Hasbeen,

I'd agree with that. The deep state were shocked that Trump, an outsider, won. Not only did he threaten all their long-held policy positions but they were now under serious legal threat.

Because they'd believed, along with all the other 'elite', that Hillary was a shoe-in, they'd been acting unlawfully to help her out, hoping that that would earn them a seat at the feast after her inevitable victory. The Clintons were known to reward the loyal and punish their enemies or even those who weren't entirely sycophantic.

So in November 2016, the deep state players who'd done things like spy on the Trump campaign, abuse the FISA process and leak on behalf of Clinton were in a bind. If the new administration started to look into such things, then their careers were over and prison was a real possibility.

At the same time the Clinton camp were conjuring up the collusion story to explain their loss and maybe reverse it.

So this whole collusion story was a deflection to try to hide their own illegal activities. And now those chickens are coming home to roost.

As to the SR's of this world...well they just so wanted it to be true that they bought it without too much, or any, real thought. They thought it oh so clever to pronounce that Trump was beholden to Putin (Putin's puppet) and to see all international affairs through that prism, while mocking those who didn't fall for the lie as being naive.

Now that the truth is out, the less honest among them are running for cover. Some have the balls to admit and accept error. Others like SR are prepared to play the fool rather than be adult about their naivety. As I said, its pretty pathetic. But we all now know that not only is SR prone to being led down the garden path but he's happy to be there while denying he was there when it is no longer tenable ie someone to ignore and too ignorant to bother with.

mhaze,

I am surprised at your professed
inside "knowledge" of American
politics. However my advice to you would be to
have a read of the following link.
It answers some of the key
questions of the "Trump-Russia affair".
Including the arrests made thus far.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42493918

Warning warning *deepstate* term that explains its user has no idea about truth
See another celebrity has considered throwing her hat in the ring, for Trump's Job
Why not? the B grade movie that is that country's politics has had many script rewrites

Foxy,

I'm not claiming insider knowledge. I might know more about the issue in particular and politics (eg how the electoral college works) in general than many here, but only because I read a wider variety of data. I'd encourage you to do likewise (oh I forgot, you decided that wasn't necessary). But there's nothing in what I've written that isn't already available in print.

So your BBC article contains nothing the slightest bit new. Like most BBC information, it is generally correct and yet biased in what it leaves out. And there'e much that this article leaves out. But I'd doubt you'd be interested in that.

Still I'll mention a couple of things:

* Under the section about the dossier they imply that it was originally paid for by Republicans. But that's not true.

* They fail to point out that the dossier hasn't been verified at all, that it was partially based on an 8 year old CNN gossip blog and that Steele was dropped by the FBI as a source because he was unreliable.

* They correctly say that Flynn and Sessions "had contact with Russians" but fail to point out that this was part of their job and none of those meetings were clandestine.

* They fail to point out that none of those charged were charged as part of their work in the campaign. ie no one has been charged with colluding or conspiring with Russia in regards to the election.

There's much more wrong with your article but I'm sure your bored by now.

_______________________________________________________________

More evidence on how SR fell for the myth ... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8485#267974

The post starts off.."Oh I am loving this.". I suspect he's not loving it now, but, being SR he'll deny that.

mhaze,

I wonder whether you'll ever admit any of your mistakes -
including your supposed knowledge regarding the
electoral college which many experts in the US say needs
to be changed because it is outdated and no longer
functions as it should. But that's a different story.

I find that your views are biased as hell - and you
definitely won't accept any other views that are contrary to
your political beliefs. Therefore your finger-pointing at
others, including me, as to being biased - is absurd
when you are the height of narrow-mindedness in whatever
disagrees with your rigid and narrow-minded point of view.
I had always assumed that you had some semblance of
intelligence - but your views indicate otherwise - especially
your support of Trump to the extreme.

Anyway, I'm passed caring. To me you now fit into the same
category as some of the other soft-brains on this forum.
Not worth worrying about or arguing with.

Dear mhaze,

You write; “I might know more about the issue in particular”

Bunkum, you patently do not. You have kept rabbiting on about collusion when the issue was one of conspiracy even though I have gone to innumerable lengths to explain the difference to you.

You fell for the collusion myth hook line and sinker and now you are trying to slither your way out of it.

Look, there might not be a huge shame in being duped by Trump because it turns out so many others are in the same boat. But to be attacking those who haven't fallen for his 'charms' is a bit ludicrous.

And why do you keep flagging past posts of mine when they do not show any assertion that Trump was likely to be indicted for conspiracy? Go do a proper job for once and find something relevant if you are able.

Unless you can you are flogging a very dead nag and we all probably have something better to do with our time.