To: Defiant
I thought the ongoing charge has been colluding with the Russians to illegally influence the election. How does meeting to obtain negative information about your political opponent from any and all sources (done in all elections!) constitute collusion to steal an election?
18 posted on
07/11/2017 9:01:14 AM PDT by
luvbach1
(I hope Trump runs roughshod over the inevitable obstuctionists, Dems, progs, libs, or RINOs!)
To: luvbach1
“How does meeting to obtain negative information about your political opponent from any and all sources (done in all elections!) constitute collusion to steal an election?”
Didn’t multiple wealthy democrat supporters offer money to find ‘dirt’ on Trump?
To: luvbach1
Yup.
Still no smoking gun here. Zero, zip, zilch nada evidence the Russians had anything damaging to communicate on Hillary Clinton.
Opposition research is normal in a campaign. The fake news is blowing it way out of proportion.
24 posted on
07/11/2017 9:04:30 AM PDT by
goldstategop
((In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever))
To: luvbach1
yep, and if it comes out the Russians did have dirt on Ugly, all it proves to me is that she could be blackmailed later on had she ever won potus.
28 posted on
07/11/2017 9:05:07 AM PDT by
wright2bear
(#NeverTrump is a mental disorder!)
To: luvbach1
How does meeting to obtain negative information about your political opponent from any and all sources (done in all elections!) constitute collusion to steal an election? Also, Clinton trying to get oppo research on Trump from a former MI-6 agent is not "British meddling" in the election, but Trump trying to get oppo research from a Russian lawyer IS "Russian meddling?"
-PJ
81 posted on
07/11/2017 9:51:37 AM PDT by
Political Junkie Too
(The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson