What exactly is collusion in the field of politics? If collusion with foreign governments is the bad kind of collusion when it involves U.S. politicians, what criteria are objective and impartial that define collusion?
Former President Bill Clinton is a case in point. In 1992 he was one of several politicans that could have been good enough Presidents. The media liked Bill so he was elected. Yet he had his graduate school at Oxfor bought and paid for by the Brits. Later when President he extolled British Thermal Units as high-tech p[aradigmata for transforming U.S. energy infrastructure. And what about Sen. Tom Harkins with a vacation home in the Bahamas and more recently, candidate Mitt Romneys and his offshore bank accounts in a foreign nation?
British influence on U.S. politicians evidently is accepted as fine. They are regarded as such useful imperialists for all things anti-Russian that they cannot possible be eligible for regard as a foreign government undermining American sovereignty. After all, America is a former colony and the Brits are not at all reluctant to continue to regard it as so as far as the United States leadership are morons willing to follow. Should the Mueller investigation be expanded to include England as well as English-Russia relations in politics as well as the media? Subtle Fishbook advertising and other English interference in U.S. national interests may be designed to elicit anti-Russia sentiment such that U.S. politicians would act as a coercive foreign agent on British targets for commercial intimidation.
What bewildering collusion. Does Sect. Kerry speak French a little too well, and does Barrack Obama's early childhood origin in Indonesia comprise collusion in regard to his later pro-Muslim insurrectionist positions against several middle eastern states?
Collusion that results in insecure U.S. borders and the concentration of wealth on Wall Street's 1% cannot be good-even if there were purely American citizens bilking the average Joe and Lucille. Britain as a former colonial eviul empire has been at odds with Russia since the chancellor expedition to Russia several hundred years ago. If they could I suppose Britain might like the recovery of former colonies, lands in France and even the Ukraine and on up the Dneipr at least commercially. One must be objective about collusion and French fries. After all, Russia only sold Alaska to the U.S.A. because they were concerned that England would get it and expand their Canadian empire all the way to the Bering Strait.
Former President Bill Clinton is a case in point. In 1992 he was one of several politicans that could have been good enough Presidents. The media liked Bill so he was elected. Yet he had his graduate school at Oxfor bought and paid for by the Brits. Later when President he extolled British Thermal Units as high-tech p[aradigmata for transforming U.S. energy infrastructure. And what about Sen. Tom Harkins with a vacation home in the Bahamas and more recently, candidate Mitt Romneys and his offshore bank accounts in a foreign nation?
British influence on U.S. politicians evidently is accepted as fine. They are regarded as such useful imperialists for all things anti-Russian that they cannot possible be eligible for regard as a foreign government undermining American sovereignty. After all, America is a former colony and the Brits are not at all reluctant to continue to regard it as so as far as the United States leadership are morons willing to follow. Should the Mueller investigation be expanded to include England as well as English-Russia relations in politics as well as the media? Subtle Fishbook advertising and other English interference in U.S. national interests may be designed to elicit anti-Russia sentiment such that U.S. politicians would act as a coercive foreign agent on British targets for commercial intimidation.
What bewildering collusion. Does Sect. Kerry speak French a little too well, and does Barrack Obama's early childhood origin in Indonesia comprise collusion in regard to his later pro-Muslim insurrectionist positions against several middle eastern states?
Collusion that results in insecure U.S. borders and the concentration of wealth on Wall Street's 1% cannot be good-even if there were purely American citizens bilking the average Joe and Lucille. Britain as a former colonial eviul empire has been at odds with Russia since the chancellor expedition to Russia several hundred years ago. If they could I suppose Britain might like the recovery of former colonies, lands in France and even the Ukraine and on up the Dneipr at least commercially. One must be objective about collusion and French fries. After all, Russia only sold Alaska to the U.S.A. because they were concerned that England would get it and expand their Canadian empire all the way to the Bering Strait.
