Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

271 Excellent

About wormburner

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Kansas Cityish
  • Interests
    Golf, travel, hot coffee.

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Kansas City Chiefs

Recent Profile Visitors

2,540 profile views
  1. I get all that, and I'm sure you know that In war, truth is the first casualty. In following this thread today, it's easy to see that a lot of people don't care about the truth, they want their contempt for either Trump or The Witch Hunt to be reinforced. Are you one of them? It's stunningly naive to believe that Trump is the first President since Nixon to whom this level of accountability should be enforced. You keep bringing up Watergate, but not a little blue dress, so I'm content to bypass Clinton. Journalistic standards have changed since Bernstein and Woodward. If there were a smoking gun, the court of public opinion would have been given that evidence by now.
  2. I'm assuming we want the same thing at the end of this? Like somebody posted earlier (you?), the Watergate investigation took some time to gather and sequence all of the evidence in some legal order. We're a year into this. With the sieve that has existed between some of our governmental agencies and the media, if there were a smoking gun against Trump by now, somebody would have wanted the orgasm of being the first to leak it.
  3. We both know better than that. But, like I answered Ignoramus, Trump's legal Russian business ventures do not equal collusion. Proving that is what has been entertaining us all (for various reasons) for the past year.
  4. To determine if there is a separation between Trump's legitimate, legal business interactions with Russians, and a cooperation and participation on his part to benefit from their meddling in our 2016 election.
  5. Here's part of your post from about 90 minutes ago~ Amy Fiscus‏Verified account @amyfiscus NEW: The FBI was a lot more forthcoming about Steele than the Nunes memo says, per the Dem memo It seems to me our last 20 pages could be cleared up in a heartbeat. Is McCabe's testimony to the HIC from December 2017 a matter of public record, or a secret thing? If he in fact said that no surveillance would have been sought without Mr. Steele’s information, then Nunes would limit in his memo what the FISA Court considered, as you objected to, and the warrant being granted should be questioned. If McCabe testified to the whole enchilada of reasons for seeking a warrant, however, this is another overplayed hand. Do we have access to McCabes 2017 testimony? Also, do you think McCabe's resignation has anything to do with this, or more with the mishandling of Hillary's email server investigation?