*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

So then why aren't we investigating any Trump-Finland connections?

Because no-one has alleged any. Because none of his campaign team had shady business dealings with Finland. Because no-one lied about talking to Finns. Because the president never conspired to make up a story about why they were talking to Finns.

See how easy that is?

[BananaStand]

Because no-one has alleged any. Because none of his campaign team had shady business dealings with Finland. Because no-one lied about talking to Finns. Because the president never conspired to make up a story about why they were talking to Finns.

See how easy that is?

Yeah, I missed the word "alleged". I ninja-edited it. But not fast enough

The question now is....why are allegations enough?

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, I missed the word "alleged". I ninja-edited it. But not fast enough

The question now is....why are allegations enough?

Because typically (and in this case) they are based on suspicions which are founded in something tangible but not conclusive. That's why you investigate allegations to see if they are true.

[BananaStand]

Because typically (and in this case) they are based on suspicions which are founded in something tangible but not conclusive. That's why you investigate allegations to see if they are true.

Shouldn't we first investigate the credibility of the person making the allegations. If they have an obvious reason to have a heavily biased perceptions of events....are their allegations credible??

Imagine if I accused you of having six heads, is your willingness to investigate influenced by the fact that you just saw me take LSD?

[Poopadoop]

Shouldn't we first investigate the credibility of the person making the allegations. If they have an obvious reason to have a heavily biased perceptions of events....are their allegations credible??

When the former head of the FBI swears under oath about the president asking him to let his buddy (Flynn) off the hook, then I think no matter what you think of either Comey or Trump you should investigate it, yes.

[BananaStand]

When the former head of the FBI swears under oath about the president asking him to let his buddy (Flynn) off the hook, then I think no matter what you think of either Comey or Trump you should investigate it, yes.

That's just a legal magic trick. They can't get an obstruction charge without proving intent. And since intent can't be proven...that should be the end of the investigation. Instead, people like you have blue-pilled themselves to try and prove intent by showing that the Russia stuff is true.

[Poopadoop]

That's just a legal magic trick. They can't get an obstruction charge without proving intent. And since intent can't be proven...that should be the end of the investigation. Instead, people like you have blue-pilled themselves to try and prove intent by showing that the Russia stuff is true.

I'm not the one in charge of the investigation, so what I think has zero influence on how it all shakes out.

You should instead maybe be talking to your congressman if you feel the investigation is such a huge waste of taxpayers' money.

[Poopadoop]

Imagine if I accused you of having six heads, is your willingness to investigate influenced by the fact that you just saw me take LSD?

Not even close to being a valid argument, since no-one witnessed Comey take LSD prior to his meeting with Trump and there's no reason to think therefore that he hallucinated the alleged words that Trump allegedly said to him.