|
I guess the topic of the G20, if that ever was the topic, has slid into the inevitable Trump collusion bit--all roads lead to "collusion."
It still isn't clear to me what is meant by "collusion" here. Getting info, if factual, is not a negative collusion unless disseminating truth is. Getting truthful information, even from a foreign government, does not interfere with the process of our elections. It does the opposite. It helps to clarify the issues for the voters.
Whether or not if I "approve" of hiding or lying about meetings the kind of which a media and the opposition Dems are figuratively foaming at the mouth to paint as proof of collusion, I can understand why the dissembling by the Trumps is done--just as those who supported the Clintons didn't fault Hillary when she tried to cover up, "lie" about, her husband's affairs. Hillary's cover-ups were considered a sign of a faithful, dutiful wife, so quite understandable. And Bill's affairs were not considered by those on the left as relevant nor an "interference" in the election process.
But lying under oath is a different and legal matter.
Curious as to why wdmso, when somebody mentions Benghazi, even when that person is doing so in retort to a Benghazi remark, refers to it as "clinging" to Benghazi. But when some others whom he agrees with (even himself) does it, it's not "clinging" anymore.
Last edited by detbuch; 07-17-2017 at 10:48 PM..
|
Hybrid Mode
