The Trump Investigation(s) Thread

[Rip]

When a political figure is accused of wrongdoing, a conversation begins among journalists, commentators, and public officials. Are the charges true? Can the accusers prove it?

That's the way it normally works. But now, in the case of the Trump dossier – the allegations compiled by a former British spy hired by the Clinton campaign to gather dirt on presidential candidate Donald Trump – the generally accepted standard of justice has been turned on its head. Now, the question is: Can the accused prove the charges false? Increasingly, the president's critics argue that the dossier is legitimate because it has not been proven untrue.

It's an argument heard at the highest levels of government, academics, and media.

"Not a single revelation in the Steele dossier has been refuted," noted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in February.

In late December, Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor, tweeted a message about the allegations against Trump to his followers: "Retweet if, like me, you're aware of nothing in the [Trump] dossier that has been shown to be false."

"The dossier has not been proven false," said MSNBC anchor and former George W. Bush aide Nicolle Wallace in February.

More recently, Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," asked former CIA Director John Brennan, "So far with this dossier, nothing yet has been proven untrue. How significant is that?"

"As Jim Comey has said, I think very famously, these were salacious and unverified allegations," Brennan responded. "Just because they were unverified does not mean they were not true."

That's where the Trump dossier story stands today. No one has proved that the most serious allegations are true. But since no one has proved them false, either, some in the political class act as if they were true.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... rump-probe

From what I have read, this is almost all in response to Republican/Trump statements that this is a "fake" dossier. The Trumpster position is that the Trump investigation was based upon a fake dossier drummed up by Clinton conspiring with the Russians, LOL!. While certain aspects of the dossier are unproven, it is also just as much true that they have not been disproven as Trumpsters have alleged. That's generally what these statements have been made - they are in opposition to false Republican/Trumpster statements.

But that is the thing, you aren't supposed to need to prove innocence or that rumors are untrue. I could go on all day about things that have been said but not proven untrue. I heard Bill Clinton was bedding underage girls on Jeffrey Epstein's jet. No one has proven that he didn't. It certainly hasn't been disproven that he sexually assaulted several women. I could go on with mountains of those all day.

No, that's in a court of law. It would be nice, but most do like their salacious gossip and in the age of social media, the gossip isn't as filtered by the 4th estate as it used to be, so it gains a LOT more traction before it can be evaluated.

What is supposed to happen is that, given the severity of the allegations, we investigate first to see if the algebraic are credible, and if so, then investigate to see if they are true, and prosecute any illegalities which can be proven.

Which is what is happening.

No what happens is people assume whether it is true or not based on how much they like/dislike the person in question and/or their victims.

[msteelers]

It’s too pretty of a day here in South Florida, so I’m trying to ruin it by listening to Brian Kilmeade’s radio show. They’ve spent the better part of an hour arguing that Comey leaked classified memos. Their argument boils down to this: the memos detail a private conversation with the president, therefore it’s classified.

That cant possibly be true, can it? Conversations with the president are not inherently classified. It sounds like they are confusing classified with executive privilege, which the President has to actually claim (and he hasn’t).

[Rip]

When a political figure is accused of wrongdoing, a conversation begins among journalists, commentators, and public officials. Are the charges true? Can the accusers prove it?

That's the way it normally works. But now, in the case of the Trump dossier – the allegations compiled by a former British spy hired by the Clinton campaign to gather dirt on presidential candidate Donald Trump – the generally accepted standard of justice has been turned on its head. Now, the question is: Can the accused prove the charges false? Increasingly, the president's critics argue that the dossier is legitimate because it has not been proven untrue.

It's an argument heard at the highest levels of government, academics, and media.

"Not a single revelation in the Steele dossier has been refuted," noted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in February.

In late December, Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor, tweeted a message about the allegations against Trump to his followers: "Retweet if, like me, you're aware of nothing in the [Trump] dossier that has been shown to be false."

"The dossier has not been proven false," said MSNBC anchor and former George W. Bush aide Nicolle Wallace in February.

More recently, Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," asked former CIA Director John Brennan, "So far with this dossier, nothing yet has been proven untrue. How significant is that?"

"As Jim Comey has said, I think very famously, these were salacious and unverified allegations," Brennan responded. "Just because they were unverified does not mean they were not true."

That's where the Trump dossier story stands today. No one has proved that the most serious allegations are true. But since no one has proved them false, either, some in the political class act as if they were true.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... rump-probe

From what I have read, this is almost all in response to Republican/Trump statements that this is a "fake" dossier. The Trumpster position is that the Trump investigation was based upon a fake dossier drummed up by Clinton conspiring with the Russians, LOL!. While certain aspects of the dossier are unproven, it is also just as much true that they have not been disproven as Trumpsters have alleged. That's generally what these statements have been made - they are in opposition to false Republican/Trumpster statements.

But that is the thing, you aren't supposed to need to prove innocence or that rumors are untrue. I could go on all day about things that have been said but not proven untrue. I heard Bill Clinton was bedding underage girls on Jeffrey Epstein's jet. No one has proven that he didn't. It certainly hasn't been disproven that he sexually assaulted several women. I could go on with mountains of those all day.

Do you think the Mueller investigation consists of investigators sitting around with the dossier and asking "Does this sound right? Can we charge him from this?"

They were investigating before the dossier came to light. They are investigating independently of it. They are looking at facts and records, intercepts and emails. They are chasing evidence, not just bouncing around allegations, because that is what investigation *is*. If the dossier points the way to independent evidence and facts, we should all (you as well, if you care about the rule of law) hope that they are found, but the dossier is not evidence in itself.

We can be 100% certain that not a single charge will be based on nothing more than "Christopher Steele said so." If that's really what you're worried about, you can rest easy.

At this point not a single thing in the dossier has been proven true. In the end that is the only thing that matters. That there is some need to disprove them is silly and futile.

[Pyperkub]

It’s too pretty of a day here in South Florida, so I’m trying to ruin it by listening to Brian Kilmeade’s radio show. They’ve spent the better part of an hour arguing that Comey leaked classified memos. Their argument boils down to this: the memos detail a private conversation with the president, therefore it’s classified.

That cant possibly be true, can it? Conversations with the president are not inherently classified. It sounds like they are confusing classified with executive privilege, which the President has to actually claim (and he hasn’t).

Comey claims the leaked notes weren't classified and still aren't. It's possible that if someone were trying to force the release of the memos that Trump could try to claim executive privilege, but I don't believe that applies to unclassified communications voluntarily released by one party.

[noxiousdog]

At this point not a single thing in the dossier has been proven true. In the end that is the only thing that matters. That there is some need to disprove them is silly and futile.

Verified Steele dossier facts:
Russian assistance to the Trump campaign
Republican position on Russian conflict with Ukraine
Sabotaging relations with Nato/Europe
Lifting sanctions on Russia
Mikhail Kulagin was recalled home
Carter Pages meetings.

[Unagi]

So, Executive Privilege (if I understand it correctly) does not gag someone from being able to talk about something that the president wishes they would remain silent about at all. What it is, is it's legal cover for someone that already themselves Do Not want to talk, but they are being pressured by something like a subpoena to give testimony. In that case, the President can step in and say "Ya know what, I declare Executive Privilege here and he does Not have to give testimony."

It doesn't force silence on someone that would rather not be silent.

[Remus West]

I'd just type "Benghazi! Emails!" and leave it at that to point out Rip's hypocrisy but the investigation into Trump and Russia has so much more substance than anything brought against HRC that we are well beyond hypocrisy now.

[Smoove_B]

Brace yourselves - the Russian lawyer that met with Don Jr. and Jared Kusher misrepresented her connections:

The Russian lawyer who met with Trump campaign officials in Trump Tower in June 2016 on the premise that she would deliver damaging information about Hillary Clinton has long insisted she is a private attorney, not a Kremlin operative trying to meddle in the presidential election.

But newly released emails show that in at least one instance two years earlier, the lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, worked hand in glove with Russia’s chief legal office to thwart a Justice Department civil fraud case against a well-connected Russian firm.

Ms. Veselnitskaya also appears to have recanted her earlier denials of Russian government ties. During an interview to be broadcast Friday by NBC News, she acknowledged that she was not merely a private lawyer but a source of information for a top Kremlin official, Yuri Y. Chaika, the prosecutor general.

“I am a lawyer, and I am an informant,” she said. “Since 2013, I have been actively communicating with the office of the Russian prosecutor general.”

Just more meat for the nothingburger, I suppose.

[Holman]

At this point not a single thing in the dossier has been proven true. In the end that is the only thing that matters. That there is some need to disprove them is silly and futile.

You certainly seem to have a lot of inside knowledge of the investigation and what it has uncovered.

On the outside, all we know for sure is that the investigation is ongoing, it has produced significant results, and it shows signs of finding serious and legitimate reasons to continue.

If all you've got in response to that is "DEEP STATE TREASONS!!1!" then you're better off keeping silent.

[LordMortis]

At this point not a single thing in the dossier has been proven true. In the end that is the only thing that matters. That there is some need to disprove them is silly and futile.

Wait. What?

First thing I could find, from back in January

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-do ... now-777116

Verified: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.

Verified: The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.

Verified: Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.

goalpost shift incoming.

...

Edit need to read the rest of the thread before posting...

[Blackhawk]

At this point not a single thing in the dossier has been proven true. In the end that is the only thing that matters. That there is some need to disprove them is silly and futile.

Based on what? You must have some terrific inside information.

[Sepiche]

At this point not a single thing in the dossier has been proven true. In the end that is the only thing that matters. That there is some need to disprove them is silly and futile.

Nice of you to illustrate for us just how out of touch with reality much of the Republican base is at the moment.

[Alefroth]

At this point not a single thing in the dossier has been proven true.

Can you prove that?

[LordMortis]

More unproven nothingburgersfrom fake news here, where lies leading to story changes show NO COLLUSION and nothing illegal or unusual when you consider Comey worked with democrats to Clinton elected and she's not in jail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/us/n ... neral.html

MOSCOW — The Russian lawyer who met with Trump campaign officials in Trump Tower in June 2016 on the premise that she would deliver damaging information about Hillary Clinton has long insisted she is a private attorney, not a Kremlin operative trying to meddle in the presidential election.

But newly released emails show that in at least one instance two years earlier, the lawyer, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, worked hand in glove with Russia’s chief legal office to thwart a Justice Department civil fraud case against a well-connected Russian firm.

Ms. Veselnitskaya also appears to have recanted her earlier denials of Russian government ties. During an interview to be broadcast Friday by NBC News, she acknowledged that she was not merely a private lawyer but a source of information for a top Kremlin official, Yuri Y. Chaika, the prosecutor general.

“I am a lawyer, and I am an informant,” she said. “Since 2013, I have been actively communicating with the office of the Russian prosecutor gene.

[Smoove_B]

I know it's hard to keep up with all the whataboutism, but it's literally half a page up.

[LordMortis]

Like I pay attention to your fake news posts.

[Smoove_B]

How about this one then - House Intelligence Committee Republicans release their final report:

House Intelligence Committee Republicans released a redacted version of their final report from a year-long probe into Russia’s “multifaceted” influence operation, generally clearing President Trump and his associates of wrongdoing while accusing the intelligence community and the FBI of failures in how they assessed and responded to the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 election.

...

The Republican report criticizes both the Trump and Clinton campaigns for “poor judgment and ill-considered actions,” such as Trump campaign officials’ decision to meet with a Russian lawyer offering compromising information on Hillary Clinton in Trump Tower in June 2016. It also criticizes the Obama administration for a “slow and inconsistent” response to mounting Russian threats.

We've investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong. See? nothing to worry about.

[El Guapo]

How about this one then - House Intelligence Committee Republicans release their final report:

House Intelligence Committee Republicans released a redacted version of their final report from a year-long probe into Russia’s “multifaceted” influence operation, generally clearing President Trump and his associates of wrongdoing while accusing the intelligence community and the FBI of failures in how they assessed and responded to the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 election.

...

The Republican report criticizes both the Trump and Clinton campaigns for “poor judgment and ill-considered actions,” such as Trump campaign officials’ decision to meet with a Russian lawyer offering compromising information on Hillary Clinton in Trump Tower in June 2016. It also criticizes the Obama administration for a “slow and inconsistent” response to mounting Russian threats.

We've investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong. See? nothing to worry about.

The new House GOP report on Russia is revealing. But not in a good way for Trump.

The Schiff / Democratic reply is pretty devastating, around the Trump Tower meeting. The chronology goes like this:

(1) Trump Jr. sets up the Trump Tower meeting (with Manafort, Flynn, himself, and the lawyer-who-is-totally-a-private-lawyer-and-not-clearly-connected-to-the-Kremlin-at-all). This is the famous e-mail chain where Trump Jr. is promised dirt on Clinton and Russian government help, and replies, "if it's what you say I love it."

(2) Trump Jr. calls a phone number in Russia connected to Emin Agalarov

(3) Trump Jr. calls a blocked number

(4) Trump Jr. calls Emin Agalarov again.

Trump (sr.) uses a blocked number. One highly plausible story is that, after setting up this important meeting involving himself and Trump's soon-to-be campaign manager, is that Trump Jr. called his father to let him know about this development. So the Democrats suggested sending a subpoena for phone records. The GOP blocked that because mumble mumble NO COLLUSION!

[Smoove_B]

At this point you do have to wonder if Half-Scoop and Kushner are crapping their collective pants yet, right?

[LordMortis]

How about this one then - House Intelligence Committee Republicans release their final report:

House Intelligence Committee Republicans released a redacted version of their final report from a year-long probe into Russia’s “multifaceted” influence operation, generally clearing President Trump and his associates of wrongdoing while accusing the intelligence community and the FBI of failures in how they assessed and responded to the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 election.

...

The Republican report criticizes both the Trump and Clinton campaigns for “poor judgment and ill-considered actions,” such as Trump campaign officials’ decision to meet with a Russian lawyer offering compromising information on Hillary Clinton in Trump Tower in June 2016. It also criticizes the Obama administration for a “slow and inconsistent” response to mounting Russian threats.

We've investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong. See? nothing to worry about.

I read this earlier and I swear to Pancake on some alternate timeline the House already closed their investigation.

[El Guapo]

How about this one then - House Intelligence Committee Republicans release their final report:

House Intelligence Committee Republicans released a redacted version of their final report from a year-long probe into Russia’s “multifaceted” influence operation, generally clearing President Trump and his associates of wrongdoing while accusing the intelligence community and the FBI of failures in how they assessed and responded to the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 election.

...

The Republican report criticizes both the Trump and Clinton campaigns for “poor judgment and ill-considered actions,” such as Trump campaign officials’ decision to meet with a Russian lawyer offering compromising information on Hillary Clinton in Trump Tower in June 2016. It also criticizes the Obama administration for a “slow and inconsistent” response to mounting Russian threats.

We've investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong. See? nothing to worry about.

I read this earlier and I swear to Pancake on some alternate timeline the House already closed their investigation.

I'm confused about this too. I guess Trump is double-secret-extra innocent.

[Smoove_B]

I think the House Intelligence Committee (at large) finished their investigations. Then the House Intelligence Committee Republicans and House Intelligence Committee Democrats released their own additional reports, because Freedom.

[msteelers]

(3) Trump Jr. calls a blocked number

FWIW, the original article has been updated. The report states that Trump Jr. received a call from a blocked number.

[malchior]

Trump (sr.) uses a blocked number. One highly plausible story is that, after setting up this important meeting involving himself and Trump's soon-to-be campaign manager, is that Trump Jr. called his father to let him know about this development. So the Democrats suggested sending a subpoena for phone records. The GOP blocked that because mumble mumble NO COLLUSION!

Wouldn't it be fun if it was one of Cohen's burners. [/speculation]

[Rip]

How about this one then - House Intelligence Committee Republicans release their final report:

House Intelligence Committee Republicans released a redacted version of their final report from a year-long probe into Russia’s “multifaceted” influence operation, generally clearing President Trump and his associates of wrongdoing while accusing the intelligence community and the FBI of failures in how they assessed and responded to the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 election.

...

The Republican report criticizes both the Trump and Clinton campaigns for “poor judgment and ill-considered actions,” such as Trump campaign officials’ decision to meet with a Russian lawyer offering compromising information on Hillary Clinton in Trump Tower in June 2016. It also criticizes the Obama administration for a “slow and inconsistent” response to mounting Russian threats.

We've investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong. See? nothing to worry about.

See what did I tell you guys.

[Holman]

At this point you do have to wonder if Half-Scoop and Kushner are crapping their collective pants yet, right?

"Don Jr. and Jared were volunteers who had very little to do with the campaign. I don't even think I could pick them out of a line-up, believe me."

[hepcat]

See what did I tell you guys.

Whatever you think will piss off your mortal enemy, dem libs?

[Enough]

Joseph Mifsud, a key Trump-Russia intermediary who told the Trump campaign about 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton, has been missing for months.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status ... 9728397312

[Pyperkub]

How about this one then - House Intelligence Committee Republicans release their final report:

House Intelligence Committee Republicans released a redacted version of their final report from a year-long probe into Russia’s “multifaceted” influence operation, generally clearing President Trump and his associates of wrongdoing while accusing the intelligence community and the FBI of failures in how they assessed and responded to the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 election.

...

The Republican report criticizes both the Trump and Clinton campaigns for “poor judgment and ill-considered actions,” such as Trump campaign officials’ decision to meet with a Russian lawyer offering compromising information on Hillary Clinton in Trump Tower in June 2016. It also criticizes the Obama administration for a “slow and inconsistent” response to mounting Russian threats.

We've investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong. See? nothing to worry about.

I read this earlier and I swear to Pancake on some alternate timeline the House already closed their investigation.

I'm confused about this too. I guess Trump is double-secret-extra innocent.

It's like Benghazi! and IRS Targeting Conservative Groups - it will be used as long as it possibly can.

[LordMortis]

Timeline for Investigation by the House:

January: Trump demands memo be released that will end the investigation and "vindicate" him and Russia. NO COLLUSION
February: GOP memo states House closes Investigation. Hope Hicks confirms and then rids in to the sunset. NO COLLUSION
March: Michael Conaway announces House has closed Probe. NO COLLUSION
April: House Intelligence Committee closes probe. Mike Conaway calls for the declassification of well, not that NO COLLUSION

Aside from riding in to the sunset and my opinion on what Conaway thinks should be opaque and transparent to the public and used, I'm not even exaggerating.

Can you blame the right for hating federal government when seen through this lens?
Can you do anything other than put your trust in Mueller?

It never even dawned on me that this is some sort of newscycle reinforcement propaganda. If true why does fake news fall for it?

[El Guapo]

Has Michael Cohen Already Flipped on Donald Trump?

[Defiant]

So the special counsel delivered a bunch of questions to Trump's lawyers that they want Trump to answer that have been leaked to the NY Times

Some theories on why they were leaked

[Holman]

So the special counsel delivered a bunch of questions to Trump's lawyers that they want Trump to answer that have been leaked to the NY Times

Some theories on why they were leaked

So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were “leaked” to the media. No questions on Collusion. Oh, I see...you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice!

"No questions on Collusion"...

There are four dozen questions and about fourteen of them address contact with the Russians.

[LordMortis]

Wait, did he use "leaked" correctly? Holy shit!

[El Guapo]

Has Michael Cohen Already Flipped on Donald Trump?

[LordMortis]

So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were “leaked” to the media. No questions on Collusion. Oh, I see...you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice!

Spoilered the actual list of questions below because it's it a long list. I'd say lots of words are the krytonite of this administration but I think words are more like gamma rays to the Hulk of his following. Too many words. Smash.

Spoiler:

What did you know about phone calls that Mr. Flynn made with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, in late December 2016?

What was your reaction to news reports on Jan. 12, 2017, and Feb. 8-9, 2017?

• What did you know about Sally Yates’s meetings about Mr. Flynn?

• How was the decision made to fire Mr. Flynn on Feb. 13, 2017?

• What was your opinion of Mr. Comey during the transition?

• What did you think about Mr. Comey’s intelligence briefing on Jan. 6, 2017, about Russian election interference?

• What was your reaction to Mr. Comey’s briefing that day about other intelligence matters?

• What was the purpose of your Jan. 27, 2017, dinner with Mr. Comey, and what was said?

• What was the purpose of your Feb. 14, 2017, meeting with Mr. Comey, and what was said?

• What did you know about the F.B.I.’s investigation into Mr. Flynn and Russia in the days leading up to Mr. Comey’s testimony on March 20, 2017?

• What did you do in reaction to the March 20 testimony? Describe your contacts with intelligence officials.

• What did you think and do in reaction to the news that the special counsel was speaking to Mr. Rogers, Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Coats?

• What was the purpose of your calls to Mr. Comey on March 30 and April 11, 2017?

• What was the purpose of your April 11, 2017, statement to Maria Bartiromo?

• What did you think and do about Mr. Comey’s May 3, 2017, testimony?

• Regarding the decision to fire Mr. Comey: When was it made? Why? Who played a role?

• What did you mean in your interview with Lester Holt about Mr. Comey and Russia?

• What did you mean when you told Russian diplomats on May 10, 2017, that firing Mr. Comey had taken the pressure off?

• What was the purpose of your May 12, 2017, tweet?

• What did you think about Mr. Comey’s June 8, 2017, testimony regarding Mr. Flynn, and what did you do about it?

• What is the reason for your continued criticism of Mr. Comey and his former deputy, Andrew G. McCabe?

• What was the purpose of the September and October 2017 statements, including tweets, regarding an investigation of Mr. Comey?

• What did you think and do regarding the recusal of Mr. Sessions?

• What efforts did you make to try to get him to change his mind?

• Did you discuss whether Mr. Sessions would protect you, and reference past attorneys general?

• What did you think and what did you do in reaction to the news of the appointment of the special counsel?

• Why did you hold Mr. Sessions’s resignation until May 31, 2017, and with whom did you discuss it?

• What discussions did you have with Reince Priebus in July 2017 about obtaining the Sessions resignation? With whom did you discuss it?

• What discussions did you have regarding terminating the special counsel, and what did you do when that consideration was reported in January 2018?

• What was the purpose of your July 2017 criticism of Mr. Sessions?

• When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?

• What involvement did you have in the communication strategy, including the release of Donald Trump Jr.’s emails?

• During a 2013 trip to Russia, what communication and relationships did you have with the Agalarovs and Russian government officials?

• What communication did you have with Michael D. Cohen, Felix Sater and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign?

• What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding any meeting with Mr. Putin? Did you discuss it with others?

• What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding Russian sanctions?

• What involvement did you have concerning platform changes regarding arming Ukraine?

• During the campaign, what did you know about Russian hacking, use of social media or other acts aimed at the campaign?

• What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?

• What did you know about communication between Roger Stone, his associates, Julian Assange or WikiLeaks?

• What did you know during the transition about an attempt to establish back-channel communication to Russia, and Jared Kushner’s efforts?

• What do you know about a 2017 meeting in Seychelles involving Erik Prince?

• What do you know about a Ukrainian peace proposal provided to Mr. Cohen in 2017?

His assessment of the meaning of these question only goes to illustrate let me tell you about my mother and will likely inspire his "we're not Nazi's, we're libertarians. We hate socialists and you abuse Godwin. I win!" with a nuanced response of being louder when say but what about... Lock her up!

[Roman]

So the special counsel delivered a bunch of questions to Trump's lawyers that they want Trump to answer that have been leaked to the NY Times

Some theories on why they were leaked

So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were “leaked” to the media. No questions on Collusion. Oh, I see...you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice!

"No questions on Collusion"...

There are four dozen questions and about fourteen of them address contact with the Russians.

I think what that retard means is that if he doesn't see a question worded like: DID YOU COLLUDE WITH RUSSIA? That the questions doesn't exist.
This is tiresome either way - and I don't even live in the US

[Octavious]

What he does works. Just lie lie lie lie lie until people think the lie is the truth. It's not unintentional that he says that every 5 minutes. All the idiot supporters just start parroting it like it's the truth. Obviously there are tons of questions about Russia. Does it matter? Nope... Will anything ever come of this? Nope... The guy is a master con artist, I'll give him that.

[ImLawBoy]

retard

Seriously? If you're going to talk like him, maybe you should support him.

[Roman]

What he does works. Just lie lie lie lie lie until people think the lie is the truth. It's not unintentional that he says that every 5 minutes. All the idiot supporters just start parroting it like it's the truth. Obviously there are tons of questions about Russia. Does it matter? Nope... Will anything ever come of this? Nope... The guy is a master con artist, I'll give him that.

I'm leaning that there was no official collusion. Not sure what I mean by using the term 'official' but I think it will amount to nothing and that the real drama comes from illegal activities pre/post campaign from his organization/campaign.

If I listen to his past speeches/comments on the collusion front I think I heard him say that 'he' never colluded? In my pee brain that means that he is distancing himself from anything untoward done by his team/family because HE wasn't there and there is no proof of him authorizing it.