Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

The President seems so convinced of his impending exoneration that he is telling associates Mueller will soon write a letter clearing him that Trump can brandish to Washington and the world in a bid to finally emerge from the cloud of suspicion that has loomed over the first chapter of his presidency, the sources said.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/18/politics/trump-russia-investigation/index.html

Good to see that the president perceives it to be in his best interest to allow the investigation to run its course.
 
The Rude Pundit‏ @rudepundit
11m11 minutes ago

Say what you will about Bill Clinton, but no one ever seriously asked if he would fire Kenneth Starr during the Whitewater investigation.
 
57Brave said:
The Rude Pundit‏ @rudepundit

11m11 minutes ago



Say what you will about Bill Clinton, but no one ever seriously asked if he would fire Kenneth Starr during the Whitewater investigation.
Click to expand...

Did Kenneth star's investigators talk about an insurance policy if the Clinton was still president?
 
thethe said:
Did Kenneth star's investigators talk about an insurance policy if the Clinton was still president?
Click to expand...

If you take the time to learn about the Starr investigation, you'd know that this is a fruitless inquiry. The Starr investigation went down a lot of rabbit holes, and it was an obviously partisan attempt to damage Clinton's presidency, and it uncovered what was determined to be actual wrongdoing, and it was ultimately limited to findings of real-world fact. All of these things can be true simultaneously.

As for the "insurance policy," I have two comments. First, you can't make that text mean what you want it to mean simply by repeating your interpretation of it. Second, we don't have the benefit of a curated glance at the private communications of people involved in that investigation. If we did, it might be illuminating.
 
Julio3000 said:
If you take the time to learn about the Starr investigation, you'd know that this is a fruitless inquiry. The Starr investigation went down a lot of rabbit holes, and it was an obviously partisan attempt to damage Clinton's presidency, and it uncovered what was determined to be actual wrongdoing, and it was ultimately limited to findings of real-world fact. All of these things can be true simultaneously.

As for the "insurance policy," I have two comments. First, you can't make that text mean what you want it to mean simply by repeating your interpretation of it. Second, we don't have the benefit of a curated glance at the private communications of people involved in that investigation. If we did, it might be illuminating.
Click to expand...

I think an impartial person would see that to be a nefarious reference but I'm not a neutral person in this fight. I just don't see what that could have meant which would be considered wholesome.
 
DRWPPUNXkAEP2qR.jpg:large
 
no, it really doesn't.

there are reports of the Reagan campaign colluding with the Iranians to hold off release of hostages and of Nixon colluding with N Viet Nam to stall Paris peace talks -- but nothing historical to back up that nonsense you take to heart.
 
57Brave said:
no, it really doesn't.

there are reports of the Reagan campaign colluding with the Iranians to hold off release of hostages and of Nixon colluding with N Viet Nam to stall Paris peace talks -- but nothing historical to back up that nonsense you take to heart.
Click to expand...

So do you want to talk about HRC campaign then? What would you classify Podesta?
 
So now it's all but confirmed insurance policy meant the Dossier/Russia probe. This looks real kosher to me.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top