• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Intelligence Committee releases Dem rebuttal to GOP FISA memo

JasperL said:
You asserted how they used the Isikoff article. I don't know how they did, so show me your evidence they used it to corroborate the Steele information. Nunes never claims the article was used to corroborate Steele, and Schiff affirmatively denies that's how the article was used, so where are you getting this information?
Click to expand...

Here, let me help you...

The republican memo claims the Yahoo article is used to corroborate the Steele dossier. The democrats dispute this on page 7 of the democratic memo, claiming the Yahoo article was “to inform the Court of Page’s public denial of his suspected meetings in Russia”.

There are 2 problems with the democrats claim:

1. No such denials by Page were reported in that article. (see for yourself) Page merely declined to comment.
2. The Grassley-Graham memo contradicts what the democrat memo says, by providing the following quote taken directly from the FISA application "Given that the information contained in the September 23rd news article generally matches the information about Page that [Steele] discovered during his/her research, [two lines redacted.] The FBI does not believe that [Steele] directly provided this information to the press. [Brackets in original]"

So according to what the FBI said on the FISA application, that article was in fact used to corroborate the Steele dossier and the claim made in the democratic memo that it wasn't, is totally false.

Anything else I can do for you?

.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You are ignoring something. If collusion isn't illegal for one side it isn't illegal for the other.
Click to expand...
How can you say I'm ignoring that, when I'm the one informing you of it as a fact?

Again, you have not cited the law that has "collusion" in it's title, because there is none.

You keep parroting the right by saying "no collusion!", but it has no meaning. We know Trump coordinated with the Russians. We know he colluded with them. We know he has links to them.
The question is, how much evidence of that is there, how solid it is, was Trump aware of it (hah), and what crimes can be charged resulting from that.

That means the investigation that lying, leaking, scumbag Comey instigated is based on a lie. Yet we have Clinton and her allies engaging in actual collusion and you fade back to "isn't illegal". Double standard much?
Click to expand...
That's false, because it's not base on your lies, it's based on this order, in Mueller's case, that is a public document:

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;
and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;
and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)

So it doesn't use the world collusion, as you lied in claiming it does.

He must investigate links and/or coordination. And if he finds them, he has to pair them up with the appropriate laws that have been violated, and decide if there is enough evidence in his and the grand jury's opinion, for indictment. Links/coordination are ALSO not illegal, he will determine if the nature of those links/coordination, and Trump's awareness of them, constitute a violation of one or more laws.

Why so scared? Mueller's team is the best in the world at this, if Trump did nothing, Mueller will not find anything, and will not bring charges.
 
GDViking said:
Nothing of value are you freaking kidding?!?


Millions of dollars spent on social media trolls and propaganda.

Stolen hacked emails leaked at strategic times with the coordination of the trump campaign.

Proof is already in the public domain by Jr's emails, and Flynn ( who is now testifying against the trump crime family) texting a Russian agent DURING the trump inauguration, that the sanctions are over. Obviously that promise was kept proving that for the first time in his life he kept his end of a deal.
Click to expand...

So have you ever used WikiLeaks in your debate or research?? Doubt seriously that the Trump campaign had to coordinate the hacking of the DNC email as they do that all the time and did it with Sarah Palin which of course wasn't of any concern to the left, LOL
 
Conservative said:
Again, Democrats never have done the same thing using propaganda to get their message across? What is illegal about that? Stolen hacked emails were given to Trump?? Prove it?

The meeting with Russia is in the Jr. Domain but no evidence of collusion or violating any laws. WikiLeaks does this all the time and didn't need Trump to release the information, they did it. Trump using that information that was public knowledge is nothing more than total liberal ignorance and witch hunt
Click to expand...

Popadaplis announced it before even tbe fbi knew.
Trump announced a couple days before the the tower meeting that he was going to have big news about crooked Hillary the following week.

Jr's emails saying what the best timing to release the hacked ( by an adversarial foreign country) leaks.

And if don't believe Mueller doesn't have a whole lot more than we know (which is enough) you are massively underestimating him.
 
Conservative said:
No as nothing of value that already wasn't known was received.
Click to expand...
Based on what evidence? The criminals told you so? Are you trying to make us laugh?
Why if nothing of value was discussed:
1. did they not disclose the meeting, and we only found out when Kushner, who can't even get a security clearance, had to revise his security application to include it...oops!
2. Why did Don Jr. say it was about adoption, then when he knew the emails were coming out, had to change the story to wanting to get dirt on Hillary?
3. Why did we have to dig and dig to find all the attendees, why didn't they just reveal it all if it was so innocent?
4. Why did Russians have a lawyer there who flew there for this "nothing meeting", and Trump's team brought no legal counsel, and didn't ask if it was a good idea?
5. Why did Don deny Trump had a hand in the defense, but then later it was discovered Trump helped craft the cover-up responses?
6. Are you sure that it has to be exchanged, and that the agreement to meet with the intent to commit a crime, was not enough?

Let us remind you:


On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best

Rob Goldstone
Click to expand...

Mueller will investigate it, and he'll tell us if he can find the evidence of the crime that appears to have been covered up.
Russia gained absolutely nothing by Trump in the WH and in fact lost, but Russia is gaining strength do to people like you doing exactly what they wanted, trying to create chaos
Click to expand...
Russian gained every single thing it wanted, and more.
The Democrats were defeated and divided.
Republicans were divided.
Republican platform was changed to be pro-Russian.
Trump won.
The U.S. is in chaos politically with Trump in office.
Trump has refused to attack or speak badly of Russia throughout all of this.

The man spent a few hundred thousand dollars and turned the most wealthy nation on earth into a laughing stock.
 
Conservative said:
So have you ever used WikiLeaks in your debate or research?? Doubt seriously that the Trump campaign had to coordinate the hacking of the DNC email as they do that all the time and did it with Sarah Palin which of course wasn't of any concern to the left, LOL
Click to expand...

Nope I never have.
 
Grim17 said:
Here, let me help you...

The republican memo claims the Yahoo article is used to corroborate the Steele dossier. The democrats dispute this on page 7 of the democratic memo, claiming the Yahoo article was “to inform the Court of Page’s public denial of his suspected meetings in Russia”.
Click to expand...

We've been through this many times on this thread and the original thread on the Nunes memo. Nunes never actually claims the Yahoo article was used to corroborate the Steele information. He implies it, dishonestly IMO but crap writing and incompetence is another option, but never asserts it. You can try to quote Nunes making the claim and you will fail.

1. No such denials by Page were reported in that article. (see for yourself) Page merely declined to comment.
Click to expand...

The best and most compelling explanation I've seen is linked somewhere on this thread, but I'll summarize it. The Yahoo article makes a series of specific allegations about who Page met with, and Page addressed those allegations and others very explicitly in a later article in the Washington Post. Schiff alleges that the two articles were cited in tandem as evidence of Page's denials (along with a letter he wrote to the FBI, linked in the Wapo article). That explanation holds up if you read the Yahoo and WaPo articles as a unit. One article presents the specific allegations of who and for what purpose. The other article, the WaPo article summarizes the allegations but without the detail of the Yahoo article, and contains the Page denials of those specific claims.

2. The Grassley-Graham memo contradicts what the democrat memo says, by providing the following quote taken directly from the FISA application "Given that the information contained in the September 23rd news article generally matches the information about Page that [Steele] discovered during his/her research, [two lines redacted.] The FBI does not believe that [Steele] directly provided this information to the press. [Brackets in original]"
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why the article was used, but on page 3 of that memo, near the bottom, the non-redacted part alleges that perhaps the FBI put in the part about it not believing Steele was the source, "apparently to shield Mr. Steele's credibility" which is different than to corroborate his allegations in the dossier.

So according to what the FBI said on the FISA application, that article was in fact used to corroborate the Steele dossier and the claim made in the democratic memo that it wasn't, is totally false.
Click to expand...

See above, but I don't think either memo says what you think it does. It's all implied, but never stated anywhere, and Schiff addresses that head on and asserts that was NOT the purpose of including the Yahoo article.
 
Mach said:
How can you say I'm ignoring that, when I'm the one informing you of it as a fact?

Again, you have not cited the law that has "collusion" in it's title, because there is none.

You keep parroting the right by saying "no collusion!", but it has no meaning. We know Trump coordinated with the Russians. We know he colluded with them. We know he has links to them.
The question is, how much evidence of that is there, how solid it is, was Trump aware of it (hah), and what crimes can be charged resulting from that.


That's false, because it's not base on your lies, it's based on this order, in Mueller's case, that is a public document:

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;
and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;
and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)

So it doesn't use the world collusion, as you lied in claiming it does.

He must investigate links and/or coordination. And if he finds them, he has to pair them up with the appropriate laws that have been violated, and decide if there is enough evidence in his and the grand jury's opinion, for indictment. Links/coordination are ALSO not illegal, he will determine if the nature of those links/coordination, and Trump's awareness of them, constitute a violation of one or more laws.

Why so scared? Mueller's team is the best in the world at this, if Trump did nothing, Mueller will not find anything, and will not bring charges.
Click to expand...

Read Kurtz's book yet?
 
Mach said:
Based on what evidence? The criminals told you so? Are you trying to make us laugh?
Why if nothing of value was discussed:
1. did they not disclose the meeting, and we only found out when Kushner, who can't even get a security clearance, had to revise his security application to include it...oops!
2. Why did Don Jr. say it was about adoption, then when he knew the emails were coming out, had to change the story to wanting to get dirt on Hillary?
3. Why did we have to dig and dig to find all the attendees, why didn't they just reveal it all if it was so innocent?
4. Why did Russians have a lawyer there who flew there for this "nothing meeting", and Trump's team brought no legal counsel, and didn't ask if it was a good idea?
5. Why did Don deny Trump had a hand in the defense, but then later it was discovered Trump helped craft the cover-up responses?
6. Are you sure that it has to be exchanged, and that the agreement to meet with the intent to commit a crime, was not enough?

Let us remind you:




Mueller will investigate it, and he'll tell us if he can find the evidence of the crime that appears to have been covered up.

Russian gained every single thing it wanted, and more.
The Democrats were defeated and divided.
Republicans were divided.
Republican platform was changed to be pro-Russian.
Trump won.
The U.S. is in chaos politically with Trump in office.
Trump has refused to attack or speak badly of Russia throughout all of this.

The man spent a few hundred thousand dollars and turned the most wealthy nation on earth into a laughing stock.
Click to expand...
Yes Trump won now tell me how Russia benefits with a strong US economy and more military spending, your idea of quid pro quo? America first isn't to the benefit of any other country

Yes thanks to the left chaos has been created

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
JasperL said:
We've been through this many times on this thread and the original thread on the Nunes memo. Nunes never actually claims the Yahoo article was used to corroborate the Steele information. He implies it, dishonestly IMO but crap writing and incompetence is another option, but never asserts it. You can try to quote Nunes making the claim and you will fail.



The best and most compelling explanation I've seen is linked somewhere on this thread, but I'll summarize it. The Yahoo article makes a series of specific allegations about who Page met with, and Page addressed those allegations and others very explicitly in a later article in the Washington Post. Schiff alleges that the two articles were cited in tandem as evidence of Page's denials (along with a letter he wrote to the FBI, linked in the Wapo article). That explanation holds up if you read the Yahoo and WaPo articles as a unit. One article presents the specific allegations of who and for what purpose. The other article, the WaPo article summarizes the allegations but without the detail of the Yahoo article, and contains the Page denials of those specific claims.



I'm not sure why the article was used, but on page 3 of that memo, near the bottom, the non-redacted part alleges that perhaps the FBI put in the part about it not believing Steele was the source, "apparently to shield Mr. Steele's credibility" which is different than to corroborate his allegations in the dossier.



See above, but I don't think either memo says what you think it does. It's all implied, but never stated anywhere, and Schiff addresses that head on and asserts that was NOT the purpose of including the Yahoo article.
Click to expand...


Do you not see what you are doing? You are desperately trying to defend what is clearly indefensible.

You take the information that the FBI knew the DNC and Clinton campaign financed the dossier, information has been asserted a thousand times publicly, that has never been refuted by the democrats or anyone else, including the FBI and DOJ themselves, and refuse to accept it as fact in order to justify turning a blind eye to the obvious abuse of power by the FBI and DOJ.

Why do you do this? Does your disdain for Trump run so deep that you are willing to allow such blatant disregard for the 4th amendment of the constitution?

The democrats lied in their memo about how that Yahoo article was used, which is proven by their false claim about the article's contents and the actual words on the FISA application itself, yet you still attempt to prop it up. Stop for a minute and really think about what you are doing.

.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Read Kurtz's book yet?
Click to expand...
Is that your random diversion response at work again?
How many things have you been shown to be factually incorrect about in this thread. 4? 5?
 
Conservative said:
Yes Trump won now tell me how Russia benefits
Click to expand...
You quoted the benefits I just told you, did you read what you responded to?
Russian gained every single thing it wanted, and more.
The Democrats were defeated and divided.
Republicans were divided.
Republican platform was changed to be pro-Russian.
Trump won.
The U.S. is in chaos politically with Trump in office.
Trump has refused to attack or speak badly of Russia throughout all of this.
 
Mach said:
You quoted the benefits I just told you, did you read what you responded to?
Russian gained every single thing it wanted, and more.
The Democrats were defeated and divided.
Republicans were divided.
Republican platform was changed to be pro-Russian.
Trump won.
The U.S. is in chaos politically with Trump in office.
Trump has refused to attack or speak badly of Russia throughout all of this.
Click to expand...

Yes, they gained everything from the election they wanted but that nothing to do with Trump but everything to do with the chaos. They certainly aren't winning by having him IN OFFICE

Republicans aren't as divided as you think and will not lose the seats others seem to claim will happen because the Bank accounts of the American people is growing as more and more full time jobs are being created and the tax cuts give them more spendable income

The left is indeed promoting chaos which is anti American so all this bull**** about caring is just that bs.

Why badly speak of Russia? We are rebuilding our military and actions always speak louder than words. Russia saw our actions against ISIS so what rhetoric is necessary?

You people always attack rhetoric and ignore results but the silent majority always supports their pocketbook. I thank Obama every day for giving us Trump and the continued direction of the Country, GOP house, 2010-2012 and total Congress 14-16 and that trend will continue in 18. Economic and foreign policy results too strong no matter how bad the 24/7 media spin is
 
Grim17 said:
Do you not see what you are doing? You are desperately trying to defend what is clearly indefensible.
Click to expand...

First of all, I'll note you ignored every word you just quoted. A key part of that response is that neither Nunes nor Grassley alleged or asserted the Yahoo article was used to corroborate Steele's information. That failure, which you ignored, is relevant to the the NEW goal posts you erected below.

You take the information that the FBI knew the DNC and Clinton campaign financed the dossier, information has been asserted a thousand times publicly, that has never been refuted by the democrats or anyone else, including the FBI and DOJ themselves, and refuse to accept it as fact in order to justify turning a blind eye to the obvious abuse of power by the FBI and DOJ.
Click to expand...

I'll quote the Nunes memo for you:

a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.

b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier)
Click to expand...

That's very careful and awkward phrasing, and what you'll notice is the Nunes never alleges the FBI knew the DNC funded the dossier. It's just not there. Any 10th grader could rewrite the sentence to make that specific assertion, but trained lawyers avoided making it. Hmmmm......

So I'm refusing to accept it as fact because you cannot demonstrate it AS FACT. What I see is Nunes carefully avoiding making that allegation in his memo because it's likely not true. What I would guess is the FBI 'knew' who funded it, but confirming it takes a court order and they wouldn't bother. I also expect the court could not care less if the entity writing the checks as SIEU, or the DNC or Hillary for President, or a dark money (c)(4) - there were notified the document was political opposition research, and this was in October 2016 when only the brain dead didn't know why someone would be paying Steele to make inquiries about Trump's business in Russia.

Why do you do this? Does your disdain for Trump run so deep that you are willing to allow such blatant disregard for the 4th amendment of the constitution?

The democrats lied in their memo about how that Yahoo article was used, which is proven by their false claim about the article's contents and the actual words on the FISA application itself, yet you still attempt to prop it up. Stop for a minute and really think about what you are doing.
Click to expand...

I made my points, citing the document itself, and you've ignored them to repeat really loudly the points I just addressed while maligning my motives for insisting on reading was was actually SAID, not what you want those words to mean but WERE NOT SAID.

If you want to insist Schiff lied, prove it. I don't care about your partisan assertions - quote the EVIDENCE.
 
Mach said:
Are you serious? Of course you aren't.

1. DNC Chair steps down a day before the DNC convention (Schultz) in scandal
2. Sanders and his supporters have cause to oppose the DNC, angering atheists, Sanders supporters, and anyone who felt that was bad on the part of the Democrats.

Like you didn't know.
Click to expand...

What scandal? Why did the DNC chair need to step down? What information did Sanders and his supporters have that looked bad for the Democrats?
 
haymarket said:
I already answered that. Why are you asking the same thing again?

Is there something about my answer that confuses you?
Click to expand...

You didn't answer it. What information was damaging that Russia or the Trump campaign wanted to use?
 
Moderate Right said:
What scandal? Why did the DNC chair need to step down? What information did Sanders and his supporters have that looked bad for the Democrats?
Click to expand...
The scandal resulting from the illegally obtained and released emails. You can google it, as though you don't know.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm indifferent to the renewals. Only the initial application interests me. I do not argue the false confirmation invalidated the application, only that it was an error.
Click to expand...



This is a rare, if not unique, look into just parts of a FISA original application. Judicial Watch is suing the DoJ under the Freedom of Information Act to get copies of the original application and all renewals. The DoJ rejected JW's request to them, as is protocol:

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...sues-doj-public-has-right-see-how-obama-admin
 
Mach said:
Are you serious? Of course you aren't.

1. DNC Chair steps down a day before the DNC convention (Schultz) in scandal
2. Sanders and his supporters have cause to oppose the DNC, angering atheists, Sanders supporters, and anyone who felt that was bad on the part of the Democrats.

Like you didn't know.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, do you think the Sanders supporters had a right to know the contents of the Wikileaks emails?

If Wikileaks obtained and released emails showing unfair business practices in a pharmaceutical company, would you care about the method by which they were obtained?
 
jmotivator said:
Out of curiosity, do you think the Sanders supporters had a right to know the contents of the Wikileaks emails?
Click to expand...
Given everything that Trump is doing that he shouldn't, I'm curious how you can even ask that, it's obscene.

To answer your question, the judge said it best:
“To the extent Plaintiffs wish to air their general grievances with the DNC or its candidate selection process, their redress is through the ballot box, the DNC’s internal workings, or their right of free speech — not through the judiciary.”
Click to expand...
The documents were not legally obtained, clearly there is no legal "right" to them, that's a fact. Their corporation, their money, their say.

Although Mueller's checking into what Trump knew about it right now though...but he may already know and just be seeing who is honest and who is lying, I cannot say for sure. Maybe Trump felt they had a right to see it and said nothing, wouldn't that be grand?
 
haymarket said:
I just did.
Click to expand...

You said it was an oversimplification so I asked you to explain how B meeting A, then B meeting C, then B meeting A again could possibly be confusing.
I sense it wouldn't be productive to ask again.

If that was confusing, I hesitate to bring this up for fear of giving you conniptions of confusion but here goes anyway ...

A is Fusion
B is Russia
C is Hillary/DNC
D is Hillary/DNC lawyer
E is Chris Steele
$ is $

C-$>D
D-$>A
A-$>E
E-$>B
B->E
E->A
A->D
D->C

Fusion and Russia is the overlap between Junior’s scenario and Hillary’s scenario.
BUT
The difference between the 2 is that what Junior did wasn’t a crime (she got nothing - he got nothing) whereas Hillary may have violated 2 Laws.
 
You are unbelievable!

JasperL said:
Nunes never actually claims the Yahoo article was used to corroborate the Steele information. He implies it, dishonestly IMO but crap writing and incompetence is another option, but never asserts it. You can try to quote Nunes making the claim and you will fail.
Click to expand...

He implies it? Dishonestly?

Jesus Christ man, you have taken the game of parsing words to a whole new level.

Who gives a damn whether it was said, or implied, we all know that is exactly how it was taken by EVERYONE on the face of planet earth... except for YOU. The democrats claimed the article was used for something, that the article itself proves is a lie. The text from the FISA application proves that the FBI used that article to corroborate the dossier, so what exactly is your point here?

The fact is, the FBI used an article sourced by Steele, to corroborate the unverified dossier written by Steele. The evidence is right in front of your face.





The best and most compelling explanation I've seen is linked somewhere on this thread, but I'll summarize it. The Yahoo article makes a series of specific allegations about who Page met with, and Page addressed those allegations and others very explicitly in a later article in the Washington Post. Schiff alleges that the two articles were cited in tandem as evidence of Page's denials (along with a letter he wrote to the FBI, linked in the Wapo article). That explanation holds up if you read the Yahoo and WaPo articles as a unit. One article presents the specific allegations of who and for what purpose. The other article, the WaPo article summarizes the allegations but without the detail of the Yahoo article, and contains the Page denials of those specific claims.
Click to expand...

OMFG... Read the actual text from the FISA application, instead of being hypnotized by the BS speculation put forth by Schiff and the democrats. It clearly indicates that the Yahoo article was used by the FBI to corroborate the information contained in the unverified Steele dossier.

"Given that the information contained in the September 23rd news article generally matches the information about Page that [Steele] discovered during his/her research, [two lines redacted.] The FBI does not believe that [Steele] directly provided this information to the press. [Brackets in original]"
​

Open your eyes man.


I'm not sure why the article was used, but on page 3 of that memo, near the bottom, the non-redacted part alleges that perhaps the FBI put in the part about it not believing Steele was the source, "apparently to shield Mr. Steele's credibility" which is different than to corroborate his allegations in the dossier.
Click to expand...

This is getting ridiculous.

So saying he wasn't the source, when we all know he was the source, was to shield his credibility?

Open your eyes.

See above, but I don't think either memo says what you think it does. It's all implied, but never stated anywhere, and Schiff addresses that head on and asserts that was NOT the purpose of including the Yahoo article.
Click to expand...

Schiff asserts... Schiff is full of crap, as the text from the FISA application proves.

I have never in my life seen someone selectively choose what facts they will and will not accept the way you are doing here.

.
 
Mach said:
Is that your random diversion response at work again?
How many things have you been shown to be factually incorrect about in this thread. 4? 5?
Click to expand...

If you are using circular logic to state something, you can prove anyone is wrong. Your points are indelibly circular.
 
Mach said:
Given everything that Trump is doing that he shouldn't, I'm curious how you can even ask that, it's obscene.

To answer your question, the judge said it best:

The documents were not legally obtained, clearly there is no legal "right" to them, that's a fact. Their corporation, their money, their say.

Although Mueller's checking into what Trump knew about it right now though...but he may already know and just be seeing who is honest and who is lying, I cannot say for sure. Maybe Trump felt they had a right to see it and said nothing, wouldn't that be grand?
Click to expand...

FFS. Wrongdoing on the part of one party, no matter how egregious doesn't excuse wrongdoing on the part of another party. It is just morally deficient to continue to use that pathetic excuse over and over. Its either wrong or it isn't and playing moral deflection isn't going to change that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom