I read the article. Am not sure what to make of it. I didn't see any big "media push" during the Trump campaign. Much the opposite in fact, I saw a big media push for the Clinton campaign. Most news I saw about Mr Trump was not flattering. On the other hand, I saw candidate Trump busting his hump and campaigning in person all across the country. The Hillary Clinton campaign on the other hand didn't bother with a lot of places, got massively positive free publicity from most media sources and Ms Clinton was obviously in uncertain health. So where was all this media "help" from the Saudis?
I think that you didn't read the article.
What do you think about Saudi Arabia and the Emirates wanting to assist during the elections?
What news were you seeing?
I talked to people who were both for and against Trump none mentioned getting their info anywhere but
funneled through Facebook.
debeda wrote:
I read the article. Am not sure what to make of it. I didn't see any big "media push" during the Trump campaign. Much the opposite in fact, I saw a big media push for the Clinton campaign. Most news I saw about Mr Trump was not flattering. On the other hand, I saw candidate Trump busting his hump and campaigning in person all across the country. The Hillary Clinton campaign on the other hand didn't bother with a lot of places, got massively positive free publicity from most media sources and Ms Clinton was obviously in uncertain health. So where was all this media "help" from the Saudis?
I read the article. Am not sure what to make of i... (
show quote)
debeda wrote:
I read the article. Am not sure what to make of it. I didn't see any big "media push" during the Trump campaign. Much the opposite in fact, I saw a big media push for the Clinton campaign. Most news I saw about Mr Trump was not flattering. On the other hand, I saw candidate Trump busting his hump and campaigning in person all across the country. The Hillary Clinton campaign on the other hand didn't bother with a lot of places, got massively positive free publicity from most media sources and Ms Clinton was obviously in uncertain health. So where was all this media "help" from the Saudis?
I read the article. Am not sure what to make of i... (
show quote)
It seems we have now heard from someone that has stated false allegations before. Since this was stated by Jelun, then it must be a false report with unnamed sources. Just another progressive trying to spread false information.
Prove it didn't happen. BTW, this information comes from a witness in the investigation.
Louie27 wrote:
It seems we have now heard from someone that has stated false allegations before. Since this was stated by Jelun, then it must be a false report with unnamed sources. Just another progressive trying to spread false information.
jelun wrote:
I think that you didn't read the article.
What do you think about Saudi Arabia and the Emirates wanting to assist during the elections?
What news were you seeing?
I talked to people who were both for and against Trump none mentioned getting their info anywhere but
funneled through Facebook.
Oh well i guess that explains it. Im not on Facebook. And, not being a liar, I DID read the article but could not track the substance of it with what i observed during the election cycle.
Louie27 wrote:
It seems we have now heard from someone that has stated false allegations before. Since this was stated by Jelun, then it must be a false report with unnamed sources. Just another progressive trying to spread false information.
Guess so. And has no problem calling others liars.
"Prove it didn't happen" you say? Makes one wonder what nation you live in. Sounds like N.K.?
The burden of proof lies upon the accusor, not the accused, in AMERICA!
jelun wrote:
Prove it didn't happen. BTW, this information comes from a witness in the investigation.
jelun wrote:
Prove it didn't happen. BTW, this information comes from a witness in the investigation.
Yeah, some guys wanted to help Trump win the election, none of them were Russians. The original mandate for an investigation into collusion was limited specifically to possible RUSSIAN collusion. This garbage isn't even tangential to that.
It is unclear whether such a proposal was executed, and the details of who commissioned it remain in dispute. This has about as much chance as a snowball in hell in proving collusion.
However, when Hillary was SecState, she solicited foreign donations for political favors to the tune of $170 million, they money was funneled through the Clinton Foundation, and, as the records show, was laundered into campaign funds. And, still the witch lost. Hooyah!
I got a subpoena from Mueller. I once talked to a neighbor who wanted Trump to win. The neighbor had the audacity to say that he was going to vote for Trump. This is potential collusion.
You forgot to switch back to Louie, ya goof.
You couldn't have read the article or you would have read the bit that says there is no evidence that the Saudis and Emirates actually executed any plan during the election.
Please try again. Now I will go read what you had to say as you talked to yourself.
debeda wrote:
Oh well i guess that explains it. Im not on Facebook. And, not being a liar, I DID read the article but could not track the substance of it with what i observed during the election cycle.
NOBODY, other than perhaps congressional intel committees, has seen the paperwork providing direction for Mr. Mueller.
It's interesting that you suggest that you know what is behind all that redaction.
I think that you are probably aware that collusion is not a defined crime, however, conspiracy is AND it isn't necessary for
any action to take place for conspiracy to be a charge.
None of us know what the results of the investigation will be.
None of us know what other indictments will be brought.
So really, why pretend that you know things that you can't possibly know?
Blade_Runner wrote:
Yeah, some guys wanted to help Trump win the election, none of them were Russians. The original mandate for an investigation into collusion was limited specifically to possible RUSSIAN collusion. This garbage isn't even tangential to that. It is unclear whether such a proposal was executed, and the details of who commissioned it remain in dispute. This has about as much chance as a snowball in hell in proving collusion.
However, when Hillary was SecState, she solicited foreign donations for political favors to the tune of $170 million, they money was funneled through the Clinton Foundation, and, as the records show, was laundered into campaign funds. And, still the witch lost. Hooyah!
Yeah, some guys wanted to help Trump win the elect... (
show quote)
When did we get to court?
I didn't make an accusation, I passed along a report from a reputable source.
In North Korea a report that our Dear Leader didn't like would never surface.
Thank God for the 1st Amendment.
Gatsby wrote:
"Prove it didn't happen" you say? Makes one wonder what nation you live in. Sounds like N.K.?
The burden of proof lies upon the accusor, not the accused, in AMERICA!
jelun wrote:
You forgot to switch back to Louie, ya goof.
You couldn't have read the article or you would have read the bit that says there is no evidence that the Saudis and Emirates actually executed any plan during the election.
Please try again. Now I will go read what you had to say as you talked to yourself.
WOW. You're way more than rude. You're just weird. Have at it lefty.....
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.