@snood,
snood wrote:It's really breathtaking - the hubris...the absolute unmitigated gall.
Oh dear. Are we posting facts again that you find inconvenient?
snood wrote:For months it was "No proof of collusion! No proof of collusion!"
The Don Jr email surfaced, and without missing a beat it became "Collusion's not a crime! Collusion's not a crime!"
Wrong. For months people have been telling you
both that there was no proof of collusion
and that collusion is not a crime. If you chose to pay no attention to facts when people point them out to you, that does not justify falsely accusing them of not having posted those facts.
And as it happens, those statements are correct. Being willing to listen when someone offers you damaging information about your opponent is hardly collusion, so there is still no proof of collusion.
And yes. Collusion is not a crime. So if you ever do manage to prove that there was collusion, don't expect anything to come of that.
snood wrote:For months it was "No meetings with Russians! No meetings with Russians!"
Scores of meetings surface, and it becomes "Anyone would do it - it's just politics!"
In the absence of evidence of such meetings, it was perfectly reasonable to doubt that they happened.
snood wrote:There is no shame. I hope they get held to account.
What sort of punishment would you like to impose on those of us who point out facts that you find inconvenient?
Liberals are Stalinists.