Donald Trump campaign made contact with Russian officials at least 18 times during presidential camp

No it is not rare! Nor is it illegal!

Correct. It is not unusual.

Clinton's own record reflects differently - Almost one million miles traveled, having visited 112 countries.
I doubt she was jet-setting to experience foreign cuisine.

The point for the opposition is to RAISE suspicion, with inflamed language and accusations, of Trump or his associates of having any contact with Russia.

The opposition is quite aware of their followers, to hear a suspicion and defend it as a fact.

Free speech, speaking to foreigners is not illegal. I could care less if Trump ever met Putin, dined with him, discussed likes and dislikes, discussed business adventures. I could care less if Trump was probing to see if he and Putin could have an amicable supportive relationship to work against terrorism.

All the crafted suspicions are specifically ABOUT "MONEY". But hey who in the opposition is talking about "MONEY" ? No one! And why not, since "accepting" foreign MONEY, is what POINTS to an illegality! And Trump is WEALTHY! He doesn't need to SET up a FOUNDATION, that accepts FOREIGN MONEY, and receive a SALARY from the FOUNDATION, and use it for campaigning....LIKE SOME PEOPLE, who does NOT want MONEY to be out in the limelight!

So how to create a SCANDAL? Pick a foreign adversary and claim Trump or his associates had conversations with the adversary. And then? IMPLY the conversations were to COAX the adversary, (WHOM the opposition is FURTHER implys, IS COZY with Trump,) to WIN Trump a Presidential election!

LOL seriously? First of all, the opposition (Liberals) have redefined what COZY means, never having revealed Trump meeting Putin or speaking to Putin. Trump himself claimed, he may or may not have met Putin, under circumstances regarding Trump's involvement with pageants. WOW, that's COZY! lol

Secondly ~ Just EXACTLY HOW does the opposition claim Russians RIGGED the US Presidential Election?

LOL seriously? Trump supposedly coheresed, asked, directed, told, ordered, himself or his aides to ask the Russians to RIG the US Presidential Election in his favor?

HOW, would the Opposition EVEN think that possible....or successful....less they had themselves done such a thing?

And? Where is the PROOF, a single piece of evidence Trump did such a thing?

With no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion....WHAT is an investigation based on?

Suspicion? WHAT is the suspicion? 18 calls and electronic messages?

Based on what? U.S. intelligence. Under WHOSE direction to INVESTIGATE Trumps campaign calls and electronic messages? Oh, right, the U. S. intelligence under Obama's administration!

And? According to reports of the calls and electronic messages of those involved....WHAT was the topic of discussion?

OH no.... A willingness for a Russian leader to have civil talks with a potential US President. oh, oh, oh, the scandal! LOL

Why the BIG to do? Under the Obama administration the CIA was directed to record communication between Trump's staff and Russia.... And the CIA have the recordings and transcripts... And the transcripts were given to : (for review)

Transcripts and "other documents". What "other documents" ? How in depth did the Obama administration collude with the CIA to "secretly" probe Trumps activities?

 

Here's how this will be "refuted":
1. Fake news.
2. Liberals are always attacking Trump.
3. At least he's not Hillary.
4. Yeah but look at what Obama did.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

Nah....!

I'll go with the the comedy of the Liberal constitutes whining about Trump MAYBE talking to a foreigner, while THEY elected a man to sit in the White House who has held at least TWO FOREIGN citizenship's!

 

Oh look, the Dear Leader shows the way....

First he uses #4 "Yeah but look at what Obama did."




Then he goes with #2, "Liberals are always attacking Trump":

 

So, you're going with #4.

 

I'd like to know exactly why we're not allowed to bring up precedent.

 

It ruins the narrative and exposes hypocrisy.

The truth doesn't matter. Everything Trump does is the absolute worst ever.

 

Its not convenient.

 

It doesn't defend the current occupant of the White House. It simply says if someone else did it, Trump can do it, too, never mind that it was wrong then, it's wrong now.

It goes to the idea that the left must be crushed and their hypocrisy bared, as if that is actual governing. Let's get our agenda passed and put conservative policies in place. That's the best revenge.

 

So what?

 

So what?
So it proves that two of my four predicted responses were used to defend Trump.

So what?
It does nothing to defend Trump.

 

Defend him against what charge?

Good grief, You think a President "governs" 24 - 7 ? He can say what ever he wants in response to people talking about him, so what?

Trump and the appropriate people are already working on that. Trump multi-tasks. I get that, I do that all day long everyday.

BTW - it is not about "revenge", but is about "succeeding" to accomplish an agenda, despite adversaries constantly in your face.

 

It exposes the hypocrisy of the argument being made in the first place.

 

That's funny. Take a known response, use it as a prediction, then say........see, see, my prediction was right. LOL

Trump is not on trial, but in the court of Liberal opinion. He says what he wants in response to them, just like you say what you want in response to people who talk about you or to you in a manner you do not favor. So why shouldn't he?

 

I've said these are the predicted responses of Trump defenders several times in the past. This is from just two days ago, for example:

Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

He can say he's the most attacked president in history and he can say that Obama and Hillary did certain things, but this is not a defense for allegedly asking Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn. Nor is it a defense of allegedly passing along classified information to the Russian ambassador. It's deflection and rationalization, not a defense. Of course it probably seems legit to you because these are your tactics as well.

 

But, but, but...

That's against the rules.

 

Wow! You must be clairvoyant. Pat yourself on the back again.

We all know these kinds of predictions on your part are meant to limit the response to what you know is blatant hypocrisy on your part.

You're just trying to control the narrative. Par for the course.

 

Didn't seem to bother you at all when Obama and his crew were giving up state secrets and outing CIA operatives.