Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He didn't blow any whistle. He was providing intel to friends of Hillary in the Justice Department. Much (most? all?) of that intel had nothing to do with any allegation of criminal activity.
He shared the dossier with McCain and other senators to alert them to the fact that the Russians may be compromising the Trump campaign.
He didn't blow any whistle. He was providing intel to friends of Hillary in the Justice Department. Much (most? all?) of that intel had nothing to do with any allegation of criminal activity.
This is just BS. Who do you think you're kidding?
The information was relayed via McCain (R) and most definitely involved allegations of criminal activity.
Looking forward to the Clinton Foundation investigation. Notice I said that without calling you any names. Your post is offensive on so many levels. You really need to learn how to discuss something in a civil way.
That poster didn't call you any names. What exactly was offensive?
The senate judiciary committee and the House committee should just drop the Russian investigation, or the protect the president effort. They are now hopelessly partisan, but there is still hope for the senate intelligence committee.
You do realize that Trump publicly called for Russia, a hostile foreign power with state-controlled media, to illegally hack the opposition’s e-mails... yes? If the hallmark of “Obamanation†is the use of dishonest and self-serving tactics, then Trump certainly isn’t reversing it.
Odd, isn't it, how they always "forget" that?
We can easily look back at the myriad of threads just before the election that advocated for Wikileaks disseminating those emails and all of the justifications offered, the primary being "we have a right to know."
Now those same people, starting right at the top, are screaming that "we" don't have a right to know anything.
As was so often offered then - if there's nothing to hide, what is the harm in releasing the information?????
Well, let's see. I find substantive evidence that a presidential candidate and/or his team may be breaking Federal law.
Do I:
1. keep quiet about it; it's none of my business
2. Go to the FBI and report it so the FBI and the DOJ can investigate further if they see fit.
Anyone who cares about the U.S. should choose #2.
Apparently, in this case, the people who cared enough to report what they'd learned weren't even Americans, but an Australian diplomat and a former UK intelligence agent. (And there may be others; we don't have all of the facts yet).
As I keep saying, if there is similar evidence about Cllnton and her team, bring it to the FBI and call for another investigation into that. But any evidence about the Clinton campaign does not negate any evidence about the Trump campaign.
Right or left, Republican or Democrat. Doesn't matter. Let's get to the bottom of this on both sides. Get all of the information out on the table.
I have no problem with both sides being investigated and can't understand how any American who cares about their country would.[/b]
Let the chips fall where they may.
I may not like where the chips fall, but that is not a reason to squelch or belittle the investigation.
The information was relayed via McCain (R) and most definitely involved allegations of criminal activity.
You didn't read the transcript. Simpson says Steele took it directly to the FBI. And Simpson said the concern was that Trump was being blackmailed, not that Trump was doing (or had done) anything wrong.
Grassley tried to cover up the Fusion transcripts because it makes the dossier look good and Trump bad. Now Trump is mad at "sneaky" Sen. Feinstein for letting the public see the truth.
Grassley made a huge error. The Fusion transcripts strongly defend the veracity of the dossier. By covering it up, Grassley made it look like the dossier and the transcripts must be true, because if they were false then he wouldn't bother to conceal them. You only hide the truth when you are worried the truth will hurt you.
Trump's "no collusion" alibi is falling apart at the seams.
Now that they have been released, they hurt the Democrats "get Trump" message.
Pretty damning to the FBI and John McCain's treasonous acts to unseat a duly elected President.
I found it most interesting that the FBI was messing in the Trump campaign. Is that legal? Nixon had to resign because the Democrats were compromised. I find the FBI talking to a possible plant in the Trump camp problematic. Doesn't anyone else think this strange? How about the attempt to wiretap the Trump campaign I have been hearing about? Yes that swamp needs some motor oil cleansing.
FBI was investigating Russian meddling in the U.S. election.
DOJ stated they found no evidence whatsoever of Trump's claim of being wiretapped. Surprised you are just hearing about this.
Nixon didn't resign because the Democrats were compromised. He resigned because he was covering up a crime - a burglary of the the Democratic office. Republicans told him that he didn't have the votes in the Senate. He either resigned or he'd be kicked out.
You are going to have to up your game if you want to join the ranks of those posting BS on this forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
