Aunburdened said:
sycasey said:
Aunburdened said:
sycasey said:
Problem with saying "Russiagate was a hoax" is you need to define your terms there. Did anyone prove that Trump was personally colluding with Russia? No. Was it a legitimate thing to investigate? Yes.
No, it was bull**** from the beginning. But the Democrats on this forum have never been able to have an honest discussion about Russigate and that isn't ever going to change.
Okay, let's have an honest discussion. Tell me why it was "bulls**t." By that I assume you mean that no investigation should have happened? Or if not, please define your terms.
I did that before and you guys did exactly what you always do. Blame the source.
The bull**** about Russiagate is well documented at this point. I'm not interested in jockeying with sycophants on the topic again. Anyone that is not already well educated on how the whole thing started as a Clinton op that morphed into an intelligence agency op based on a false predicate and has a more curious mind than the Democrat sycophants can PM me for what to read. I'm not giving their BS air.
Okay, so no honest discussion then.
I've seen much of the above. My take is that two things can be true:
1. Yes, the Clinton campaign was indeed trying to push a narrative about Trump being in Russia's pocket. This was hardly a big secret, as she called him "a puppet of Vladimir Putin" in one of the debates. They probably did some shady stuff to provoke further investigations.
2. The Trump team (especially Paul Manafort)
was also doing things that looked super fishy and like possible collusion with Russian operatives and that would have triggered an investigation anyway.
Unfortunately some people just want to stop at point 1 and never look further into point 2.
