But what he said is not confusing at all. And it doesn't mean what thethe and maybe Hawk want it to mean, either.
Yeah, that's definitely it.
Whatever it is.
Because it's so clear and so obvious that we can't even define it.
But what he said is not confusing at all. And it doesn't mean what thethe and maybe Hawk want it to mean, either.
Trump says no collusion...unambiguously...the great man hath spoken
Hawk, you have opined that every indictment that's been issued in this case has diminished the case for prosecutable hijinks in Trump world. You treat each indictment as if it is the end of the investigation and the end of the story. I'm not sure why you think you can look at the visible portion of the iceberg above the water and guess the size of it.
I think that component of the investigation has long since ceased to exist.
do you possess any curiosity as to why they were in the positions they were?
In what ways has the case actually diminished? Be specific.
We'll see what Manafort says or doesn't say. We'll see how Gates, Manafort's right-hand man, taking a deal plays out.
[tw]964560208780460032[/tw]
Don't think so. I'll link the Bloomberg piece again.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-still-be-investigating-collusion-with-russia
Moreover, Trump himself during the campaign was quite open about encouraging the Russians to release emails and other dirt concerning Hillary. And others in the campaign were receptive (to say the least) to any help the Russians could provide.
And so we find ourselves in a situation where law enforcement is prosecuting Russians for crimes that Trump and the Trump campaign encouraged.
Just because the Russians were trying to sow discord before Trump it doesn't mean they couldn't also have found a willing dance partner in the Trump Campaign. I'm not saying this news is indicative of that, but trumpeting it as news to the contrary is short sighted.
I read the article the first time you posted it. It's not very substantive (as you noted).
Trump encouraged Russians to direct cyber trolling at both himself and HRC?
I mean, why is Rex Tillerson at State? Why did Donald Trump actually bring Omarosa into the White House? I've never grasped the personnel decisions, but they are not compelling in and of themselves.
Again, we've gone from 'You are a puppet' and accusations of direct collusion/Kompromat/secret Russian monies hidden in tax returns to running jokes about obstruction and that guy on Twitter with the handle "BRAVE,FREE,PATRi0T 4 TRUMP".
Yes, we will.
He encouraged them to release the emails.
Now he says he was just kidding.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politics/trump-clinton-russia-hacking-email-joking/index.html
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," he said in July 2016.
Later, Trump said at that news conference that he would "love" to see the emails, if Russia or China had them.
Perhaps we are not to take the great man literally. But those be his words.
I'm confused - where are we trying to go with this?
The indictments handed down today don't have anything to do with Trump telling the Russians to find (not hack) Hillary's 'lost' e-mails.
You really think that the collusion investigation (as it were) is predicated on comments like that?
Direct collusion/Kompromat/secret Russian moneys hidden in tax returns haven't gone away as much as you might want to think that.
You're actually using this as an argument for potential collusion? Because if collusion was happening this is how it would be implemented. The stretches are everywhere