seems so eerily quiet newswise about Russiagate today after a whirlwind week

Calm before the storm? Everyone is listening to testimony about the NOT 'travel ban'? The rest are looking at Trump's Lawyer, Mr. Creepy, Esq., tweet of lingerie shots of his daughter? General political fatigue?

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I didn't say that it's exculpatory for Trump. I said they don't say Trump was the one breaking the law. That seems like a pretty important detail. There are a lot of people on the internet getting way out over their skis on this.

The Russia investigation could end up being highly damaging to the administration politically, undercover illegality that sends people to prison, undermine trust in his judgment in hiring subordinates, and do many other bad things - and still not come close to touching Trump legally.

First, I'm assuming the story has little credibility so, if anything, I'm way back on my skis. But looking simply at the four corners of the story itself the only administration name mentioned either in the article or on air is Trump's. It doesn't mention Flynn or Manafort or Page or Andrew Jackson or anyone else. So saying that it doesn't specifically say anything about criminal acts **by** Trump is pretty meaningless when it doesn't attribute criminal actions to anyone but Trump's name is the only one all over the article.

We might be kind of going in circles here, but want to give it one more go. There has been an awful of credulity when it comes to thinly or unsourced reporting about Trump and Russia. This isn't directed at you or TCC, but it crops up in this fair thread from time to time, and I've noticed it with irl friends/family as well as obviously a lot of it happening on Twitter. TCC characterized the piece (which was poorly/confusingly written) as saying Scarborough said the FBI is close to revealing criminal acts by Trump. I don't think the article suggests the FBI is close to revealing criminal acts by Trump, and the clip the article is based off of certainly doesn't say that. I thought, given the propensity of the Russia/Trump stories to take on lives of their own, it was worth clarifying that Scarborough wasn't saying Trump is about to be nailed by the FBI. I didn't say the piece was exculpatory for Trump whatever the hell other words you were putting in my mouth. Just that it didn't indicate Trump himself was the person doing the illegal shit. Because that's an important detail.

jerseyhoya wrote:Because that's an important detail.

This may be news to you, but Nixon didn't actually burgle the DNC's Watergate offices physically himself.

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I didn't say that it's exculpatory for Trump. I said they don't say Trump was the one breaking the law. That seems like a pretty important detail. There are a lot of people on the internet getting way out over their skis on this.

The Russia investigation could end up being highly damaging to the administration politically, undercover illegality that sends people to prison, undermine trust in his judgment in hiring subordinates, and do many other bad things - and still not come close to touching Trump legally.

First, I'm assuming the story has little credibility so, if anything, I'm way back on my skis. But looking simply at the four corners of the story itself the only administration name mentioned either in the article or on air is Trump's. It doesn't mention Flynn or Manafort or Page or Andrew Jackson or anyone else. So saying that it doesn't specifically say anything about criminal acts **by** Trump is pretty meaningless when it doesn't attribute criminal actions to anyone but Trump's name is the only one all over the article.

We might be kind of going in circles here, but want to give it one more go. There has been an awful of credulity when it comes to thinly or unsourced reporting about Trump and Russia. This isn't directed at you or TCC, but it crops up in this fair thread from time to time, and I've noticed it with irl friends/family as well as obviously a lot of it happening on Twitter. TCC characterized the piece (which was poorly/confusingly written) as saying Scarborough said the FBI is close to revealing criminal acts by Trump. I don't think the article suggests the FBI is close to revealing criminal acts by Trump, and the clip the article is based off of certainly doesn't say that. I thought, given the propensity of the Russia/Trump stories to take on lives of their own, it was worth clarifying that Scarborough wasn't saying Trump is about to be nailed by the FBI. I didn't say the piece was exculpatory for Trump whatever the hell other words you were putting in my mouth. Just that it didn't indicate Trump himself was the person doing the illegal shit. Because that's an important detail.

I understand now that you were responding in particular to TCC's admittedly misleading characterization. I didn't understand before so my response to you was a non sequitur. My apologies.

Fwiw I agree with jh
That said even if he had no hands in the cookie jar I do think he's guilty of obstruction and cover up

He could end up being an unindicted co-conspiracy.

Got your news for the day doc.

Trump revealed highly classified information to those russian dopes in the meeting last week. Seems like it is info we don't even share with close allies.

Good going Donald.

Can't wait for the GOP non-reply!

CalvinBall wrote:Got your news for the day doc.

Trump revealed highly classified information to those russian dopes in the meeting last week. Seems like it is info we don't even share with close allies.

Good going Donald.

The second sentence of their statement about North Korea's missile test this past Saturday was about how Russia was going to feel about it. I mean

slugsrbad wrote:Can't wait for the GOP non-reply!

Let me lick your tears, liberals!!!


- GOP

CalvinBall wrote:Got your news for the day doc.

Trump revealed highly classified information to those russian dopes in the meeting last week. Seems like it is info we don't even share with close allies.

Good going Donald.

holy shit lmao

i mean what else can you say

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:seems so eerily quiet newswise about Russiagate today after a whirlwind week

lol 4 hours

POTUS, less than 2 months ago:

The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!

Paul Ryan in 2016 re:Clinton

It's simple: Individuals who are ‘extremely careless’ w/ classified info should be denied further access to it.

CalvinBall wrote:Got your news for the day doc.

Trump revealed highly classified information to those russian dopes in the meeting last week. Seems like it is info we don't even share with close allies.

Good going Donald.

And it was info from an ally, not something we developed. If you're Israel or Saudi Arabia or the French or whoever we're working with, would imagine there's real concern about sharing intelligence now. Ungood.

I'll bring pitchforks, you guys scrounge up some torches

I hear tiki torches are just the thing

only if we can wear our cargo shorts

-richard nixon did watergate and was generally a racist piece of shit
-ronald reagan did the war on drugs, "welfare queens," had a smooth brain and was basically a vegetable by his 2nd term
-george HW bush did the gulf war and laid the tracks for his idiot son
-george W bush is a war criminal
-donald fucking trump became their nominee and then the president because modern conservatism is so bankrupt morally as a philosophy that a 70 year old conman was able to sneak his way in and none of the party "leaders" did anything about it

why does the GOP hate america so much?

it's the party of the 'self'

As a side note, it's going to be fun watching Spicer, KAC, Huckabee Sanders, Pence, Ryan and McConnell try to spin this