SHSanders just stated the President and his admin have never interfered with Mueller investigation.
(no message)
Replies to: SHSanders just stated the President and his admin have never interfered with Mueller investigation.
Well I guess that's it then. Case closed.
(no message)
They might want to start interfering with it, and fast
The revelations of yesterday might just take the president down.
Here is an op-ed today from John Schindler - as I have said, I know this guy, and he is the real deal.
Link: https://observer.com/2019/01/robert-mueller-top-secret-intelligence-will-sink-trump-presidency/
Let me know when "might" becomes something more certain. I will be interested.
(no message)
I wonder how big the head explosions will be if impeachment occurs, when Dems realize Trump will
stay in office, and when it helps him go on to win the 2020 election?
No you won’t. You will just have another excuse.
(no message)
"Excuse" is what you call inconvenient gaps in your information that I point out.
If you were honest, and said, "Here is what I know. It doesn't prove anything, but it is enough for me." That would be one thing. But you post as if you are 100% correct, and you are just waiting for the facts to catch up with your prefabricated position. I'm willing to wait for the facts to come out. In the meantime, I will point out when you don't have all the facts when you are pretending that you do.
No, excuses are excuses. And you continually make them.
I have no issue admitting what hasn’t and may not be proven, a direct link to Trump with any of this.
But if you think any of what we already know is okay for the campaign of a major party candidate, you have serious issues.
No excuses necessary given what we know...unless you are filling in with Frankesque assumptions.
Gaps are gaps, and they exist. We don't know.
But, you act like you do know, and you chastise me for not acting like I know. I'll wait for all the evidence.
As a lawyer, you should know better than most that half of a story can indicate guilt even in a perfectly innocent situation...perfectly innocent once 100% of the facts are known. I'm not arguing Trump is innocent of anything. I am pointing out that 100% of the facts are not known, and there may be explanations we don't know. You don't like that, and I get it. You are possessed on this issue. All good.
I’m talking about what is already known including Trump Tower and Manafort.
No innocent, clean explanation for any of that.
He seems very credible, and calling Manafort "Paulie Walnuts" only boosts his credibility.
(no message)
He's a former NSA regional director
A Russian specialist. I worked with him for years.
Believe what you want. And for God's sake don't ever take a stance about whether aiding and abetting a Russian espionage and disinformation campaign is an impeachable offense.
Heaven forbid.
The best part of your post is that you said "former." Mr. Schindler, get out, and stay out.
He worked for the NSA with an obvious political bias. He was nothing more than a swamp dweller. Bye, Felicia.
You know shit. As usual.
(no message)
I'm doing a goosestep all the way to the toilet. Thanks.
(no message)
That's pretty much how I imagine you in your apartment.
(no message)
So, beyond reproach, like Clapper...inherently trustworthy on issues of Trump, like Frank and you.
I'm curious what you mean by a Russian disinformation campaign. Are you talking about the dossier that the Clinton campaign was preparing using foreign intelligence sources?
You are confused on much, but not on that.
You know he means the troll bot disinformation campaign used by Russia to influence the election.
And seriously, Steele may be a lot of murky things, but one thing he isn’t is Russian disinformation. Again you know that but keep saying that crappy anyways.
I haven't heard anything that ties Trump to the Russia fake news stuff.
Steele has Russian connections. Regardless, he is a foreign agent. The dossier includes things that the Dems sent to him. Very shady, but apparently it is ok to share information with foreign intelligence agents in order to influence a US election. And note: It is far worse to do this in order to improperly justify illegally using the US intelligence agencies to spy on the opposition party than it is to do so to get the Russians to pay for ads on Facebook. The two types of collusion are not even comparable. The Dem's acts, if true, were far worse than the Trump acts, if true.
Except it didn’t start the investigation and parts of it have been corroborated.
I already said that Trump hasn’t yet been personally tied to it.
And again contrary to yer original point it was most certainly not a Russian govt misinformation.
But you always try to change the narrative when called on BS.
The disinformation campaign aimed at voters.
(no message)
Actually, the one the republicans were working on before Trump was the nominee.
The one Clinton had, oh wait, the same one republican anti-Trumpers were working on.
That is good news.
(no message)