Heartbreak: The Russian fantasy is just that.

In fact, the WaPo knew Kushner served as the official “primary point of contact” with the Russians and other foreign ambassadors as early as Feb. 10, when it published a fairly flattering story about him serving as “a shadow diplomat” in talks with “more than two dozen countries.”

The February story noted that Kushner had secretly met with foreign officials in New York and even established “back-channel communications” with other nations. But back then it portrayed the off-the-grid talks as healthy, because Kushner was “a moderating influence” among what it viewed as foreign-policy “extremists” in the new White House.

Virginia Democrat Sen. Mark Warner tells CNN's Jake Tapper that "there is a lot of smoke," but no "smoking gun at this point" when it comes to allegations that President Trump had any connection with Russia during the election.

Warner, a Democrat, serves as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Mods please merge.

Also, goose, I think you need to understand that this isn't going to be an overnight thing. There isn't going to be a pee tape coming where this all happens one day. It's a long term investigation. Calm down and give it some time. Saying there's nothing to the Kuschner it's pretty ridiculous, seeing as we know that he lied on security clearance forms. That's a big big deal by itself. It doesn't mean that it's all going to come tumbling down tomorrow, but it is a big problem that no one should just gloss over.

Unless a pee tape comes. But it probably won't. But maybe.

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Mods please merge.

Also, goose, I think you need to understand that this isn't going to be an overnight thing. There isn't going to be a pee tape coming where this all happens one day. It's a long term investigation. Calm down and give it some time. Saying there's nothing to the Kuschner it's pretty ridiculous, seeing as we know that he lied on security clearance forms. That's a big big deal by itself. It doesn't mean that it's all going to come tumbling down tomorrow, but it is a big problem that no one should just gloss over.

Unless a pee tape comes. But it probably won't. But maybe.

No shit sherlock.

I lived through Watergate so I know how these things develop. The difference is that usually in scandals they find evidence of wrong doing.

I believe the tally is now at 14 or 15 Senior Dems that have come out and said there is nothing there. They have to keep this alive because their dumb assed base has been brain washed that poor Hills had the election stolen from her by the Russkies.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

No shit sherlock.

I lived through Watergate so I know how these things develop. The difference is that usually in scandals they find evidence of wrong doing.

I believe the tally is now at 14 or 15 Senior Dems that have come out and said there is nothing there. They have to keep this alive because their dumb assed base has been brain washed that poor Hills had the election stolen from her by the Russkies.

So, we know for fact that Kuschner lied on those forms. Which, again, is a very big deal. You think they just shouldn't follow up on that at all? Maybe just put a note in his file and move on?

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

So, we know for fact that Kuschner lied on those forms. Which, again, is a very big deal. You think they just shouldn't follow up on that at all? Maybe just put a note in his file and move on?

Lied is a strong term, I read somewhere and will try to find it that around 40% of applicants make mistakes filling out those forms. I know that no one here in the land of perfection would do that.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Lied is a strong term, I read somewhere and will try to find it that around 40% of applicants make mistakes filling out those forms. I know that no one here in the land of perfection would do that.

Omitted... but, omitting something on those forms isn't okay, especially when it's something that happened like a week prior. Forgetting that you smoked weed once in high school when asked isn't okay. The whole point is to make sure you can't be compromised by a foreign government, so I get the feeling that "omitting" that you were meeting with Russians a week before you filled out the form is a big problem.

Random fun story- I got interviewed by the FBI once because my high school girlfriend was getting the lowest level of security clearance a decade after we broke up. They wanted to know every single thing that's ever happened to her, and it was tough to answer cooraborating questions like "where did she work then" when the only thing I could really remember about her was "she was the first girl nice enough to let me sex her."

Rocinante wrote:I wish you would just link to it. Giant screen grabs are annoying. I read the whole thing and I would agree that there's not a whole lot the dems can get hold of trump on, except that Comey was under the impression that trump was asking him to end an investigation which is obstruction. However since he was the only one in the room, trumpncould either say he never said that, or that his statement was taken out of context and we're back to square 1. So yeah this looks like a win for Trump.

I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department
of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an
open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because
it would create a duty to correct, should that change.

In his prepared statement, James Comey admits that President Trump was not being investigated, that Comey told the president and Congress as much, and that Comey deliberately refused to inform the public of those facts.

The most damning aspect of Comey’s prepared testimony is his admission that he deliberately refused to inform the public that Trump was not being personally investigated by the FBI. Comey’s justification for this refusal to publicly disclose material facts — that those facts might change — is laughable, especially in light of Comey’s 2016 two-step regarding the investigation of Hillary Clinton.

“I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because it would create a duty to correct, should that change,” Comey claims.

Recall that in 2016, Comey had no problem 1) publicly exonerating Hillary Clinton despite the fact that the authority to charge (or not charge) someone with a crime lies with federal prosecutors, not the FBI; 2) using the same press conference to excoriate Clinton’s behavior; 3) telling Congress that the investigation of Clinton was closed; and then 4) announcing days before a presidential election that the FBI had reopened the case and was once again investigating Hillary Clinton. Yet we’re supposed to believe that James Comey had grave moral concerns about disclosing facts that may be subject to change? Please.

The public impression that Trump was being criminally investigated, amplified by the president’s critics in the media, was effectively Comey’s get-out-of-jail-free card. The former FBI director likely assumed that no president would be crazy enough to fire a man whom the public believed to be investigating the president. Only a madman would fire that guy, right? Everyone in Washington knows how this game is played. They all know the tune by heart.

Unfortunately for Comey, Trump had no intention of playing that game and dancing that dance. What really happened is that Trump was wise to Comey’s con and finally had enough of it. He figured out what Comey was doing — deliberately refusing to correct a factually inaccurate impression of the FBI’s ongoing investigation as a means of protecting his job — and called his bluff.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Lol k.

Heat Miser wrote:

I did not tell the President that the FBI and the Department
of Justice had been reluctant to make public statements that we did not have an
open case on President Trump for a number of reasons, most importantly because
it would create a duty to correct, should that change.

As of April 11th, not under investigation. A lot has happened since then.

Now, as to the obstruction question...

GRR Spartan wrote:Goosechev isn't busting his buttons quoting Eric Trump saying Democrats and those investigating his father's possible ties to Russia "aren't even people".

Time to fire up the ovens yet?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/politics/eric-trump-hannity-democrats-obstruction/

tGreenWay wrote:The Federalist, eh? Isn't that the same rag that gave us this brilliant piece:
https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/09/pets-instead-kids-considered-psychiatric-disorder/

Robert J Sakimano wrote:there isn't any video of the sexual predator raping young Russian girls..

there aren't any videos of the Russian prostitutes urinating on him.

Comey wouldn't be allowed to testify if anything of consequence existed. Even if anything of consequence existed, the immoral and unethical Republicans would do nothing about it.

For the most part, this is a creation of the mainstream media who is responsible for getting the sexual predator elected in the first place - he's good for ratings and that's all they care about.

so.. yeah, of course he colluded with Russia.. of course he has urinated with Russian prostitutes and assaulted little girls.. of course he has obstructed justice.. but nobody with any influence will care.

NigelUno wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:there isn't any video of the sexual predator raping young Russian girls..

there aren't any videos of the Russian prostitutes urinating on him.

Comey wouldn't be allowed to testify if anything of consequence existed. Even if anything of consequence existed, the immoral and unethical Republicans would do nothing about it.

For the most part, this is a creation of the mainstream media who is responsible for getting the sexual predator elected in the first place - he's good for ratings and that's all they care about.

so.. yeah, of course he colluded with Russia.. of course he has urinated with Russian prostitutes and assaulted little girls.. of course he has obstructed justice.. but nobody with any influence will care.

There is video of Trump asking Russia to hack...

LooseGoose wrote:Get it all out in this thread guys, then re join reality.

Trump may be a crook but he's our crook, not Putin's.

LooseGoose wrote:Get it all out in this thread guys, then re join reality.

Trump may be a crook but he's our crook, not Putin's.

LooseGoose wrote:Get it all out in this thread guys, then re join reality.

Trump may be a crook but he's our crook, not Putin's.

LooseGoose wrote:Get it all out in this thread guys, then re join reality.

Trump may be a crook but he's our crook, not Putin's.

DWags wrote:I like in the dossier that Trump tells Comey, "No Russian hookers"... or somethhing to that effect. YOu know that means there was wide spread belief/knowledge that something like that was happening or could easily happen when Trump was over there.