We have no evidence to my knowledge that Russia provided Wikileaks with the documents.
TX Kevin
1

“We have no evidence to my knowledge that Russia provided Wikileaks with the documents.”

Not that’s been made public, anyway. Our intelligence agencies don’t make a habit of making a lot of their information public, as that would require a disclosure of how they got it. Which kind of defeats the purpose of an intelligence agency.

“I expect you would have had no problem with Wiki releasing Trump tax returns, or NBC releasing Bobby Bush footage, or coordination with various beauty contestant bimbo’s…”

None of those things involved a foreign government trying to influence our election. You seem to have a problem grasping that being the issue.

“…or Donna Brazille providing questions prior to a debate…”

Donna Brazille allegedly provided TWO debate questions ahead of time by emailing Hillary about them (we don’t even have proof that Hillary read those emails). One was an alert that a question regarding the death penalty would be asked, and the other was an alert to expect a question about Flint’s drinking water — for a debate being held in Flint — when that was the number one issue concerning Flint at the time. Is there anyone on God’s green earth who would believe that Hillary wouldn’t have been prepared for either question without Brazille’s help?

“…or various organizations paying people to disrupt Trump rallys.”

All you have for that is one of O’Keefe’s videos, and those are not credible.

Nobody’s “prosecuting” Trump for collusion with the Russians. Not yet, anyway. That’s what the investigations are for. And as Trump is the direct beneficiary of their meddling in the election, it’s reasonable to check out whether or not he colluded with them, or even had any knowledge of their activities that he didn’t report. Just as in a murder case, if the victim’s husband received a huge life insurance payout on a policy he took out on the victim fairly recently, the investigators would question his whereabouts at the time the murder happened. And they would do this for both a successful murder or a murder attempt that failed. They might not bother with a random stranger in a checkout line who wouldn’t benefit from her death in any way just because he happened to make a negative comment about her. But then again, they might if that revealed that person knew her.

And one of the reasons why we haven’t heard Trump declare anything that would incriminate him as far as collusion goes, even Trump has limits to his stupidity. He might have just had enough functioning brain cells to know that if he trumpeted information he got from the Russians, the only explanation he would have for having that information is through collusion with the Russians.

We’ll see when the investigations are complete. But it sounds as if you are trying to make the case that the investigations are completely unwarranted, and they’re justified. Especially when Trump continues to act guiltier and guiltier by the day.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.