>>Hence 'stupid'....just as stupid as admitting obstruction of justice on national TV.. Just because you admit to a crime (or commit one) on national TV doesn't mean you didn't do it lol. ..it just means you're a dumbass.

Others might call it stupid to insist that wildly unlikely scenarios needed to further a narrative, become credible if you call others stupid.

>>Moot point as that did not happen -- but I don't think it would of been a positive thing for HRC even if it was just personal stuff - seeing how her emails would of ended up in the hands of a foe of the USA -- I think it would of caused her more harm than good. It's seems illogical to conclude that if her emails off a personal server which ended up in enemy hands could benefit her in any way no matter that the contents were.

Nonsense, the MSM would have screamed to the sky that she's entitled to conduct personal business using her own email server and evil BOM hacked her and now is hoist on his own petard and now she's going to win 107% of the vote at least. The FBI would have used it as an excuse for more unrecorded not-on-oath chats and more immunities would have been offered to protect the wrongdoers and HRC would have gone on to write books and give speeches.

>>Perhaps - but that is a tad bit more than conspiracy at that point - but needless to say Trump asking the Russians to attack / hack a USA politician is a serous thing -- don't you think?

Truth seldom requires these crafty little reframings, Victor. The illegal email server was long hammered to death by then with Russians blamed by the DNC for everything as a buildup to release of their anti-Trump fake dossier. Trump was taunting them, little realizing that it was a contrived preparation for an attack on him.

>> Doesn't this sound a tad like treasonous behavior to you? Ya know asking and enemy of the USA to attack the USA? You don't condone such behavior right?

I don't condone inventing falsehoods to attack somebody, whether it be Russian collusion to make pee pee accusations or time machine misrepresentations to further an unlikely narrative.

>>It would certainly be a criminal act for a whole slew of reasons - especially depending upon where said money was coming from - it would be conspiracy against the United Sates I would think because he worked with a foreign entity illegally to sway the outcome of our election. But again this is all a moot point because it did not happen.

Yes it did happen. Wasn't by Trump, though.

>>Saying what if what if what if doesn't change any of the what really happened nor have any bearing on what really happened.

Yes but if you throw around accusations of criminality, surely you've thought it through to confirm the sound bites are more than wishful rants? And why do you expect it only ever cuts one way? The blackface/rape scandals embroiling the top 3 democrats in Virginia are just a taste of things to come.