OT " Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' "
 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5440432505001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Better than I could explain it :-)

OT " Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' "
 

On Thu, 18 May 2017 19:26:45 -0700, Oren wrote:


http://video.foxnews.com/v/5440432505001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Better than I could explain it :-)

I saw that interview last night and it was what I believed was the case all along. My reasoning was simple.
With everything that was "leaked" in an attempt to destroy Trump there has been absolutely nothing leaked
that is evidence of collusion. That should be proof enough for all the loony leftists, but of course it
won't.

OT " Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' "
 

On 5/18/2017 7:26 PM, Oren wrote:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5440432505001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Better than I could explain it :-)


But you'd have to be a better liar.

Many aspects of that document have already been verified.

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+...ssier+verified

OT " Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' "
 

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 11:21:52 AM UTC-4, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 19:26:45 -0700, Oren wrote:


http://video.foxnews.com/v/5440432505001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Better than I could explain it :-)

I saw that interview last night and it was what I believed was the case all along. My reasoning was simple.
With everything that was "leaked" in an attempt to destroy Trump there has been absolutely nothing leaked
that is evidence of collusion. That should be proof enough for all the loony leftists, but of course it
won't.

ROFL. So, the fact that definitive proof hasn't been leaked, means
there is nothing there? How did that work in Watergate? At this
stage in Watergate, there was no definitive proof that Nixon was
a crook either.

OT " Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' "
 

On Fri, 19 May 2017 11:37:41 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 5/18/2017 7:26 PM, Oren wrote:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5440432505001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Better than I could explain it :-)


But you'd have to be a better liar.

Many aspects of that document have already been verified.

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+...ssier+verified

First listing in your link states exactly what the FoxNews interview said:

"So far, no single piece of evidence has been made public proving that the Trump campaign joined with Russia
to steal the US presidency - nothing."

So, you have now become a Republican? Congratulations!

OT " Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' "
 

On 5/19/17 1:51 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 11:21:52 AM UTC-4, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 19:26:45 -0700, Oren wrote:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5440432505001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips
Better than I could explain it :-)
I saw that interview last night and it was what I believed was the
case all along. My reasoning was simple. With everything that was
"leaked" in an attempt to destroy Trump there has been absolutely
nothing leaked that is evidence of collusion. That should be proof
enough for all the loony leftists, but of course it won't.
ROFL. So, the fact that definitive proof hasn't been leaked, means
there is nothing there? How did that work in Watergate? At this
stage in Watergate, there was no definitive proof that Nixon was a
crook either.

Alan Dershowitz was on whatever talk show. His position is that there
wasn't any crime
committed even if Trump asked the Russians to help him win with all of
their resources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNX6eqTMCEE
Dershowitz is pretty heavy on the Democrat side if memory serves.

OT " Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' "
 

On 05/19/2017 04:36 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 5/19/17 1:51 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 11:21:52 AM UTC-4, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 19:26:45 -0700, Oren wrote:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5440432505001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Better than I could explain it :-)
I saw that interview last night and it was what I believed was the
case all along. My reasoning was simple. With everything that was
"leaked" in an attempt to destroy Trump there has been absolutely
nothing leaked that is evidence of collusion. That should be proof
enough for all the loony leftists, but of course it won't.
ROFL. So, the fact that definitive proof hasn't been leaked, means
there is nothing there? How did that work in Watergate? At this
stage in Watergate, there was no definitive proof that Nixon was a
crook either.

Alan Dershowitz was on whatever talk show. His position is that there
wasn't any crime
committed even if Trump asked the Russians to help him win with all of
their resources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNX6eqTMCEE
Dershowitz is pretty heavy on the Democrat side if memory serves.



It is beyond me why these deep state regressive want to restart
the cold war. The only thing I can think of it Finstein's husband
wants more no-bid weapons contracts.

OT " Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' "
 

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 7:28:19 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 05/19/2017 04:36 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 5/19/17 1:51 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 11:21:52 AM UTC-4, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 19:26:45 -0700, Oren wrote:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5440432505001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Better than I could explain it :-)
I saw that interview last night and it was what I believed was the
case all along. My reasoning was simple. With everything that was
"leaked" in an attempt to destroy Trump there has been absolutely
nothing leaked that is evidence of collusion. That should be proof
enough for all the loony leftists, but of course it won't.
ROFL. So, the fact that definitive proof hasn't been leaked, means
there is nothing there? How did that work in Watergate? At this
stage in Watergate, there was no definitive proof that Nixon was a
crook either.

Alan Dershowitz was on whatever talk show. His position is that there
wasn't any crime
committed even if Trump asked the Russians to help him win with all of
their resources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNX6eqTMCEE
Dershowitz is pretty heavy on the Democrat side if memory serves.

It is beyond me why these deep state regressive want to restart
the cold war. The only thing I can think of it Finstein's husband
wants more no-bid weapons contracts.


I recall something about companies owned by Lady Bird Johnson making a lot of money off the Vietnam War. Democrat/Commiecrat elite are actually quite good at milking the government for lots of money. ヽ(€¢€¿€¢)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Penniless Monster

OT " Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' "
 

On Fri, 19 May 2017 11:37:41 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 5/18/2017 7:26 PM, Oren wrote:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5440432505001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Better than I could explain it :-)


But you'd have to be a better liar.

Many aspects of that document have already been verified.


I could never lie like you Dimwitcrats. Now go sit in the corner for
your timeout safe space.

You clowns can't figure out the words "collusion" or "interference".
They don't mean the same except in your dense heads. Asshat!

OT " Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' "
 

On 05/19/2017 06:28 PM, T wrote:
On 05/19/2017 04:36 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 5/19/17 1:51 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 11:21:52 AM UTC-4, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 19:26:45 -0700, Oren wrote:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5440432505001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Better than I could explain it :-)
I saw that interview last night and it was what I believed was the
case all along. My reasoning was simple. With everything that was
"leaked" in an attempt to destroy Trump there has been absolutely
nothing leaked that is evidence of collusion. That should be proof
enough for all the loony leftists, but of course it won't.
ROFL. So, the fact that definitive proof hasn't been leaked, means
there is nothing there? How did that work in Watergate? At this
stage in Watergate, there was no definitive proof that Nixon was a
crook either.

Alan Dershowitz was on whatever talk show. His position is that there
wasn't any crime
committed even if Trump asked the Russians to help him win with all of
their resources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNX6eqTMCEE
Dershowitz is pretty heavy on the Democrat side if memory serves.



It is beyond me why these deep state regressive want to restart
the cold war. The only thing I can think of it Finstein's husband
wants more no-bid weapons contracts.

Funny, when I was a kid it was the Birchers and the Spotlight crowd that
saw Russians behind every potted plant. Now it's the Dems.

I'm not a fan of the guy but it's also amusing how the Dems don't like
their VP candidate for the 2000 election anymore and Comey is the most
standup guy in the world.

You don't need a weatherman to know which was the wind is blowing.
Somebody said that once. Just watch a Democrat. They've been swinging in
the breeze since slick willie invented triangulation.

Not that the Republicans are any better. I used to look at redstate.com
every now and then but i think they got bought by WaPo.

OT " Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' "
 

On Fri, 19 May 2017 17:30:59 -0500, Gordon Shumway
wrote:

On Fri, 19 May 2017 11:37:41 -0700, Bob F wrote:

On 5/18/2017 7:26 PM, Oren wrote:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5440432505001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Better than I could explain it :-)


But you'd have to be a better liar.

Many aspects of that document have already been verified.

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+...ssier+verified

First listing in your link states exactly what the FoxNews interview said:

"So far, no single piece of evidence has been made public proving that the Trump campaign joined with Russia
to steal the US presidency - nothing."

So, you have now become a Republican? Congratulations!

Bob is a lap dog.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5441776600001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

OT " Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' "
 

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:01:20 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 05/19/2017 06:28 PM, T wrote:
On 05/19/2017 04:36 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 5/19/17 1:51 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 11:21:52 AM UTC-4, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Thu, 18 May 2017 19:26:45 -0700, Oren wrote:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5440432505001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Better than I could explain it :-)
I saw that interview last night and it was what I believed was the
case all along. My reasoning was simple. With everything that was
"leaked" in an attempt to destroy Trump there has been absolutely
nothing leaked that is evidence of collusion. That should be proof
enough for all the loony leftists, but of course it won't.
ROFL. So, the fact that definitive proof hasn't been leaked, means
there is nothing there? How did that work in Watergate? At this
stage in Watergate, there was no definitive proof that Nixon was a
crook either.

Alan Dershowitz was on whatever talk show. His position is that there
wasn't any crime
committed even if Trump asked the Russians to help him win with all of
their resources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNX6eqTMCEE
Dershowitz is pretty heavy on the Democrat side if memory serves.

It is beyond me why these deep state regressive want to restart
the cold war. The only thing I can think of it Finstein's husband
wants more no-bid weapons contracts.

Funny, when I was a kid it was the Birchers and the Spotlight crowd that
saw Russians behind every potted plant. Now it's the Dems.

I'm not a fan of the guy but it's also amusing how the Dems don't like
their VP candidate for the 2000 election anymore and Comey is the most
standup guy in the world.

You don't need a weatherman to know which was the wind is blowing.
Somebody said that once. Just watch a Democrat. They've been swinging in
the breeze since slick willie invented triangulation.

Not that the Republicans are any better. I used to look at redstate.com
every now and then but i think they got bought by WaPo.


Check out "http://www.libertyheadlines.com/" The site isn't cluttered up like a lot of others. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Clutter Monster

OT " Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' "
 

On 05/19/2017 08:17 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Check out "http://www.libertyheadlines.com/" The site isn't cluttered up like a lot of others. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

Sort of left wing compared to my usual haunts :)

OT " Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' "
 

On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 1:12:46 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 05/19/2017 08:17 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Check out "http://www.libertyheadlines.com/" The site isn't cluttered up like a lot of others. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

Sort of left wing compared to my usual haunts :)

Heck, I look at everything from Fox to RT. The trick is to find the common elements in the stories from different sources then filter out the spin and male bovine droppings to get at the truth. I have yet to find a news source that is truly unbiased. A look at the pictures the different sources use can be a good indicator of which way the news source leans. o_O

[8~{} Uncle News Monster