Haha. Yes I agree. You have patience in spades good man.
Really, how many shoes have to drop before you Trump apologists finally get around to realizing “This looks pretty damn bad?” An Imelda Marcos closetful?
How many high-ranking Trump campaign officials have to ‘magically’ remember a variety of unreported meetings with Russians, while to a man intimating, “Nothing to see here?”
How many obvious things the campaign and administration have done that favor Russia?
We’re not making this shit up. It’s not fake news. It is a number of investigations by both houses, the FBI, and an independent counsel. So give me a break when you say “Nothing to see here.” I don’t need to know what’s stinking to know it stinks. To high heaven. And low Kremlin.
So you hear someone robbed a bank, you go over to investigate yourself? And plan to take some of the money home with you as evidence that a crime was committed? And maybe bring a couple guys with you, including your boss’ idiot son?
It’s like living in an apartment beneath a cobbler.
(Aside: I actually used to live over a shoe repair shop. So. it wasn’t the shoes dropping that got to me. It was the hammering. He started at 4:00 AM, just about the time I was going to bed.)
I’m glad you brought this up, because it does seem to generate a certain amount of confusion. I think the astonishment is brought on, in large part, because the meeting with members of Trump’s campaign is a thing that actually happened; whereas Clinton’s campaign did not have such a meeting.
Let me see if I understand your question correctly. You feel that Trump’s campaign had a duty to accept help from an individual connected to Russia because it might unearth the scandalous fact that Clinton’s campaign was accepting help from an individual connected to Russia.
Is that about right?
Look, you guys don’t learn. There is a “bombshell” story about Trump/his people “colluding with Russians”. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. Rinse. Repeat. ALL of them fizzling out. And it’s not like later you find something that makes it fizzle. No. It is obvious from the beginning, if you actually read the story, that it’s a nothing story.
Yet you get excited EVERY time. Don’t you get tired of it?
If I am a member of the Clinton campaign, and an “individual connected to Russia” wants to give me information that “individuals connected to Russia were funding the Republican National Committee and supporting Donald Trump”, I would run, not walk, to get this information.
If I am a member of the Trump campaign, and an “individual connected to Russia” wants to give me information that “individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Hillary Clinton”, I would run, not walk, to get this information.
There would not be any suspicion of illegality on obtaining this information, since it would only be logical that an “individual connected to Russia” would have the info on Russians funding the DNC/RNC. You know - horse’s mouth.
If anyone here claims that in either of the two above situations he would not behave that way, I would not believe them.
One of those two situations happened, and the other didn’t. Call me fussy, but I think that makes a difference.
And you didn’t address my actual question. If it would be such a bombshell to learn that Clinton’s campaign received help from a Russian,[sup]*[/sup] and that Trump’s campaign was duty bound to explore that possibility, why is it that when news comes out of Trump’s campaign having a meeting to receive help from a Russian you dismiss it as “a nothing story”?
- Something that doesn’t appear to have actually happened, let’s not forget.
The information received, if true, would be a bombshell. It would not be a “bombshell to learn that Clinton’s campaign received help from a Russian” in such a situation. A Russian would be the logical way to receive information about Russians giving money to RNC. Again - if it happened. I am emphasizing the “if” because judging by the first paragraph of your post, you seem to have problems understanding hypotheticals.
Clinton’s campaign receiving money from a Russian would have been a bombshell.
Trump’s campaign meeting to receive information from a Russian is a nothing story.
Why?
I understand hypotheticals, but I tend to get more upset over things that have actually happened.
I guess I’m just old fashioned.
How are you seriously not getting this? Trump’s campaign intended to accept help from a Russian person known to have ties to the Kremlin. They had reason to believe that the information received from this person would show that Russians were helping the Clinton Campaign.
Read that paragraph again. Go slowly, if necessary. Think hard.
I live about an hour’s drive from Austin. Let’s suppose someone tells me he has information that my competitor exceeds the speed limit when he drives. To get the information, I had better get to Austin in the next forty-five minutes. So off I go to get the info. I arrive on time.
(Post shortened because I just love ellipses.)
Put your mind at ease, this sort of stress is not good for you, it curdles your chi. Mr Mueller is quite the investigator, and has brought on even more investigators to assist. It appears that several prosecutors with special knowledge and expertise in the movement of shady money just happened to be standing around with nothing better to do.
So, all these hypothetical shadows that diminish the lustrous wonder that is Il Douche will be quickly dispelled. Or not. Please do stick around, won’t you?
Oh, he’s just playing that favorite game of misguided Trump supporters known as “what-about-what-about-what-about-what-about.” This version is a variation on the game, because now his assertions (termed “hypotheticals”) don’t even have to have a basis in truth. He’s trying to get you to “prove” a negative for his own amusement.
Moreover, he starts with the deluded premise that anything done in the name of smearing Hillary Clinton is better than defending the Constitution of the country or following its laws – including colluding with our enemies. IOW, the end justifies the means.
You already know better than to waste your time wrestling with pigs. 
I just did. Except - the information was to be about an illegality (Russians contributing to the DNC). Receiving such information would not be illegal. If you think it would be, please cite the law.
Read that again. Go slowly, if necessary. Think hard.
Again, if they suspect there’s illegal campaign activity happening by way of the Russians, why would they handle it themselves and not alert the authorities? Why the hell would Donald Trump Jr be sent to investigate the legitimacy of campaign finance violations of the DNC and/or Russian interference with our federal elections? Or Paul Manafort? Or Jared Kushner? Gosh golly, what could *possibly *go wrong with the Republican nominee’s idiot son, son-in-law and campaign manager meeting with a Russian official about the Russians illegally influencing our presidential election?!?
First, they’d have to find out if there is any evidence for such illegal campaign activity, wouldn’t they?
But I guess that concept is foreign to Democrats. Witness the bacchanalia of evidence-free accusations against Trump administration since November.
No, they don’t. If the Russians are sending money to the DNC in an effort to influence our elections, these clowns need to call people whose job it is to actually investigate it.
Again, if someone calls you to tell you they robbed a bank (or kidnapped a baby or murdered someone), do you rush over to their house to confirm it, and possibly take the money(or baby or dead body) as “evidence” that a crime was committed? Or do you call the damn police and let them investigate? Hint: Call the police; that’s what they’re there for. Donald Trump Jr didn’t need to investigate federal election tampering by the Russians. At best, it just doesn’t look good. At worst, this “investigating” excuse is bullshit spin.
And the shitpile grows. And grows. And grows. And still you say “Nothing to see here.” Are you one of the attorneys Mueller hired or something? Otherwise, you don’t know shit about what’s a ‘nothing story’ any more than we do. But we do have a sense of smell, unlike the clothespin apparently closing your nose.
As for stories ‘fizzling,’ you better know that that’s the nature of the media cycle.
As I said, the concept of having some basis before accusing someone of a crime seems to be utterly foreign to Democrats.
You love to ask “Where’s your evidence?”
Well, where’s yours?