(12-16-2017, 11:59 AM)rollerjag Wrote:

(12-15-2017, 09:06 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: Based on what we know, I feel very confident in saying this. After all this time, the two people he chose to arrest include someone lying about doing something legal and one with financial crimes. Considering the amount of time and money that has been spent on the investigation, there's good reason to believe that he picked them to justify the entire investigation. I wouldn't be surprised to see it come to end in the next few months. 

I'm curious what evidence is out there to support collusion because I haven't seen it.

If we're basing what we say on what we know, then you absolutely cannot say there was collusion much less that they may be talking / assisting to the FBI.

To quote another populist president, "There you go again...", invoking the strange math of opinion + fact = fact, which is as faulty as 2 = 4 (the actual number indicted).

Since opinion is now fact, the oft-invoked "no collusion" mantra is used as much as a smokescreen on one side as it is an accusation based on hope on the other.

So, you can't show the evidence then?

You're right. There are 4 people arrested. It's obvious I'm referring to Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort--the same people most people refer to when they talk about it. Rick Gates and George Papadopolous are nobodies, but since you brought them up, we can talk about them too. Gates, like Manafort, was arrest for things that have absolutely nothing to do with Trump. Is he the one you're using to support collusion? Because it doesn't have to do with collusion. Papadopolous, like Flynn, was arrested for lying. They supposedly know what he talked about, and the things listed in the warrant aren't even illegal. Nothing that has been listed in any of the charges show collusion, but you want me to believe that it exist. 

You can substitute Russia with almost any other country. It's only a problem with Russia because Hillary pushed this narrative to justify her illegal activity with the servers. While investigating her, Strozk cleared her of wrongdoing despite the evidence of criminal activity. He purposely failed to abide by FBI standards of interrogations and didn't even record the conversation he had with Clinton who was a suspect to a crime! Clinton's campaign then paid for a fake dossier, and now the same investigator is investigating Trump using information gained from this dossier. There's more evidence to suggest collusion between Clinton and the FBI than Trump and Russia. Hell, there's so much more too (Fusion GPS and the DOJ connection), but I'm not interested in spending all day on this.

These same investigators didn't have a problem when Hillary lied to them. Why is lying a problem now unless they have ulterior motives? Sure, sure send them to jail for lying, but let's not pretend that they care about lying when they've been doing it all along.

---