Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[bearrock]

14 minutes ago, twa said:

Legal lobbying needs immunity to testify?

 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/robert-mueller-offers-tony-podesta-immunity-to-testify-against-paul-manafort-report

 

we know Russians provided info to the DNC.....indirectly

Hmmm, I don't see that in the article.  Feels more like they are playing six degrees of separation with Kevin Bacon

[twa]

13 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Hmmm, I don't see that in the article.  Feels more like they are playing six degrees of separation with Kevin Bacon

 

you must not want to see it 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-craig/u-s-lobbying-probes-persist-though-mueller-investigation-over-idUSKCN1RO2AV

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

you must not want to see it 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-craig/u-s-lobbying-probes-persist-though-mueller-investigation-over-idUSKCN1RO2AV

 

I see the FARA violation charges, but I thought we were talking about Russia colluding or coordinating with the Clinton campaign?

[visionary]

 

[Larry]

10 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Hmmm, I don't see that in the article.  Feels more like they are playing six degrees of separation with Kevin Bacon

 

He is.  Along with his usual well-developed goalpost moving.  

 

He's trying to defend an administration which intentionally met with a representative of the Russian government, for the stated purpose of negotiating obtaining aid from the Russian government for their campaign.  (But we don't have legally obtained, court admissible, recordings of what happened in the meeting.  Therefore we can't comclusively prove that the fourth lie they've used about the meeting is as fake as their previous three lies were.)  And therefore he wants us to believe that it's been proven that nothing illegal happened in any way.  And which, he therefore wants us to believe it was a grievous crime to ever investigate in any way.  

 

By pointing at a campaign which hired a former British intelligence agent, to perform a task (gathering foreign intelligence) which he is in the business of providing, at market prices.  And who, as part of his mission (gathering intelligence about things that happened in Russia) talked to Russians.  And which he therefore wants us to believe is proof of the crime which the former did not commit, and which he also wants us to believe is a grievous crime not to investigate.  

[Springfield]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

I gave another example of a trick question.

 

btw the scope was russian influence

 

people see what they want to

 

Well the influence was to elect Trump and hurt Hillary, so naturally the investigation would go that way.  Would you disagree?

 

Youre right about one thing, people DO see what they want to.

[twa]

No need to defend them since Nancy and company won't act.

[Larry]

11 minutes ago, twa said:

No need to defend them since Nancy and company won't act.

 

All who believe that he will stop defending Trump and the GOP, raise your hand.  

[StillUnknown]

 

thread worth reading

 

[mistertim]

4 hours ago, twa said:

No need to defend them since Nancy and company won't act.

 

Act on what? What are you even talking about?

[Cooked Crack]

Now it's bipartisan. Impeach this ****er.

[Larry]

9 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Now it's bipartisan. Impeach this ****er.

 

Have you seen anything on this topic that's bipartisan?  I'd love to see it.  

[Cooked Crack]

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Have you seen anything on this topic that's bipartisan?  I'd love to see it.  

Bipartisan in the Washington sense of getting one member of the other party to agree. I think one lone member of the GOP is probably the best you're going to get unless others decide to retire.

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[@DCGoldPants]

 

This woman is already 100x smarter than all the strategy folks at the DNC.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

WTF?   Scumbag.

 

Edited May 19, 2019 by visionary

[StillUnknown]

"supporting the president"  is literally all that matters to these ****es, country be damned

[visionary]

 

[spjunkies]

Of course they did because they're criminals. 

[NoCalMike]

Loyalty to Trump > Anything else.

[dfitzo53]

50 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

Of course they did because they're criminals. 

Let's not jump to conclusions...from what I heard the money was going to fund adoptions.

[LadySkinsFan]

More Republicans in both Houses need to get on board with impeachment. One or two of them means that impeachment proceedings are a non starter because he'll never be convicted in the Senate. 

 

Call House hearings investigation into the administration, and keep the pressure on, subpoenas, jail, anything. Democrats need to step up.

[Dan T.]

The Mueller report did NOT exonerate Trump or his campaign of collusion.  It found insufficient evidence to bring conspiracy charges.  It goes on to say, on pages 9 and 10 of the report, that people affiliated with the campaign lied to the Office of Special Counsel and to Congress and "those lies materially affected the investigation of Russian election interference.  The Report also says that because individuals asserted 5th Amendment rights, deleted relevant communication and used encryption devices, the investigation was unable to "yield a complete picture of activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation."  

 

"Given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light (or cast a new light)  on the events described in the report."

 

So, a more accurate catch-phrase than "No Collusion" for Trump and his cronies would be "We beat the rap."  Which is a line un-convicted crooks would use.