harassment charges against Trump. The first thing he'll do is point to Bill Clinton.

Shapiro has referenced Manafort, Flynn and Carter's 'close relationships/connections' with the Russian government, and the Donald Jr. meeting, but thinks that 4 people in direct contact with Russians and with a direct line of commmunication to the presidential candidate is merely suspicious but doesn't show actual collusion.
However, Hilary/the DNC contracting an external firm who outsourced an investigation to third party who contacted some Russians is outright collusion?
This logic works for you?

Rob, yeah, on its face I think it's more substantial, but neither camp of collusion-accusers has gotten anywhere solid yet.

Collusion isn't a crime. The results or the intended results of collusion are the crimes. That's why merely meeting with Russians is not criminal. They have to be meeting to do something illegal. However, it can be criminal to lie under oath about having meetings or the purpose of those meetings. It is also illegal to hide or obstruct the legal collection of information about such meetings. Remember that Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for having his willie sacked.

We know Trumps representatives met directly with Russian agents. That's been admitted. The point of focusing on the word collusion is so that it can be denied. Or, if it just means meetings, it can be argued that Clinton reps met with people who met with Russians too.

Oh, turns out that it was the Republican antiTrumpers who originally sponsored the dossier. Google. But, still, what's in the dossier?

Nothing about Russians, but I'm just going to put this here, the tweet that Rep. John Lewis made congratulating President Hillary on her 70th birthday. He said a year ago he didn't think Trump was legit, I guess he still feels that way, but his tweet is as absurd as Hillary's and other Dems refusal to accept the reality she lost.

This is one of the greatest political delusions of all time. OF ALL TIME!

John Lewis twitter