• 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!

Sam clovis testified to meuller's grand jury

Do people bother to read the citations they use?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...dab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.0bd08552a53a

..and:



Haven't we all heard that such contacts are typical of candidates in national campaigns...the sole purpose being to open non-official avenues of communication?

Meanwhile the information bolded in the first quote, as well as a reading of the rest of the article clearly shows that there was no actual contacts with anyone of note. Just possibilities this junior "advisor" was seeking to push to build himself up within the campaign...apparently without much success. :shrug:

Much ado about nothing trying to turn it into something IMO.

Get back to me when something factual and criminal actually occurs. :coffeepap:

Some do, yes. But the one you replied to doesn't, no.

Doesn't a reading of that whole WAPO piece make it sound like a poorly executed sting by Papadopoulos?
Either that or he was simply not taking any number of brushoff hints by the campaign.
I guess it's possible he thought he was doing something useful for the campaign.
But under any scenario, nothing ever came of it.
 
Last edited:
Some do, yes. But the one you replied to doesn't, no.

Doesn't a reading of that whole WAPO piece make it sound like a poorly executed sting by Papadopoulos?
Either that or he was simply not taking any number of brushoff hints by the campaign.
I guess it's possible he thought he was doing something useful for the campaign.
But under any scenario, nothing ever came of it.

Who brushed off Donald Junior,(Great! I love it.) And he went along with Kushner, Manafort and others. Were off to see a Russian lawyer, for some wonderful dirt on Hilary. And Donald Senior,( Russia, if your listening, I hope you got all those emails.) I could go on and on and on. What about Cambridge analytica and Wiki Leaks . Come on guys, nobody brushed him off. Sessions was concerned about (Leaks) in that July meeting. That's all. It wasn't the right place for Papadopaulos to be talking about those matters.
 
What's that supposed to mean? Are you saying that anyone who is asked questions is automatically guilty? Really?

It means a federal judge feels there is enough evidence to go forward with hearing the case. It's a far cry from, I think your phrase was,(much a do about nothing,)
 
From an e-mail to me from my attorney 3/12/16:

"Organize a repertoire and itinerary with that foreign organization. I would encourage you” and the nephew and niece to “make the trip, if it is feasible,” I agreed. Must of been collusion with a conspiracy in the making, eh? Nah, just the beginning of a music and art cultural exchange invitation response. The kids had one of the great summers of their life. As a chaperone as well as fellow performer, I had a terrible summer. I never saw my wife spend so much money before, even if most of it was on gifts. Now there I saw collusion, her and all the European craft and native clothing outfit vendors. How can an Irish linen blouse cost so much?

When you (you, generically) quote out of context, anyone can give the words of anyone else completely different meanings.

Who claims the comments to be out of context?
 
Can you name any other presidential campaign approached by a foreign government with such an offer and which not only accepted that offer but also lied about it to The American people, Congress, and the FBI?

I know I can't. But of course it's nice to talk ourselves into thinking that this is just a fishing expedition. I helps one sleep at night. But not the Donald.
 
It's unusual for a dossier to be financed by one presidential candidate to dirty another, even when initiated by the other's political party unnamed organization. That just sounds so wrong. Dirty politics is the American way.
e

Willy Horton, Well fare queens. Benghazi , He's not an American. He's a Muslim. He wants to make Sharia law. Crooked Hillary . The list is long and all full of crap. The Dossier was originally funded by a republican source, then by the Clinton camp. It wasn't directed at all as to what to find. Christopher Steele look at Russia because he knew Trump had business dealings there. AS far as what the Dossier reports, so far according to congressional and senatorial sources, many things are true. If it's true, it's not dirty. Not like accusing a person who was born in Hawaii as being born in Kenya. As if that mattered, his mother was born in America. Read the constitution. But the Donald said he had investigators in Hawaii and they were making great progress. How's that working out for ya? You see, you righties can pitch but you can't catch so good.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Raw data from Russian sources. Russia, apparently, was offering dirt on Hillary to trump people and dirt on Trump to Hillary people. Seems like the person most outraged by the idea of Russian collusion--Hillary--was the one colluding with the Russians.

Steele collected raw data from his many sources, not just Russian.
 
I've no idea since I've not read it. The IC has stated that most of the data checked out.

I don't think the intelligence community has said that at all.
I think, more accurately, media talking heads have made that claim but have never managed to detail any of it.
 
Steele collected raw data from his many sources, not just Russian.

Steele, a foreign national, collected data from foreign sources that included Russia. But for some reason it doesn't alarm you that the Russians were providing dirt to the Clinton camp. It only bugs you that the Russians may have been involved with the Trump people. Why is that?
 
Steele, a foreign national, collected data from foreign sources that included Russia. But for some reason it doesn't alarm you that the Russians were providing dirt to the Clinton camp. It only bugs you that the Russians may have been involved with the Trump people. Why is that?

oh fletch, see how you cling to a narrative even after you know it was false. still pretending not to understand the difference between someone contacting his Russian sources and someone colluding with a foreign govt. Speaking to a Russian is not the same as speaking to "the Russians". Trump was colluding with "the Russians" in exchange for political favors. See how you lack the requisite integrity to stop pretending to not understand. And the intel was so shocking Steele turned it over to the FBI.

"Parts of the dossier have been stood up and in places it looks prophetic. One Steele memo says the Kremlin was behind the hacking of DNC emails, claiming these were released via WikiLeaks for reasons of “plausible deniability”. In return, Trump agreed to “sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine” as a campaign issue and to raise “US/Nato defence commitments in the Baltics and eastern Europe” to deflect attention.

This is precisely what happened at the Republican National Convention last July, when language on the US’s commitment to Ukraine was mysteriously softened. Meanwhile, in a series of tweets, Trump questioned whether US allies were paying enough into Nato coffers.
"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-about-alleged-links-between-trump-and-russia


And don't forget him attacking nato. Now we know why. Little conservative heads would have exploded if President Obama said what trump said. Trump said it and we know why he said it and here you are obediently defending him. Your conservative masters appreciate your obedience.
 
Back
Top Bottom