HawkShack.com

Poppadopolous is dropping bombshells on the Mueller team this morning. They (Mueller team) tried to entrap him by having Mifsud (sp) give him thousands of dollars in Rome which he then turned over to his lawyer in Rome. On return to Dulles Airport the FBI arrested him - didn't know why they were arresting him - and lo and behold, they didn't find the money. He is now asking the DOJ to investigate the origins of that money which his lawyer still has and track it back to its origins. He alleges that it came from Wiessman and the DOJ. They ended up charging him with perjury for telling them that he met with Mifsud for the first time in April but it was actually March. That's what he spent 11 days in jail for. But this opens questions. Why did the DOJ know the date he first met Mifsud? If they knew the date that he met Mifsud, why did they ask him when it was? Poppadopolous' biggest mistake was not saying, "I think it was in April" instead of "it was in April". Pretty sick stuff.

On a brighter side, Barr has just appointed a new special counsel U.S. Federal Atty John Durham to investigate the origins of the Trump investigation. Durham has worked for both democrats (Reno investigating FBI ties to the mafia) and republicans when he investigated the CIA. He seems to be the right person to look into the deep state Intel agencies and bring anyone who deserves it to justice.

With the IG report on the FISA warrants coming due in a couple weeks, Huber's investigation, the Senate's investigation, this one is the guy with prosecutorial authority. Finally, we may find out how all of this went down. As former congressman Trey Gowdy said, "we know where the Russia probe started but we don't know why or when the FBI and CIA started to meld the Trump campaign into the Russia probe."

2 popcorns please!

I would be very surprised if you didn't manage to get every single Fox talking point into this post.

I-5 wrote:I would be very surprised if you didn't manage to get every single Fox talking point into this post.

I don't have any idea whether what he says has any veracity or not, but just stop with the "FAUX NEWS!" ad-hom reply- either point out what he/they maintain is inaccurate or just zip it. You're no less ridiculous than Trump yelling "FAKE NEWZ".

I-5 wrote:I would be very surprised if you didn't manage to get every single Fox talking point into this post.

burrrton wrote:I don't have any idea whether what he says has any veracity or not, but just stop with the "FAUX NEWS!" ad-hom reply- either point out what he/they maintain is inaccurate or just zip it. You're no less ridiculous than Trump yelling "FAKE NEWZ".

I agree with burrton 100%. Now let's apply this same logic to the several others in here, including the author of the thread, that accuse some posters of being led around by the nose by the MSM.

I-5 wrote:I would be very surprised if you didn't manage to get every single Fox talking point into this post.

Thank you for watching fox to know what their talking points are in order to respond to this. At least you are hearing the facts now.

RiverDog wrote:I agree with burrton 100%. Now let's apply this same logic to the several others in here, including the author of the thread, that accuse some posters of being led around by the nose by the MSM.

Interesting take. I usually respond with facts that are actually happening and I can't remember responding to others smearing their news source without having information to refute what they are saying. You may not have believed it at the time but as we all know now, it was the facts.

One thing is for sure and can't be refuted. Hannity has been reporting on all of this accurately since March of 17. Hannity is not and was not my favorite but he's been the most accurate and on point with his guests most notably Sarah Carter and John Soloman.

Additionally, we are finding out that this Durham special counsel guy has been working on this case for weeks now. I imagine that Barr had to come out and announce that he appointed him because either he's about to start indicting people or the IG's report (maybe Huber's too) has been given to the AG and indictments are eminent. I'm also hearing that he's (Durham) already had a Grand Jury convened in Connecticut on this case. I think this is going to heat up real fast. (I-5, you can check the facts on this if you want but you'll find it a waste of your time as it is already in the news now).

Last item to point out, Clapper, Brennan and Comey are hilarious trying to tell their news channels to get back on message. I think they are running very scared and the look on Clapper is like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

I do read/watch Fox News frequently...because I want to see for myself what they're saying rather than a CNN article about what Fox is saying. That's how I know Fox barely had any response to that Trump/Putin press conference debacle in Helsinki when he sided with Putin over our own intelligence.

At least you are hearing the facts now.

Do you believe Fox is right and everyone else is wrong? I may be a democrat, but I don't buy everything that CNN sells, and I don't like their baitclick headlines. My question is are you ok with how Fox treats news on a daily basis? If so, I'm worried about what you're willing to believe.

I-5 wrote:I do read/watch Fox News frequently...because I want to see for myself what they're saying rather than a CNN article about what Fox is saying. That's how I know Fox barely had any response to that Trump/Putin press conference debacle in Helsinki when he sided with Putin over our own intelligence.

It's laughable to watch how the various cable news channels present the news. I'll watch MSNBC and their lead story will be Michael Cohen getting convicted while at the same time Fox is preoccupied by an Iowa student murdered by an illegal alien. That's why it's important to get your news from a variety of sources rather than swearing off one or another because they're biased. They can manipulate their audience simply by choosing which stories or subjects to talk about and which ones to ignore, by finding weak or ineffective advocates for opposing POV's, etc.

I used to listen to Limbaugh a lot back in the 90's as I had a job that required a lot of driving, and he said that on his program, he tells his call screeners to give him callers that are going to make the host sound good. That way, people develop a loyalty to him and his program and creates a larger listening audience. I have no doubt that the same strategy is employed by numerous TV and radio talk show hosts whether it be Sean Hannity or Chris Mathews. It's all about ratings and advertising revenue.

At least you are hearing the facts now.

I-5 wrote:Do you believe Fox is right and everyone else is wrong? I may be a democrat, but I don't buy everything that CNN sells, and I don't like their baitclick headlines. My question is are you ok with how Fox treats news on a daily basis? If so, I'm worried about what you're willing to believe.

"IF" Fox reports something that is false, I'll acknowledge it but so far, they haven't done that. So how they are treating news on a daily basis is okay with me unless you have a specific set of examples.

RiverDog wrote:It's laughable to watch how the various cable news channels present the news. I'll watch MSNBC and their lead story will be Michael Cohen getting convicted while at the same time Fox is preoccupied by an Iowa student murdered by an illegal alien. That's why it's important to get your news from a variety of sources rather than swearing off one or another because they're biased. They can manipulate their audience simply by choosing which stories or subjects to talk about and which ones to ignore, by finding weak or ineffective advocates for opposing POV's, etc.

I used to listen to Limbaugh a lot back in the 90's as I had a job that required a lot of driving, and he said that on his program, he tells his call screeners to give him callers that are going to make the host sound good. That way, people develop a loyalty to him and his program and creates a larger listening audience. I have no doubt that the same strategy is employed by numerous TV and radio talk show hosts whether it be Sean Hannity or Chris Mathews. It's all about ratings and advertising revenue.

I was almost with you until the part I underlined and bolded. "IF" it was all about the ratings, Chris Matthews and CNN, MSNBC et al would be out of business. They don't care about ratings, all they care about is the revenue. That's what I-5 mentioned in his last post about not liking the clickbait that CNN uses. They publish the most outrageous headlines and bury the real information on paragraph 15. A recent example is the Mueller report where they promoted that Trump had collusion/contacts with the Russian on xxxx times but then finally on paragraph like 15 they said Mueller could not find where the Trump team took any of the bait. They are literally selling their journalism creds down the road for clicks and they are losing market because of it. No one likes to be lied to on a constant basis.

Just to be clear, the clickbait is equally BS from both CNN and Fox News. Both are extremely editorialized. That's why I read through articles on both channels, along with other media, to try to get to an agreement about facts before forming an opinion. How do you know that what Fox sells you is always true? What's your point of reference? Just whether you agree with it?

I-5 wrote:Just to be clear, the clickbait is equally BS from both CNN and Fox News. Both are extremely editorialized. That's why I read through articles on both channels, along with other media, to try to get to an agreement about facts before forming an opinion. How do you know that what Fox sells you is always true? What's your point of reference? Just whether you agree with it?

Can you name something they have reported that has been false? They reported that Trump was spied on by the FBI back in March of 17. They reported that Paige and Strzok were biased against Trump and pro Hilliary. They reported that their was a FISA warrant based on a phony dossier. They reported that the Trump tower meeting broke no laws. They reported that Poppadopolous was targeted by our own spies. They reported that Flynn was entrapped and forced to plead guilty or they would go after his son. There's so much more but you get the idea.

Can you name something they have reported that has been false?

Seth Rich/Wikileaks story, which ended up being retracted.

I-5 wrote:
Seth Rich/Wikileaks story, which ended up being retracted.

Oh you got me. You had to go back to July 10 2016 (before Trump was even elected) to find ONE story. At least Fox retracted the story whereas CNN, msnbc, etc al still holding out hope for collusion.

As I predicted, the swamp is starting to turn on each other. Brennan and Comey fighting openly now over which one promoted and pushed the fake Dossier more. Comey turned on McCabe, Strzok and Paige last week. Clapper looks lost and will soon be made the scapegoat because of it.

This calls for more popcorn.

“Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective. I assumed those conversations were confidential, but to be absolutely clear they never involved any matter between me and a third party." - Sean Hannity, Fox Host, 2018

I’m not even trying yo defend CNN (I said they are both clickbait machines). But equating Fox News retracting the Seth Rich lie with CNN lying about collusion...what on earth are you trying to say? What headline or story are you referencing?

I-5 wrote:“Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter. I never retained him, received an invoice, or paid legal fees. I have occasionally had brief discussions with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective. I assumed those conversations were confidential, but to be absolutely clear they never involved any matter between me and a third party." - Sean Hannity, Fox Host, 2018

And your point is? Not sure I understand why you posted this.

I-5 wrote:I’m not even trying yo defend CNN (I said they are both clickbait machines). But equating Fox News retracting the Seth Rich lie with CNN lying about collusion...what on earth are you trying to say? What headline or story are you referencing?

I pointed out that CNN and MSNBC et al have been reporting that the president is a traitor and colluded with Russians every night for the past 2+ years. You had to go back nearly 3 years to find one story that Fox News had to retract. Just pointing out how much more accurate Fox news is than your other media sources.

Even the way you say that is typical Faux News. Cnn and MSNBC have not "been reporting that the president is a traitor and colluded with Russians every night for the past 2+ years", They've been reporting on the ongoing investigations into those possibilities, just as Fox occasionally does. Only difference is the spin.

It would be irresponsible of any national news outlet not to be reporting on such investigations, regardless of their editorial focus. The President being investigated is news. The reporting on the Clinton investigations were no more or less so.

c_hawkbob wrote:Even the way you say that is typical Faux News. Cnn and MSNBC have not "been reporting that the president is a traitor and colluded with Russians every night for the past 2+ years", They've been reporting on the ongoing investigations into those possibilities, just as Fox occasionally does. Only difference is the spin.

It would be irresponsible of any national news outlet not to be reporting on such investigations, regardless of their editorial focus. The President being investigated is news. The reporting on the Clinton investigations were no more or less so.

You know they did more than report. They actually made statements about him being a traitor on their news channels and when their guests did it they didn't challenge them either.

No, I don't know that at all, you know that because you simply won't accept otherwise. You're gonna have to show me to convince me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+traitor

I don't know or care who did or didn't say it, but it's not like it hasn't been all over everything for the last 2 years.

idhawkman wrote:I pointed out that CNN and MSNBC et al have been reporting that the president is a traitor and colluded with Russians every night for the past 2+ years. You had to go back nearly 3 years to find one story that Fox News had to retract. Just pointing out how much more accurate Fox news is than your other media sources.

That's a gross exaggeration. I've been watching MSNBC nearly every weekday afternoon for about 20-30 minutes and I've never heard any of their hosts or commentators call Trump a traitor or say conclusively that he colluded with the Russians. What they have done, and Fox does the same thing albeit on the other side of the spectrum, is interview others that call him a traitor or offer their own conclusion that he colluded with the Russians and the host will fail to correct him/her.

The question here isn't whether or not Fox is more accurate than other sources. As I stated above, the difference isn't in the accuracy of their reports as it is the types of stories they tend to cover. Additionally, their hosts and moderators are decidedly conservative and can steer conversations in specific directions simply by the types of questions they ask. They will deliver talking points to their listeners who, like a 5 year old overhearing their parents, will subsequently repeat them in forums such as this one.

The case is true on the other side of the spectrum, too, and it's because audiences generally tune into those hosts they identify with as being "one of them", it's helped deepen this political divide we currently are experiencing.

burrrton wrote:https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+traitor

I don't know or care who did or didn't say it, but it's not like it hasn't been all over everything for the last 2 years.

Since the accusation was specific to MSNBC, I put in "trump traitor MSNBC" into a search and came up with a clip of an interview with Bill Mathers I watched on Chris Mathew's "Hardball":

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bill-mahe ... ref=scroll

If you go to the clip and play it, Mathews doesn't call Trump a traitor, but the way he leads the discussion, the way he's so chummy with the guest, it certainly becomes apparent that he's of exactly the same opinion and helps the guest by giving examples and analogies. Fast forward to about 3:20 and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Fox engages in exactly the same tactic.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/ ... rt-1329656

Im really not sure what the standard for obstruction of justice is anymore.

Hawktawk wrote:https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/16/michael-flynn-mueller-report-1329656

Im really not sure what the standard for obstruction of justice is anymore.

Yea, I'd like to hear our Trump apologists explain why that part of Mueller's report should have been redacted. Flynn has already plead guilty and all that is left is his sentencing, of which Mueller has already recommended involve little or no jail time.

Theres a lot of redaction's out there still. Apparently there are 12 ongoing investigations.The Mueller grand jury is still working. And considering Barr has provably lied about the report itself is he also lying about not having curtailed Mueller's investigation prematurely?

Seemed a bit weird that Stone who has known Trump for 4 decades and was reportedly involved with the Wikileaks releases , publicly tweeted about Podestas "time in the barrel"hasn't even gone to trial yet and its still time to wrap it up???.........

Another weird thing to me was that Mueller's attorneys stated during the hearing on Manforts sentencing that his lies about meetings with Russian operative Constantine Kelemnic where polling data from key battleground states was shared and favorable modifications to policy towards Russia and Ukraine were floated went to "the heart of the case".

Sure sounds like collusion/conspiracy to me but no charges on anything other than Manafort lying about it.

I do not trust this administration one bit. Hearing from Mueller in open testimony is the only way to clear this up.

You guys are hillarious. I'm sure you don't know what a lot of laws are - probably because you are not lawyers. To answer your question more succincly though, I think Ruby sums it up just right regarding congress and the laws and twists that they themselves have put into those laws.

Enjoy!
https://youtu.be/7DqABlRmgOU?t=46

Hawktawk wrote:Theres a lot of redaction's out there still. Apparently there are 12 ongoing investigations.The Mueller grand jury is still working. And considering Barr has provably lied about the report itself is he also lying about not having curtailed Mueller's investigation prematurely?

I bet you can't post where Barr lied. And regarding the redaction, there is one full sentence and 7 partial sentences in the obstruction (Part 2) of the report. That's 99.9% unredacted. Do you know how many democrats went to see that less redacted report? Its just over and the dems have no policies or other position to fall back on so they are trying to keep it alive. Most voters are seeing through this though.

Seemed a bit weird that Stone who has known Trump for 4 decades and was reportedly involved with the Wikileaks releases , publicly tweeted about Podestas "time in the barrel"hasn't even gone to trial yet and its still time to wrap it up???.........

Probably hasn't gone to trial because they have found out that the stuff STone reported on was already in the public space. The prosecutors know they are going to lose that one too. Mueller's report can't even save the prosecutors on that one.

Another weird thing to me was that Mueller's attorneys stated during the hearing on Manforts sentencing that his lies about meetings with Russian operative Constantine Kelemnic where polling data from key battleground states was shared and favorable modifications to policy towards Russia and Ukraine were floated went to "the heart of the case".

And how is sharing polling data a crime? It's not state secrets is it? Do you have any proof of what was favorable? I suspect it is more speculation and not fact. What we do know now, is there was a Ukrainian politician that was feeding Russian disinformation to Steele and thus the dossier (reported this week by John Solomon with actual documents) who also got a large cash deposit right after the Dossier was completed. There's no link yet to those two events but the Ukrainian govt has convicted the man for "Meddling in the U.S. Election in 2016". That's a fact already proven. I suspect that it will only be a few more days or maybe even a week before they trace the cash back to Perkins Coie law firm or Fusion GPS. What's worse, is the Ukrainian politician went out and bought an extremely expensive apartment a week after getting the cash. (shaking my head).

Sure sounds like collusion/conspiracy to me but no charges on anything other than Manafort lying about it.

Wrong again. Manafort wasn't charged for what you allege, instead he was charged for the 2007 documents regarding his consulting that the above Ukrainian politician leaked to Steele and DNC officials. What's even more interesting is that he scrubbed Manafort's partners names from those documents - maybe because one of their names was Podesta.

I do not trust this administration one bit. Hearing from Mueller in open testimony is the only way to clear this up.

He will never testify because he has too much to answer for that the Republicans will ask him. Such as why did you say that there was no collusion a full year before you released your report and why did you not report that to the American people? Instead you let the American people think their president was a traitor and allowed the country to become more and more divided. Nadler cancelled his request for Mueller to testify because theirs too much there that will be exposed.

c_hawkbob wrote:Even the way you say that is typical Faux News. Cnn and MSNBC have not "been reporting that the president is a traitor and colluded with Russians every night for the past 2+ years", They've been reporting on the ongoing investigations into those possibilities, just as Fox occasionally does. Only difference is the spin.

It would be irresponsible of any national news outlet not to be reporting on such investigations, regardless of their editorial focus. The President being investigated is news. The reporting on the Clinton investigations were no more or less so.

This should help you understand a small bit of their 400+ hours of reporting on Russian Collusion

https://twitter.com/i/status/1110027367882346496

Hawktawk wrote: I do not trust this administration one bit. Hearing from Mueller in open testimony is the only way to clear this up.

Agreed. If they want to go into a closed door session to protect disclosure of sensitive material, then that's fine by me. But asking us to trust the Trump administration is like trusting the fox to guard the chicken coop.

Hawktawk wrote: I do not trust this administration one bit. Hearing from Mueller in open testimony is the only way to clear this up.

RiverDog wrote:
Agreed. If they want to go into a closed door session to protect disclosure of sensitive material, then that's fine by me. But asking us to trust the Trump administration is like trusting the fox to guard the chicken coop.

Dems don't want it in closed door. I doubt this will happen behind closed doors - again the dems need the spectacle but they can't control what questions or comments are made by the repubs in that hearing.

Just uncovered by Judicial Watch yesterday - an email from Nellie Ohr to her husband Bruce stating in the subject line:

"Re: Russian Analyst ..."
I'm deleting these emails now

By Nellie Ohr.

That email has been buried by DOJ and shows obstruction by Nellie.

Just to remind everyone Nellie was working for Fusion GPS specifically looking for Opposition Research for the DNC and Bruce Ohr was the #4 guy at DOJ.

There will be more about this in the coming days I'm sure.

Edited: The date on that email was April 2016 well before the supposed Poppadopolis encounter with the Australian diplomat.

Lets just break it down into simple facts and forget all the legalese OK? It started with "nobody had contacts with Russia" to everyone had contacts with Russia( at least 17 people connected to the Trump campaign or administration had over 150 undisclosed contacts with Russia) to people going to jail over lying about contacts with Russia. It went from "I have no deals in Russia" to learning that a Trump Tower Moscow project was being planned up to basically election eve to "theres nothing wrong with having a deal planned with Russia". See ID its really not that important how or when the investigation into Russian interference and Trumps bizarre defense of the worlds most brutal dangerous strongman began. Its clear it was a legitimate counterintelligence operation.

Barr has now appointed a prosecutor to oversee the origins of an investigation that actually began with the first FISA warrant being opened against utter goofball and Russian tool Carter Page during the Obama administration long before Trump was a candidate. Its not a criminal probe and its being conducted by a man with a reputation for fairness but also going very slowly.Its meant to be a 2020 talkiing point.
Its a political ploy by a political AG much like the 4 page untruthful whitewash letter and the perjury before the congress soon after the report was released to slow walk its eventual release while creating a favorable narrative for Trump. Rile up the base and maybe convince a few independent voters Trump was somehow wronged. Its rich when the walrus Barr says investigators may have put their thumb on the scale. VLAD PUTIN PUT HIS HAMMER AND SICKLE ON THE SCALE FOR CHRISSAKES!!!And not one peep about the steps to fix that by the Walrus.

As for then campaign chair Manafort and Deputy chair Gates meeting with Kelimnic to share INTERNAL CAMPAIGN POLLING DATA from critical swing districts in critical swing states its important because Trump won those critical areas by razor thin margins in an election where he lost the popular vote by 3 million with Russia provably throwing the kitchen sink at the effort in any way they could. If it wasn't illegal or nefarious why did Gates, Manafort and Kelimnic leave the cigar bar at a Jarred Kushner property using separate exits after these meetings ? Why did Manafort violate his plea deal by lying about it? why did Mueller's lawyers say it went to the "very heart of the case?

Now it has broken in the last couple of days that 2 Florida counties had their voter rolls hacked by Russia in 2016 and that even the republican governor is bound by a NDA from the FBI from disclosing which 2. However the WP broke that one was a county in the panhandle that went 75%!!!! for Trump. I doubt we will ever know the complete truth about what Russia really did accomplish

. As much as I loathe Hillary, I'm tempted to smash my TV as much when her fat ugly face appears and she opens her yap as when Trump does ,and only contain myself remembering football season is coming Id far rather be an actually conservative Republican in loyal opposition to her likely moderate governance than KNOW our president was hand picked by our greatest geopolitical foe who has something or things on him and wanted a compliant rube to toy with. The bottom line ID is it want like there was no there there. Its what the Trump cultists try to whitewash.There was something worthwhile to investigate both with the man and the Russian interference.There still is....

You Trump cult members will go to the ends of the earth to move the goalposts as far as necessary to justify the unacceptable corrupt actions of this man.

Hawktawk wrote:Lets just break it down into simple facts and forget all the legalese OK?

Had to stop right here. This is a nation of LAWS which means legaleze. Maybe you should move to a place where mob rule dictates.

Hawktawk wrote:Lets just break it down into simple facts and forget all the legalese OK? It started with "nobody had contacts with Russia" to everyone had contacts with Russia( at least 17 people connected to the Trump campaign or administration had over 150 undisclosed contacts with Russia) to people going to jail over lying about contacts with Russia. It went from "I have no deals in Russia" to learning that a Trump Tower Moscow project was being planned up to basically election eve to "theres nothing wrong with having a deal planned with Russia". See ID its really not that important how or when the investigation into Russian interference and Trumps bizarre defense of the worlds most brutal dangerous strongman began. Its clear it was a legitimate counterintelligence operation.

Barr has now appointed a prosecutor to oversee the origins of an investigation that actually began with the first FISA warrant being opened against utter goofball and Russian tool Carter Page during the Obama administration long before Trump was a candidate. Its not a criminal probe and its being conducted by a man with a reputation for fairness but also going very slowly.Its meant to be a 2020 talkiing point.
Its a political ploy by a political AG much like the 4 page untruthful whitewash letter and the perjury before the congress soon after the report was released to slow walk its eventual release while creating a favorable narrative for Trump. Rile up the base and maybe convince a few independent voters Trump was somehow wronged. Its rich when the walrus Barr says investigators may have put their thumb on the scale. VLAD PUTIN PUT HIS HAMMER AND SICKLE ON THE SCALE FOR CHRISSAKES!!!And not one peep about the steps to fix that by the Walrus.

As for then campaign chair Manafort and Deputy chair Gates meeting with Kelimnic to share INTERNAL CAMPAIGN POLLING DATA from critical swing districts in critical swing states its important because Trump won those critical areas by razor thin margins in an election where he lost the popular vote by 3 million with Russia provably throwing the kitchen sink at the effort in any way they could. If it wasn't illegal or nefarious why did Gates, Manafort and Kelimnic leave the cigar bar at a Jarred Kushner property using separate exits after these meetings ? Why did Manafort violate his plea deal by lying about it? why did Mueller's lawyers say it went to the "very heart of the case?

Now it has broken in the last couple of days that 2 Florida counties had their voter rolls hacked by Russia in 2016 and that even the republican governor is bound by a NDA from the FBI from disclosing which 2. However the WP broke that one was a county in the panhandle that went 75%!!!! for Trump. I doubt we will ever know the complete truth about what Russia really did accomplish

. As much as I loathe Hillary, I'm tempted to smash my TV as much when her fat ugly face appears and she opens her yap as when Trump does ,and only contain myself remembering football season is coming Id far rather be an actually conservative Republican in loyal opposition to her likely moderate governance than KNOW our president was hand picked by our greatest geopolitical foe who has something or things on him and wanted a compliant rube to toy with. The bottom line ID is it want like there was no there there. Its what the Trump cultists try to whitewash.There was something worthwhile to investigate both with the man and the Russian interference.There still is....

You Trump cult members will go to the ends of the earth to move the goalposts as far as necessary to justify the unacceptable corrupt actions of this man.

Excellent post, Hawktalk! It's refreshing for you to show us your rational, intelligent side in that for the most part, you resisted using your "orange haired witch" terminology and made your musings a competent and accurate commentary rather than a wild eyed frantic rant (I always think of you as "Doc Brown" in "Back to the Future" when you go on your rants.)

But I do have to mention one thing: Hillary is fat and ugly? I agree, like Pavlov's dog, I have learned a conditioned response to get physically ill whenever I see her face, but the fact is that 90% of women her age would kill to look as good as she does.

Hawktalk makes a good point about Russia. We all remember the original ‘no contacts with Russia’ and ‘no business with Russia’, to ‘everyone knew we had contacts and deals in Russia’, to ‘so what if we talked to the Russians?’

But we all remember the denials.

The question is, why deny it if nothing is wrong?

I-5 wrote:Hawktalk makes a good point about Russia. We all remember the original ‘no contacts with Russia’ and ‘no business with Russia’, to ‘everyone knew we had contacts and deals in Russia’, to ‘so what if we talked to the Russians?’

But we all remember the denials.

The question is, why deny it if nothing is wrong?

What you said is a microcosm of my main reason for not liking Trump: He just makes up stuff. I can't even call them lies as I truly believe that in his mind, he thinks is fantasies are the truth. And he does it so often and with such little effort and lack of remorse that even in this case about his Russian connections, they aren't necessarily proof of him hiding something.