Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
So much for Rudy being on the defense team. Conflicted out as a witnessCitizens for EthicsVerified account @CREWcrew
Rudy Giuliani got leaked information that James Comey was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails in October 2016. We’re requesting documents on the leak.
CREW has its own conflicts. It was Crew that started the whole Hillary email server issue by suing for her emails back in 2013. Then, later, David Brock, a Hillary operative, took it over. But it’s really weird that Giuliani has popped here at this point of time as the the appointed buffer between Trump and Mueller. Giuliani supposedly has skin in this game.Citizens for EthicsVerified account @CREWcrew
Rudy Giuliani got leaked information that James Comey was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails in October 2016. We’re requesting documents on the leak.
See? All wrapped up. Every lead chased down. Nothing left to do but close the investigation and exonerate the President.
Yep. Nunes says it's were good. And we all know he did everything he could during the course of this clearly bipartisan investigation. Nothing to see here folks, move on to something more important. Hillary's emails.
So Don Jr. lied about having further contact or following up after the meeting? Just like he lied about the purpose of the meeting? The meeting with a Russian spy recruiter promising dirt on their opponent? The dirt that was based on the "Russian government's support" for the Trump campaign? The meeting where they have confessed they discussed Russia's response to US sanctions with the Russian spy recruiter?
Geez, this was all so long ago. Shouldn’t we be focusing on the death of Vince Foster?
What, exactly, do you think this means? Clinton’s wanted Trump to run, b/c they thought it would cause problems for the Republicans and/or they thought he’d be easy to beat. Doesn’t change the fact that if his lawyer paid to silence Daniels, it could be a violation of campaign law. Doesn’t change the fact that if members of his campaign cooperated with Russia, it’s a crime. Doesn’t change the fact that if the POtuS tried to coverup evidence of this collusion (even if he was not aware of it at the time), its a crime. And it definitely doesn’t change the fact that even if none of that is true, Trump is completely incapable of doing the job he was elected for, that he is damaging our economy, weakening our international standing, destroying our domestic stability, and definitely not “making America great again.”
I think that pile you are seeing, is the remnants of the Trump campaign officials who were tripping over themselves to bring Russian influence into the campaign.
It means the street cred the Clinton campaign got for being way out in front on Trump/Putin's "bromance" in 2015 conflicts completely with their campaign strategy. Either they
@don’t Noonan;
Which does nothing to negate the illegal/improper actions of Trump, his campaign, and his peeformance as POtuS. Clinton was a ####ty candidate; maybe she wanted Trump as the GOP candidate, believing his ties to Russia/illegal activities would make him an easy win (a “tomato can,” in boxing parlance). But lining up a tomato can opponent, and rigging the fight by paying off the referee are two totally different degrees of “wrong.” One looks bad, and one is illegal. HTH
I really don't disagree here. It definitely negates the entire pretense for the investigation if collusion between RU/Wikileaks didn't happen. And it raises the question of why the Trump admin was turned upside down, spied on, leaked on, and basically subverted by the intelligence/media complex if there wasn't a valid pretense to launch such a widespread investigation.
Oh pishposh. The Hillary campaign including the candidate were flawed in a myriad of ways. So was the media. Chozik goes through some gnashing of teeth about how they should have covered the data dumps. It's one of the toughest journalistic questions in history, and it was unprecedented, how do you report on stolen data being pushed out by unknown forces for unknown motives? Chozik is dealing with it, the DNC is dealing with it, the nation is dealing with it. Everyone except the RNC - which has seen three RNC co-chairmen busted for possible money laundering or fraud - and the Congressional Republican leadership. We know key GOP people knew about Trump's connections because they themselves started the dossier project in 2015. I think the culture has gotten scandal resistant to the point that banging the table that Trump had risky Russian connections was considered counter-productive. Finally towards the end of the 2016, in a debate, Hillary finally raised it directly. Yes, surprisingly after a big L coaches, fans, players everyone have acknowledged mistakes were made.
How many times does this need to be said and re-said (and re-said and re-said)? The investigation was started to look into Russian Meddling into the election. Period. It only expanded in its scope when 2 things happened. People around Trump started looking suspicious and Trump opened his big ####### non-stop running mouth and said he fired Comey for this "Russian thing". The "entire pretense for the investigation" as you put it has proven to be extremely valid. The Russians were meddling! Now whether Trump colluded is still up for debate, but this narrative out there that the investigation is a sham or not valid is as wrong as wrong could be.
These crooks are only in jail because someone with a motive tipped off the police? That's your concern?
There's no need. Everyone who can read knows he's wrong. Him admitting it is irrelevant at this point.
You know what? You changed my mind. If they didn’t start the investigation into Russian meddling without knowing exactly who they were going to charge, they can’t proceed. Similarly, the “Golden State killer” shouldn’t be charged with any crimes, because without the DNA they found, they never would have known it was him. They didn’t start the investigation all those years ago knowing he committtd those crimes, So it’s unfair that they use evidence of his crimes to charge/convict him.ren hoek said:
I've read this sentence several times and it doesn't make any sense. If the right people liked them, then they wouldn't be facing justice? That is pretty much the exact opposite of what "justice' is.ren hoek said:
