@Jimizo: Don't expect to get any real answers to your questions. Just scroll up and see the responses that I got and their lack of any actual and verifiable support.
@Bass: Wolff himself even said that a lot of what he knows come from recollections.
Not this time. He decided to record many of the people whom he quoted in the book, but go ahead and smear him anyway.
@Bass: I don't know and neither do you,
Actually, yes you claimed that you did by stating, ". . . considering Wolff’s less than sterling reputation," so you know something that many of us don't. Unlike you, I never made the claim to "know anything" about the man, but nice try anyway.
@Bass: No, it was, the man never had a GDP over 3.0% that's not my opinion, that's just a fact.
So, let me see if I understand you correctly here. If a country's GDP doesn't hit the magical 3% growth rate, then its economy is considered to be "stagnant"? In 2015, when the GDP hit 2.9%, that's an example of a "stagnant" economy?
For a better understanding of the economy was like, have a look at these articles (they have actual facts and stuff like that):
2020 second term, slam dunk.
Yeah, for which party?
3 ( +3 / -0 )
No, that started with Obama and Anita Dunn and her stupid so called war on FNC where they actually thought they could get that powerhouse off the air.
No, they did not. However, feel free to show some actual evidence from reliable sources to back up this claim. Then again, maybe you shouldn't bother since it is off the topic. Look at what the article is about.
He he also has stories and facts that have proved the left wrong, time and time again.
No, he does not, but if you have them, let's see them. Kindly provide links from credible sources.
Hmmmm.....considering Wolff’s less than sterling reputation . . .
You know nothing about Wolff, and don't give us any anecdotal claims, either. However, if by chance you actually have some factual examples to support your claim against the man then please, let's have them. Again, links from credible sources other than right-wing blogs, user-made Youtube videos, or cherry-picked opinion pieces from conservative media would be convincing.
Yeah and we’re still in Obama’s Afghan war and beefing up the troops, thanks a lot!
Not "Obama's Afghan War" as you erroneously claim. The war was started by Bush II. Yes, Obama had a chance to pull the U.S. completely out of it, but let's just say that if he did (which would have made the many people who voted for him happy) then you and your friends would've then claimed that it would have made America "weak" (see the far-right's reaction to the Iraq War--another Bush II boondoggle--for examples). Then again, don't bother since this is also off the topic of the article that we are supposed to be commenting on.
Dems losing 1000 legislative seats, lowest governorships (sic) in the country, not only does the left never learn, but they got coned in supporting the worst flawed candidate.
Another non-sequitur allowed to stand by the moderators. Never mind that it has nothing to do with the article and does nothing to support your argument--but you will continue to post this because you have nothing else to offer--go figure.
They weren’t afraid, but you had one of the worst Presidents presiding over a stagnant economy . . .
Another falsehood. The economy was not "stagnant" as you claimed. In fact, you've been corrected on this many times by many other posters, but since facts don't matter to you, you'll continue to post this garbage. However, since you like anecdotal claims and seem to put a lot of emphasis on the economy by looking at the stock market, kindly explain how my stocks not only recovered from the 2007-2008 disaster but also doubled in value from 2009-2016. Then again, Jimizo already called you on this fictional claim of yours.
Hey, I heard Liz Warren might run in 2020? ROFL and you say the right doesn’t learn?? God, I hope the woman does run. Lol
Yeah, me too--but you have bigger and more immediate things to worry about--like mainly trying to keep power in both the House and Senate in the Midterms this year. Good luck with that.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
@Wolfpack: Trump is the result of a political backlash against Obama’s socialism and racially divisive politics. If you like political extremism from the Left, be patient. It’s coming.
Wrong: This little snippet was off the topic, but since you mentioned it, and the moderators let it stand, I’ll address it by stating that the only ones who practiced “racially divisive politics” were the ones on the right who couldn’t bear to have a half white and half black man as their president. However, if you can show any real (not imagined) examples of “racially divisive politics,” from the man, I’m sure that many of us would love to see it. Show us some actual quotations or speeches that support this claim. You know, like claiming that a certain group of people are “rapists” and “criminals” based on where they came from or what they looked like so that a wall can be built to keep them out.
@Bass: Ok, that’s your opinion, if the haters hate, that’s their choice. If you don’t like Trump, it’s your right, but it’s also my right to disagree and like the man. That’s the FACT.
Apply that sentence to everything that you posted here from 2009 to 2016, only substitute Trump for his predecessor—you know, the one you keep telling us is irrelevant and that you are glad is gone yet somehow keep bringing him up. Why is that?
Yes, indeed. But you liked the last President, did you not? I couldn’t understand that either, but I thought if you like an arrogant and spineless person like that, it is also your right and I won’t argue with you about it, just don’t try and push me to like the man.
Zero evidence that the last President was “arrogant and spineless” Who gave the order to go ahead and get Osama Bin Laden, or who gave the orders to launch more drone strikes than his predecessor against enemy targets? Anyway, I won’t bother asking you for any actual “proof” of this claim since the only thing you have is empty rhetoric from the far right echo chambers and a well-documented psychotic obsession and hatred for the man that has been (and still is) off the charts. However, feel free to continue to post links to op-eds from right wing websites, blogs, or Youtube videos if you think they will pass for examples of your claims. It will only validate what I've just written here.
Sorry, that will never happen, I assure you, and you keep harping on that baseless point. I didn’t like Trump in the beginning not because I didn’t know how serious he really was, but when I did, I supported him, for the record, but nice try.
You only supported him when it became clear that he was going to be the Republican nominee, which is a clear example of pure partisanship (which you will deny but is as plain as day to just about everyone who comes to this site regularly). It’s as simple as that. However, I’m sure you will attempt to dance your way around it, but for those of us who have followed your “evolution” on this, it’s pretty clear why you did your 180 on the man.
I doubt he’ll have any troubles except for the Democrats continuation on being obstructionists. But if the Dems keep holding out, that all may very well go against them. They already don’t have a message, so what do they want to run on? Impeach The President? Ok, then we will have President Prince who is a deep,deep, deep conservative, that suits me just fine.
So, let me get this straight: In 2009, before the new President was even inaugurated, Mitch McConnell came out and said that he would do everything that he could to make sure that the incoming President was only going to be a “one-termer” and that he would do everything that he could to ensure that would happen as well as encourage everyone from his party to block and oppose anything that the President proposed. That sounds like obstruction to me, yet that was OK with you. The sad fact is, obstructionism is exactly what the Republicans did for eight years, and it didn’t seem to “go against them.” In fact, as Strangerland has pointed out in previous posts, Republican obstructionism proved to be a very successful strategy which resulted in them taking both the House and Senate in the 2010 and 2014 elections (and you like to remind everyone of that on almost a daily basis). Further evidence that obstructionism works has been demonstrated by Democratic victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and most recently, Alabama (even though this last one was more about not electing a pedophile as a Senator). Their “message” seems to be resonating with voters, but please, continue to put your head in the sand about this. Let’s see what you have to say after the results come in from Midterm elections this year.
Finally, I’m not sure who “President Prince” is, but the fact that you believe it is a possibility shows that you think Trump is facing some serious trouble and might not even finish his first term (despite doing everything that you can to defend the man and parrot every talking point from right-wing websites which attempt to discredit the Mueller investigation and the FBI) and that he might also not remain in office until 2024 (as you and others from the far-right fringe have confidently stated many times here). Oh, and Pence is facing some serious problems of his own, too, so you might be better off preparing your reasons for supporting Paul Ryan, who would be next in line to take over should both Trump and Pence get pushed out of the picture before 2020--that is if he is still around after all of this Trump Era skullduggery shakes out.
8 ( +9 / -1 )
Yes, we did and that that we know there is more than illusion going on as well as clear corruption on the part of the FBI the pressure is mounting on Mueller looks like their could be a grand jury is looming over Mueller’s head.
No, we did not. You are simply parroting right wing websites which want to discredit the investigation because you have nothing else as a defense. So far, the Mueller investigation has produced 2 indictments and 2 guilty pleas--with more to come. As far as your Grand Jury fantasy over Mueller's head, that's just not happening.
Yeah, that argument doesn’t fly and there is no such thing as pink elephants. Liberals keep shooting themselves in the gut and thank God for FOX if not for them, we would be living in a one sided liberal echo chamber and would never know the truth. The left can disparage all they want, they can believe what they want and this time no one is listening to their liberal spin on the facts.
The only ones "spinning the facts" are you and your right wing friends. Meanwhile, the investigation continues--and real facts are coming to light. I can't wait for Flynn's cooperation with the investigation to reveal some "real" and inconvenient facts for you to try and obfuscate, discredit, or ignore.
Implode? Watching the news it seems that the FBI as well as the DOJ are exploding.
Only in your remote corner of the universe. Meanwhile, the investigation goes on.
No one in their right mind believes Rosenstein . . .
Nope, no one in their right mind believes your attempt at repeating the right wing smear tactic on this, but please go ahead and continue to post such nonsense. Don't be surprised if you are called on to explain your statements in the coming months after more indictments and guilty pleas come in.
I don’t think so! In fact, I’m 99% it won’t happen now.
I've been writing all of these little nuggets down (time stamps and all). Don't be surprised to get called on them in the future.
MAGA -- Mueller Ain't Going Away
3 ( +4 / -1 )
I've heard this before, but have yet to see data on this. Can you tell me the sources to support this?
Try these links:
2 ( +2 / -0 )
The original comic had Dr. Strange - that would help the team I think.
The original Defenders were: Dr. Strange, The Hulk, Namor (Sub-Mariner), and The Silver Surfer (they made their debut in December of 1971). The characters in the current Netfilx version did not appear as part of the team until much later on in the comic books.
I wonder will The Punisher crop up in this series....
He already has in the second season of Daredevil. Jon Bernthal's portrayal of Frank Castle was good enough for Marvel and Netflix to launch his own stand alone series. It is scheduled to be released (in binge-watch form) this November.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Blacks who were never Slaves fighting Whites who were never Nazis over a Statue erected by Democrats, and it's all Trump's fault?
It was not "erected by Democrats." It was the idea of philanthropist Paul Goodloe McIntire, a New York stockbroker. He bought the land where the statue currently sits and commissioned members of the National Sculpture Society to appoint sculptors to complete several statues of historical figures--all of which he donated to the University of Virginia and the city during the period of 1919 to 1924. The statue's design was made by by Henry Merwin Shrady, a New York sculptor and had to be finished after his death by an Italian, Leo Lentelli. It was then presented as a gift to the city by Mr. McIntire.
Imagined political parties or their agendas had nothing to do with this.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Perhaps I am mistaken. I will need to research this some more. It seems to be the general consensus that the majority of the Confederacy related statutes were erected during the civil rights era.
The link I provided above has information that can be verified by other sources. They took their main research from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) which based their findings on a study of more than 1,500 symbols of the Confederacy in the South (and as stated in the article above). Here is a link for the Southern Poverty Law Center's study from 2016:
Scroll down to the "Timeline" and it will show the number of monuments built since the 1880s. Most of them were built between the late 1880s and 1920.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
I support removing all civil war era statues. Most were installed during the 50's and 60's by Democrats.
Per the article:
"Reid's comment that Confederate symbols are political statements aimed at African-Americans is backed up by history, say experts.
But she is wrong that Confederate monuments were built during the civil rights era. Roughly 75 percent were erected before then, according to a comprehensive study of Confederate symbolism. It was during the civil rights era that the Confederate flag gained prominence, which she later clarified.
We rate her statement Mostly False."
2 ( +2 / -0 )
So, let me get this straight: There are 1,281,900 active duty military personnel plus 811,000 in active reserve, yet the first link stated that they sent out 70,000 surveys and only got 10,000 back. Are we to believe that the responses of 10,000 people somehow represents the nearly 2,000,000 people in the armed forces?
In the second link, they make the following note: "The survey, conducted from Dec. 16 to 21, elicited responses from 1,664 active-duty troops, with results weighed to make them more representative of the total military population." " . . . results weighed to make them more representative of the total military population," so, we don't really have an accurate number, now do we? Especially when you decide to weigh 1,664 vs nearly 2,000,000.
Looking at these results, the following old saying comes to mind, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure."
4 ( +4 / -0 )
I saw the video and to be fair, both sides were carrying sticks and bats and yes, behind the car, there is a man wielding either a bat or stick
I've seen lots of video footage from many different angles. Yes, you are right, it looks like both sides were carrying sticks and other objects; however, the courts are probably going to be looking at what the people who got hit were carrying--and it looks like they were carrying either signs or nothing at all--it certainly doesn't justify what happened to them.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Got video of that too:
No, you don't. The people he hit were not carrying bats, pipes, or any weapons. The driver cannot claim self-defense in this situation since Heather Heyer or the people he injured were not carrying any weapons, hitting his car, or attacking him personally, so the Protect of Persons Property Act does not apply here.
3 ( +5 / -2 )
anyway this is already not what it was presented to be regardless. Just a matter now of what the law is for that state and if they can somehow prove intent or not.
I'm sure that James Alex Fields' legal team will be in touch with you soon.
I'm also sure that Heather Heyer's family would love to sit down with you and listen to your defense of this situation and how it resulted in the death of their daughter.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
You are seriously telling me you didn't see a guy jump out in the street behind that car and swing a baseball bat in that streamable.com video?
Yes, I did not see a bat. However, I did see a person hit the car under the left rear bumper with something (but it wasn't clear that it was a bat).
However, it still doesn't justify what the driver did--and good luck trying to get any court of law to accept that explanation as an excuse to plow into a group of unarmed people (yes, the people he hit were not armed--unless of course, you have video of that).
4 ( +5 / -1 )
yet somehow the guy taking the video immediately knew to say "that Nazi just drove into people" as the 3rd car that had just been attacked slammed into the car in front of it. He knew who was driving and that they were a Nazi how?
5 ( +5 / -0 )
if the road was blocked off why were there multiple cars traveling on it?
There were not "multiple cars" traveling on it. There were two cars stopped and waiting at the intersection (that probably came from the adjoining street) that was not blocked off by police. The road that the driver came flying down was cordoned off.
you can see a guy jump out in the street behind the car and hear it crash into the car before the car accelerates.
But, it still does not show anyone wielding a bat. Also, the car has no noticeable damage on it's rear--the lights, spoiler, and fenders all look quite pristine. If someone had hit it, there would have been some damage, no?
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Yep can't be justified until after the trial decides what happened to cause this. Will also need to determine the level of culpability of the person who hit the car with a bat.
I've watched six different videos of this incident, and I haven't seen any footage of anyone hitting the vehicle in question with a bat. What I have seen is a vehicle traveling at a high speed for that particular stretch of road and then slamming into a crowd of people.
Some states have already passed laws saying it is illegal to block roads and anyone hurt unintentionally by a driver, the driver is not responsible.
In this particular case, the road was cordoned off by police for this rally. Therefore, there shouldn't have been any traffic at all. The driver had no business being on that stretch of road at that time.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Oh yeah so you wouldn't be frightened by the sound of a baseball bat damaging the back of your car. You would just stop right in the middle of a group of people with weapons and allow them to attack you more, maybe breaking out your windows and then dragging you out of you car to beat you even some more?
Try using that defense at his murder trial. The fact is, this motorist killed someone, and that cannot be justified.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
But it doesn't matter, the college electorate is the ONLY system that matters in our US election.
There is no such thing as "the college electorate" system. That sounds like you have a bunch of university students electing the President. The correct (and only) term is "The Electoral College" (and it's not a place, either--it's a process).
Under Obama . . . the stock market was on life support,
No, it was not. The stock market was on life support on the day of his first inauguration no thanks to the person he replaced, but it wasn't after that. Here are the facts:
Trump has a lot of work to do if he even wants to come close to what his predecessor achieved--and giving rallies and taking long golf outings aren't the ways to do it.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
The incredibly hot and humid summers which seem to be getting hotter and lasting longer.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
He reported it a month early when it wasn't true yet but now it is.
No, it is not. The facts say otherwise, but please, continue to ignore them.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Obama lost 3.4 million jobs in the same period . . .
Link for that fact, please.
I'm not sure you are arguing for you own cause here. Per your recent link:
"While one million is a nice number that looks great on headlines and cable news chyrons, the Trump administration has said in previous weeks it reached this number when it hadn’t. As reported in Politico, on June 1 Trump said he’s added 1 million jobs when at that point, the Labor Department only reported about 600,000. "
Also, since Trump is citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics, he's once again shown his hypocrisy:
Trump himself has denounced (data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) multiple times as “phony,” “fiction,” and “one of the biggest hoaxes in modern politics.”
2 ( +2 / -0 )
@Blacklabel - you obviously did not bother reading any of the articles that I cited. The politico link that you cited was discussed.
Here's what you chosen to ignore (from the Redstate link): "That recovery continues under Trump’s watch, but, like we said with Obama, Trump isn’t actually creating jobs. Yet, it is pretty much guaranteed that he and his rabid followers will tout this piece from the Politico:
With the Labor Department reporting Friday that the economy added 209,000 jobs in July, Trump can finally say, truthfully, that he’s created more than a million jobs since entering office. Trump tweeted shortly after the report’s release: “Excellent Jobs Numbers just released – and I have only just begun. Many job stifling regulations continue to fall. Movement back to USA!”
July’s jobs number was a decrease from June, when the economy added 231,000 jobs. But unemployment ticked down to 4.3 percent, compared to June’s 4.4 percent. Average hourly private-sector earnings were up 2.5 percent over the previous year, as they were in June.
No. Trump cannot truthfully say that he created a million jobs. It is not honest. Trump repealed some regulations that hampered job growth, but he, even as a businessman, did not create any jobs anywhere.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Creation of 1 million jobs in 6 months.
False and not according to Redstate:
Not according to this site either:
The only place you will find this to be true is on fact-free sites like Breitbart and other dishonest media outlets.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Bunch of speculative money laundering ideas now that even if true had no impact whatsoever on the actual election.
You don't know that. No one will know that until the investigation concludes.
You do realize that money laundering is a crime, right? You just said that "even if true . . ." Well, if it is true and it is tied to Trump, you understand that articles of impeachment could be drawn up based on the "high crimes and misdemeanors" statutes since money laundering would definitely qualify as a "high crime."
Russia helped Trump win the election at his personal request by influencing the vote through hacking and disinformation. What happened to that?
Nothing at all. It's still being investigated. Ask that question if it isn't answered after the investigation has finished.
You do realize that it has already been proven that Hillary, Bill, the Clinton Foundation, Podesta and Pedestal's brother took money from Russia right? Are you expecting Mueller to just ignore that and only go after Trump's people?
Hillary, Bill, the Clinton Foundation, Podesta, et al, are not part of the investigation. Read the original order for the investigation which was issued by Assistant AG Rosenthal to see why. Trump is being investigated here. Yes, I am expecting them to ignore "that" (whatever it is) and concentrate on the directive issued by the DOJ. If you'd like an investigation into something else, contact Assistant AG Rosenthal and let him know. Oh, BTW, "good luck there."
No treason, no obstruction of justice (except Dems Lynch and Wasserman) and no collusion (except DNC with Ukraine)
Pure partisan speculation on your part. The investigations haven't even concluded yet you've already reached your verdict despite the fact that this is far from being over.
You guy's story is just collapsing right in front of you.
There is no "story" except for the one you are trying to make up. We'll see just what is "collapsing" after this investigation is over.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
Bharara was not "gotten rid of" or "dismissed" by Trump . . .
Actually, yes he was. Initially, he was told he could stay by Trump, but when Bharara started his investigations into Russian money laundering, he was asked to leave. Bharara refused, so then Trump fired him.
. . . but that was about Flynn not Trump.
As I stated earlier, if Mueller believes that there is a financial connection between the two, then he has every right as a special counsel to investigate it.
. . . even if he knew is that a crime?
No, of course not; however, Rybolovlev is well-connected with Vladimir Putin, and if (and again, I'm saying "if") Mueller feels that the deal somehow illuminates any of Trump's ties to Russia, then it is within his power to see if this relationship has any bearing on his financial dealings with Russia. It may not, but we won't know that until the investigation runs its course.
Same for Manafort, none of that if proven would have anything to do with Trump, the election or Russia supposedly helping Trump to win.
No, and I have already explained why Manafort's situations could be connected to Trump's finances, the election, and the possible reasons for why Russia interfered with the election.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
And the left do it as well and are experts at it, another reason why they keep losing elections, they never take personal responsibility.
I couldn't care less (the proper form of the phrase) about what the mysterious "left" that you are talking about does. I was talking about what you do. However, since I got a verbal slap on the wrist from the mods yesterday about "bickering," I'll stick to talking about points in the article. Maybe you should do the same and stop bringing up non sequiturs like elections and other unrelated matters. Try talking about the article only--that would be a refreshing change and give the mods a break.
I don't need proofto know when someone is a jerk and I don't need anyone to convince me that Mueller is an honest man, save it. The man lost all credibility when he branched out of his main investigation to find anything to nail this president.
No, but you need to give proof when you make accusations about someone or make a claim about someone's character. I try to back up my statements with facts and logic. That kind of helps with the whole credibility thing and allows others to verify what I say or understand where I am coming from. I am really wondering if you honestly believe that Mueller "lost all credibility" or if you are just parroting talking points since they mysteriously show up here as shortly after they get posted on right-wing media sites. As far as convincing you about anything, that's simply not possible. Your mind is made up no matter what.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
As I said the special counsel was formed to look into the 2016 election and Russia's possible interference in that. How are Trumps finances or taxes related to that?
They are related in several ways.
First, the groundwork for at least part of this line of inquiry was reportedly laid by former US Attorney Preet Bharara, who was investigating Russian-linked money laundering before being dismissed by Trump earlier this year. The core case involved Prevezon, a Russian firm represented by Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian attorney who met with Trump Jr. in June 2016. Since Trump got rid of Bharara, Mueller has now folded that investigation into his Russia probe.
Second, they could be connected with another possible (and note here that I said, "possible") money laundering case involving Trump's then campaign manager, Paul Manafort. The Wall Street Journal reported that Mueller’s team was looking at evidence that Paul Manafort might have been involved in money laundering schemes. Manafort is being investigated for his shady dealings through the Bank of Cyprus. It wouldn’t be the first time for Manafort; he also received 17 million dollars from a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine which he conveniently forgot to tell everyone about until asked about it, and he was forced to disclose himself as a "foreign agent" in accordance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Therefore, Mueller may need to inquire into the finances and potential misdeeds of individuals in Trump's orbit if their finances and misdeeds relate to the Russia investigation.
Third, regarding your point about the real estate transaction in 2008. It doesn't have anything to do with political favors or prognostication of Trump becoming the President. It is suspected that Dmitri Rybolovlev (Russia's "Fertilizer King") had purchased the Florida mansion from Trump as a way of hiding his assets during a divorce from his ex-wife. The deal earned Trump millions of dollars which came in handy since he was fighting very hard to avoid paying off a big loan that he had with Deutsche Bank (which was under investigation for its role in the mortgage-backed security scandal where it masked its losses).
These are just some of the reasons (and I could list more) why the Trump camp’s finances are an issue right now. Perhaps Mueller believes that understanding Trump’s and his family’s finances is necessary to figure out whether they have any untoward links with Moscow or not. If the Russians dumped money into Trump’s businesses, it would certainly help explain how collusion might have taken place or how they were able to interfere in the 2016 election.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
HOWEVER, given that the attorney said right up front that she had NO information on Clinton, again, tell me what revelations about the election you expect from a meeting that didn't discuss it at all.
As I have clearly stated before, I have no expectations. As far as the contents of the meeting are concerned, no one can really say for sure what was discussed since the story keeps changing all of the time. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it changed some more after the people involved get to testify under oath in front of a Grand Jury or congressional committee. Therefore, I am going to wait until Mueller's investigations conclude before coming to any determinations about what or what did or did not happen during that meeting and the other related matters. I am certainly not going to go online and complain about the investigation or try to discredit it prior to all of the facts coming out.
Let me get this straight.....you're tired of people discrediting the investigations before they're completed?
That's been clearly stated several times.
You haven a leg to stand on regarding jumping the gun about investigation results, you're just doing it to the opposite conclusion.
No, I have not come to any conclusions, and I challenge you to point out where I have made clear statements about guilt or innocence on this matter. I simply want the investigations to proceed without all of the complaining and distractions by the Trump supporters and other contrarians.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Oh, yes it does.
No, it does not, but I'm done asking you for proof and explanations because sadly, you have none to give.
Because this investigation went from trying to find Russian collusion to go far back into Trump's finances going back to the 80's?!
The investigation is evolving with new evidence coming to light almost daily. As I have stated previously, relationships take a long time to cultivate, and if Trump's Russia ties go all the way back to the 1980s, then so be it. The way prosecutors build a case is by compiling all of the available information related to a course of conduct and then making an assessment about whether they can prove from that evidence all of the essential elements that they need to establish if a crime was committed or not. The problem for Trump is that every additional piece of evidence that comes to light is like adding more kindling to a fire that is becoming a huge forest fire. Investigators also need to establish that a corrupt motive was at play, therefore, all pieces of evidence need to be examined to determine whether there was any criminal conduct, which is not always time sensitive.
0 ( +0 / -0 )