Reply With Quote
Narrowly lost. With help from a foreign country that's now unraveling every day.
Trump unable to keep a conspiracy under wraps when he has all the tools to.
Crooked Hillary!
Narrowly lost. With help from a foreign country that's now unraveling every day.
Clinton. My best case scenario for the 2016 election was the pneumonia coming back and taking her out after denying Trump the presidency.
I'm sure his positions on immigration and "we can defeat terrorism if we say the magic words Radical Islam" will remain in tact. A softer approach to LGBTQ issues and (for 's sake) marijuana should be no-brainers. It's a no-win to push for regression on these issues when even a good number of conservatives don't think they're worth fighting.
NYT: Obama WH Rushed to Preserve Russian Hacking Intel
This former president can not just go away
He is trying to destroy the country
He was still President when he did that, you quack.
like they said... his response was misleading at best. if this is the case, he was misleading, not lying
He said he had not had any contact with any russians. He did. He lied.
I'm guessing these meetings went something like this:
Russian AMB: Meester Sessions. Vladimir vould like to know who eez biggest eedyot who vould fall for pheeshing emyail heck. Do you know such pearson?
Sessions: John Podesta
Sounds good to me.
So did Clapper and he kept his job.
So, this is how denial looks like. Ok.
That Blumenthal guy lied to 50,000 dead souls etched in granite on that Wall and he's still a U.S. Senator.
He toast
again, that question is specific to being "about the 2016 election"
I couldn't get a donut in 2016 without being asked about the election, so I have my doubts that a US Senator (and someone already mentioned as a potential Trump cabinet pick) could have a discussion with a Russian ambassador in his office in September 2016 without discussing the Presidential campaign.
true... but speculation won't be enough, no matter how logical the inference is
For the legally stupid here, the key here is "about the 2016 election".
The question could have been about any ambassador, about the election, and would have gotten the same response "no".
Why didn't they just ask him if he'd met with anyone connected to the Russian government? Oh that's right, because he was in a position to meet with exactly those people.
Whether or not he discussed the 2016 elections is anyone's guess, I don't trust any of them. This is going to bite the Dems in the ass, again.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
