*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[BananaStand]

Here's the thing: no-one can say for sure which came first - the Russian preference for Trump or the alleged wheeling/dealing. Just saying 'well they must have preferred Trump because of what they did' is an argument from hindsight. We don't know for a fact they always preferred and would have supported him anyways.

You do realize that the NSA, CIA, and FBI all vehemently disagree with this...right?

[Poopadoop]

You do realize that the NSA, CIA, and FBI all vehemently disagree with this...right?

So what if the intelligence community knew it? It obviously didn't stop the Trump people from talking to Russians.

[Poopadoop]

If Trump really wanted to look like a great American hero, wouldn't the best thing be for him to say "hey, you know what? Putin did try to get to us and help us in the election. But we told him to fuck off, that's how patriotic we are. MAGA!"

Instead its' all "There was no meddling!" "Fake news!" "Witch hunt" "They were talking about adopting Russian babies" " I don't recall meeting any Russians" etc. etc. etc.

Seems a bit fishy, hmm?

[BananaStand]

If Trump really wanted to look like a great American hero, wouldn't the best thing be for him to say "hey, you know what? Putin did try to get to us and help us in the election. But we told him to fuck off, that's how patriotic we are. MAGA!"

Instead its' all "There was no meddling!" "Fake news!" "Witch hunt" "They were talking about adopting Russian babies" " I don't recall meeting any Russians" etc. etc. etc.

Seems a bit fishy, hmm?

Not in the slightest. If he knew that Russia was trying to shit on Hillary, why wouldn't he just let it happen? What obligation does he have to help the Clinton campaign protect itself? Sure that sounds slimy, and on some level it is. But certainly not any more slimy than any other politician or bureaucrat that's ever existed.

Denying it later is just standard operating procedure. Employing plausible deniability happens all the fucking time. If it only raises eyebrows when it's someone you hate, like Trump, then you're perverting justice by employing an egregious double standard..

And crying "fake news" fires up Trumps supporting base. Come on man, you know this. Ignoring that obvious answer kind of negates the implication of your question. You're being selectively stupid when it serves your anti-Trump cause.

What's it like going through life with no conviction in any of your own beliefs?

[Poopadoop]

Not in the slightest. If he knew that Russia was trying to shit on Hillary, why wouldn't he just let it happen? What obligation does he have to help the Clinton campaign protect itself? Sure that sounds slimy, and on some level it is. But certainly not any more slimy than any other politician or bureaucrat that's ever existed.

Denying it later is just standard operating procedure. Employing plausible deniability happens all the fucking time. If it only raises eyebrows when it's someone you hate, like Trump, then you're perverting justice by employing an egregious double standard..

And crying "fake news" fires up Trumps supporting base. Come on man, you know this. Ignoring that obvious answer kind of negates the implication of your question. You're being selectively stupid when it serves your anti-Trump cause.

What's it like going through life with no conviction in any of your own beliefs?

Point is, if you have meetings that are innocent, you don't deny them later or pretend they were about some implausible thing like adopting babies. What's fishy is that all these people on Trump's team act like they never saw a Russian before in their lives - why go so far out of your way to play innocent? If you are innocent, you don't go to these extremes.

So Sessions meets Kysliak at a party? Why not admit it? Why try to pretend he never met any Russians or 'doesn't recall' as he puts it? Why does he have to recuse himself?

There's no need to deny anything if there's no guilt no shame. You just say 'yeah i met the russian ambassador, so did a lot of other people. so what?'

[BananaStand]

So what if the intelligence community knew it? It obviously didn't stop the Trump people from talking to Russians.

Does not follow. Your claim is that no one knew for sure which side the Russians were on. You are suggesting that it's possible that the Russians were neutral and were willing to support whichever candidate was most willing to play ball.

That claim is unequivocally denied by multiple intelligence communities. In fact, they reported that right up until election night....the Russians expected Hillary to win. They were able to show, definitively, that the Russians had queued up ALOT of anti-hillary shit set to be released AFTER the election. In other words, when there would be no one to oppose Hillary, they STILL planned to undermine her.

How you can say what you're saying in light of those facts is a monumental failing of intelligence.