Another DNC Trainwreck

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Here's a summary of the Trump / Russia BS which includes Papadopoulos' role. I certainly don't see anywhere in here where he was given evidence that the Russians were going to interfere.

https://www.politico.com/trump-russi...line-of-events

Or is that what is "believed" or "alleged" to have occurred during the meeting with the "professor".

Poor reading comprehension on your part. Again.

April 26: Papadopoulos meets the professor for breakfast at a London hotel. The professor says he has just returned from meeting with high-level Russian government officials in Moscow and that “he (the Professor) learned that that the Russians had obtained ‘dirt’ on then-candidate Clinton,” according to court documents. Papadopoulos would later tell the FBI that the professor also said the Russians had “emails of Clinton” and “they have thousands of emails.”

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Poor reading comprehension on your part. Again.

April 26: Papadopoulos meets the professor for breakfast at a London hotel. The professor says he has just returned from meeting with high-level Russian government officials in Moscow and that “he (the Professor) learned that that the Russians had obtained ‘dirt’ on then-candidate Clinton,” according to court documents. Papadopoulos would later tell the FBI that the professor also said the Russians had “emails of Clinton” and “they have thousands of emails.”

So what? Where in your reference above does it say that the "Russians intend to interfere with the election"? How does making an uncorroborated claim that the Russians have obtained "dirt" on Clinton amount to broadly "interfering" in the election?

You're grasping at straws, much like the DNC's lawsuit.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Here's a summary of the Trump / Russia BS which includes Papadopoulos' role. I certainly don't see anywhere in here where he was given evidence that the Russians were going to interfere.

https://www.politico.com/trump-russi...line-of-events

Or is that what is "believed" or "alleged" to have occurred during the meeting with the "professor".

Trump / Russia BS?

Yet the Mueller investigation continues albeit under extreme opposition.
Nunes and his cohorts declared no collusion and ended their hearings, yet the Mueller investigation continues.
Latest is the AG threatening to quit if the Mueller and/or Rosenstein is fired.

That's a whole lot of BS.
And may I suggest that you are full of cowfefe, pure and unadulterated.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Trump / Russia BS?

Yet the Mueller investigation continues albeit under extreme opposition.

Yup. Exactly my point. There was a House Investigation, there is a Senate Investigation. There was an FBI investigation which has morphed into a Special Counsel investigation.

We've had leaks from all of these investigative bodies so far. In the city that leaks like a sieve, dontcha think that, if there was a shred of evidence that supported the allegation of collusion, it would have leaked by now? I do, since most of the folks inside the beltway and the MSM act like they can't wait to be the next Deep Throat or Carl Bernstein.

Thus, after almost two years of investigations and there's been nothing, you get the idea that there won't be anything (and most likely never was anything to start with. It then becomes much more credible that on-going allegations and investigations continue solely so one "side" can try to gain political advantage over the other "side"....which makes it all a steaming pile of BS.

Note that I said "side", and didn't refer to left or right, or Dems and Repubs. I don't think the "sides" in this particular political drama exist within the commonly assumed political framework.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Thus, after almost two years of investigations and there's been nothing, you get the idea that there won't be anything (and most likely never was anything to start with. It then becomes much more credible that on-going allegations and investigations continue solely so one "side" can try to gain political advantage over the other "side"....which makes it all a steaming pile of BS.

Note that I said "side", and didn't refer to left or right, or Dems and Repubs. I don't think the "sides" in this particular political drama exist within the commonly assumed political framework.

Now that's a BS disclaimer, the 'side' when the current government is indeed one sided, all GOP.

Besides the AG is GOP, Comey GOP, Mueller GOP, Rosenstein GOP.
So these GOP'ers are ganging up on the Dotard?

Just to be clear, are you claiming no interference from the Russians or no collusion by the Trump campaign?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

So what? Where in your reference above does it say that the "Russians intend to interfere with the election"? How does making an uncorroborated claim that the Russians have obtained "dirt" on Clinton amount to broadly "interfering" in the election?

You're grasping at straws, much like the DNC's lawsuit.

It was credible enough to start an investigation that has thus far indicted ~20 people including Trump's Campaign Manager, Asst Campaign Manager, National Security Advisor, and likely his personal lawyer (all of whom have deep Russian ties).

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

We've had leaks from all of these investigative bodies so far. In the city that leaks like a sieve, dontcha think that, if there was a shred of evidence that supported the allegation of collusion, it would have leaked by now?

Pretty much nothing has leaked from Mueller's probe or the SDNY investigation (i.e., every indictment and search warrant came as a complete and total surprise to everyone). The only leaks thus far are the cherry-picked nonsense from your boy, Devin Nunes, designed to sow doubts among Trump sycophants like you. Just because you don't personally know what Mueller knows doesn't mean that Mueller knows nothing.

As for there being no "shred of evidence that supported the allegation of collusion," I again refer you to items 6-19 in the evidence provided to the court by the DNC to support their lawsuit - lots of shreds there. In fact, there was obviously enough to get search and FISA warrants against Trump's minions.

[Rajoo]

Whell, if Trump has done nothing wrong, why is it that he cannot find real lawyers to represent him? An innocent client is a lawyers ideal client. Giuliani? Gimme a break, that's a joke. Both the person and the choice.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Whell, if Trump has done nothing wrong, why is it that he cannot find real lawyers to represent him? An innocent client is a lawyers ideal client. Giuliani? Gimme a break, that's a joke. Both the person and the choice.

What are you talking about? Has has a legal team that has been representing him. He added Giuliani because Giuliani and Mueller have a prior working relationship, and because Giuliani used to work in the DOJ, so he can speak "swamp-ese".

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

What are you talking about? Has has a legal team that has been representing him. He added Giuliani because Giuliani and Mueller have a prior working relationship, and because Giuliani used to work in the DOJ, so he can speak "swamp-ese".

So, you've bought into the whole deep state and swamp memes, along with the fake news one? You're as impressionable as you are tribal and gullible. Guiliani hasn't been a prosecutor in ~30 years and has never been a defense counsel.

Guiliani was hired because he said good things about Trump on Fox News and will continue to put the most positive spin on Trump's legal troubles on Fox News for Trump sycophants like you. As long as Trump keeps his base (mostly) intact, he's banking that Congress won't hold him to account.