I very much appreciate your response, though I’m not sure we will agree that these are “known…
Randy Withers

Well first of all, you dodged my point that the media is spamming millions of stories claiming Trump is guilty of colluding with Russia with zero facts to offer to back it up so if covering that is news worthy, why not several stores with some actual facts to support them against Hillary and the democrats colluding with Russia?

Your only reply is this:

But to suggest that there is no evidence is to ignore reality.

Why? Why is it ignoring reality to- correctly say there is zero evidence to prove Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election as all media sources claim? You keep asking for evidence for the Uranium one and other issues but where is your hard evidence against Trump? I have been watching these stories very closely and so far I have not seen a single piece of fact proving Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election.

So using your own standard, show me the actual hard proof?

The investigation into Trump and Russia was already going for a year when Comey testified to Congress and at that time admitted Trump was never under investigation, the modern FBI would have found something in a year if there had been anything to find, all the leaks Mueller is giving the media is concerning other people and old financial issues, the Congressional investigations are also showing their lack of any real evidence at all against Trump.

Now is it “possible” something may still come out proving Trump guilty of colluding with Russia? Of course there is, but until there is actual evidence, trump is still innocent but as I pointed out, that lack of evidence does not stop the media from spamming the idea Trump is guilty anyway.

As far as mu numbered points are concerned you dodged them as well, I gave you a link to the New York times proving some of them to include the massive amounts of money funneled into the Clinton foundation and the long connection the Clintons had with Russians.

Your claim against the second is simply not true, you are attempting to change the point being made, I said Clinton was paid twice his normal speaking fee and that was a fact, you linked a page addressing if that speaking fee was why Hillary backed the deal, not if he was paid twice as much as usual.

My points are all facts, Bill Clinton was paid twice as much to give a speech than he normally got paid for a speech, now we can all debate “WHY” and if it was one of the reasons Hillary Clinton backed the Uranium deal or not, but the fact is the fact, Bill Clinton was paid twice as much as usual for that speech.

Number 4 was just pointing out other people in their orbit was involved, again true but is just a point of fact, how we define or interpret the fact is certainly open for debate but as with most corruption it usually requires the parties involved have some interaction and trust between them, this is part of influence peddling.

Numbers 5 and 6 seem to be a non-story.

How can you claim this is a non-story? Trump Jr met with a Russian lawyer for 10 minutes and it was considered the end of the world to all media outlets who have done tens of thousands of attack stories based on just that meeting alone, but Hillary Clinton actually had her lawyer pay a foreign agent to work with Russians to develop dirt on Trump? Millions of dollars exchanged and working with Russians is okay but just meeting with a Russian lawyer and exchanging nothing of value, that is a story?

And let’s remember the Russian lawyer had a history with the same group coordinating the “Dossier” development. It is really looking like the Russian lawyer sent to talk to Trump JR was also a setup. But if just obtaining opposition research is perfectly okay, why is it a story when Trump JR was trying to get some?

7 is nonsense.

This goes to my point about you being uneducated on the facts. Even Nancy Pelosi lied and claimed to have never met with Russians, then pictures of her meeting with the same Russian representative surfaced and she went into excuse mode, lol, it was funny as hell.

The DNC and Hillary and everyone else has all denied any involvement with the “Dossier” previously, now we know both the Clinton campaign and the DNC were both investing millions of dollars into the creation of the “Dossier” it is very clear they were all telling lies. You do not dump millions of dollars into something you have no understanding of, of course they knew. Claiming ignorance just proves they are telling lies. what they should have come out and said is they knew they were paying for opposition research but had no clue that research was being done in cooperation with Russia. At least then it would not look as bad, but just claiming ignorance of everything proves they know they did something wrong.

9 — pleading the 5th is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is not an admission of guilt. I get that Fox perpetuates that narrative, but the Supreme Court disagrees.

Again, I am stating facts, it is up to the individual to decide what those facts mean to them. But common sense tells us that people do not plea the 5th without a good reason to believe what they say will hurt them in some way.

So they do have something to hide, the question is, what? that is not me saying they should go to jail, you are correct they have that right, but I also have the right to consider their use of that right as it relates to the bigger picture of Democrats in general being dishonest and hiding their involvement with this Russian assisted “Dossier“ development.

10 is wild speculation. Mueller was the head of the FBI then, so I’m not sure what his involvement is scandalous.

Again, I am sticking to the facts, both Mueller and Comey were involved in the investigations, this is irrefutable. How we view this fact as it appears to the larger mess that is the selling of 20% of our Uranium to Russia and the $140 million dollars gifted to the clinton Foundation and double the speaking fees to Bill Clinton and the involvement of Clinton “friends” and their paying millions of dollars for Russian assisted “dossier” on trump etc is the point.

Any one of these things is easily brushed aside, but when you look at these and any more facts all happening at the exact same time it starts to look pretty fishy.

But my biggest point is the media is refusing to cover it with any real energy when there is certainly a great deal of facts out there to at least support some serious questions about it. We have never ending stories claiming Trump is a Russian agent with zero facts to support those stories but nobody cares about this?

Political loyalty can be the only explanation.

I will agree with you 100% that there is some sketchy things happening in DC, but to suggest that I am somehow uninformed because I don’t buy all the nonsense out there on the Internet is, at best, disingenuous. Thank you for your time and for your detailed responses.

Where did I ever claim you had to believe all the stuff on the internet? Everything I mentioned is 100% fact, and all easily verified if you want to do some Googling and reading. You were the one claiming not to know about all the stuff in the story, all of it known facts, to claim they are not facts is simply not true.

Again, there is a difference between an assessment of a fact, and the fact itself, like me mentioning Bill Clinton was paid twice his normal speaking fee by the Russians when this deal was being made, now does that mean the severely increased fee was only because of the Uranium deal? No of course not, but it at the very least does look fishy and is a hard fact for us to consider.

The same s true for the over $140 million dollars Russians “donated” to the Clinton foundation. does the payment itself prove Hillary Clinton was colluding with Russia? Of course not, but it does look pretty fishy, especially when you consider that was the only time the Russians made that kind of “donation” to an American based charity. Why then? Why so much? At least worth some consideration.

All I am saying is have an open mind and look around a little bit.