The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[Optimus Prime]

If Bolton isn’t called to testify is there any reason he couldn’t sit down for a long 60 Minutes style TV interview to say what he knows?

And if it’s bad for Trump and republicans say he’s lying Bolton can just dare the Senate to call him to testify to see if he tells the same story

 

[SaintForLife]

Every single person was indicted for process crimes and not a single person was indicted for anything to do with the Russian interference. You trying to blur the lines doesn't change those facts.

With all due respect I do have to laugh at the importance that you are placing on the polling data. Just about the entire premise of your post relies on Kilimnik having links to Russian intelligence when there is zero evidence for that and we now know that he was a State Department source which Mueller did his best to hide. Maybe you should recalibrate your argument based on what you didn't know about Kilimnik.

 

[Farb]

I don’t watch CNN. I already said they have chosen to follow the Fox model after seeing their ratings. I’m not sure what you think you proving to me. We could go back and forth on crappy stuff from Fox and CNN, I think maybe you would run out before me.

But, there is a difference in degree in what snippets I see from Fox and CNN, mainly on clips on social media. Fox viewers seem to be an angry bunch. They think democrats are Marxists. Lol. They hate some of their fellow Americans. They hate immigrants. They hate Muslims. They are full on conspiracy buffs, who think Soros is the source of everything evil in the world.

Come to think of it I don’t know anyone who watches CNN like the dedicated Fox viewers watch Fox. But Fox viewers have been studied a bit and it does seem to color their view of things. Anecdotally I have family members who used to be normal (well, fairly normal) until they got hooked on Fox. Now they’re pretty extreme in their views. We don’t discuss current events at all anymore. They’re just angry all the time. It’s sad to me.

You could actually change "Marxist" to "Nazi/White supremacists" and "Soros" to "Trump" and swap "fox" and "CNN" and you would have the exact same argument from the right. Just saying.

Also, I don't know a single person, online or in the real world that 'hates' immigrants or muslims.

 

[SaintForLife]

yes, the Democrats are treating it as a political game. Doesn’t mean we should support it, right?

is it worth finding out if Trump was using his office to damage a political opponent and using national security funding to do so?

Do you also think it's worth letting Durham find out if Obama was using his office to damage his party's political opponent using US intelligence services?

 

[coldseat]

Do you also think it's worth letting Durham find out if Obama was using his office to damage his party's political opponent using US intelligence services?

That's much more of a hoax than what y'll keep claiming the Russian collusion story is or ever was.

I keep reading your long diatribes on the Russian/Trump campaign collusion, and all you keep doing with your post is providing a basis and reasoning for why an investigation was necessary. You keep pointing out all of these ties, contacts and correspondence between Trump campaign officials and shady figures with Russian ties, yet you don't see any problem or concerns with any of it. Apparently it was all just innocuos.

I accept the findings in Mueller's report there the wasn't sufficient evidence of conspiracy. But this whole story that it was all a hoax masterminded by Obama to damage his parties political opponent is ridiculous. We know for a fact that if anything, Obama wasn't strong enough in warning about the Russian interference in the election because of fears of the appearance that he would be meddling in the election. And we know the Russians were meddling in the election to help Trump.

 

[samiam5211]

That's a nice term paper you wrote documenting all the lies and questionable activities by shady Trump officials, but it still doesn't amount to any conspiracy or collusion between Trump and Russia.

Do you have a link or proof that Kilimnik had ties to Russian Intelligence? Mueller didn't provide any evidence for that to be the case and he hid that Kilimnik was a US State Department asset. I wonder why Mueller tried to hide that. Mueller only said that the FBI had assessed that Kilimnik had ties to Russian intelligence. Here is the flimsy support for Muellers claim:

Kilimnik was indicted for obstruction of justice and NOT for having any ties to Russia. DC judge Amy Berman Jackson said that Mueller didn't provide her with any evidence to show that Kilimnik had any ties to Russian intelligence.

Mueller didn't find any connection between Manafort sharing the polling data and the Russian interference. Have you read any of the Mueller report?

Donald Trump is our employee, not our client.

There is more than enough evidence for us to demand the information our employee is hiding or risk losing the privilege of remaining our employee.

You are basically we don't have enough to prove him guilty in a court of law, so we don’t deserve the rest of the story.

 

[SaintForLife]

Donald Trump is our employee, not our client.

There is more than enough evidence for us to demand the information our employee is hiding or risk losing the privilege of remaining our employee.

You are basically we don't have enough to prove him guilty in a court of law, so we don’t deserve the rest of the story.

You guys have been demanding that information for 3 years and there was a huge investigation. I understand that it didn't deal the death blow that CNN and MSNBC told you was coming and that many on the left are disappointed. I also understand that the Democrats will keep fishing... I mean searching until they find it. Just realize that the rest of the country hasn't been convinced that Trump is so bad he has to be removed. Just look how much of the Mueller report was included in the articles of impeachment...oh wait nevermind.

 

[SaintForLife]

That's much more of a hoax than what y'll keep claiming the Russian collusion story is or ever was.

I keep reading your long diatribes on the Russian/Trump campaign collusion, and all you keep doing with your post is providing a basis and reasoning for why an investigation was necessary. You keep pointing out all of these ties, contacts and correspondence between Trump campaign officials and shady figures with Russian ties, yet you don't see any problem or concerns with any of it. Apparently it was all just innocuos.

I accept the findings in Mueller's report there the wasn't sufficient evidence of conspiracy. But this whole story that it was all a hoax masterminded by Obama to damage his parties political opponent is ridiculous. We know for a fact that if anything, Obama wasn't strong enough in warning about the Russian interference in the election because of fears of the appearance that he would be meddling in the election. And we know the Russians were meddling in the election to help Trump.

I'm not saying it happened and that's why I said if. But there does appear there was some questionable things going on and it's worth letting Durham investigate. I'll support whatever Durham finds or doesn't find, but the IG report has enough damning information that ought to be concerning to anyone.

My "diabtribes" are simply me posting information from investigations that debunks the things CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post, the Democrats and many here were claiming to be unquestionable facts for 3 years. I do find it curious that just about every person who replies to my "diatribes" never even comment or refute specifically the things I'm talking about.

I'm sure you know that campaign officials having contacts with people in Russia isn't illegal even if it's with the left's articfical boogeyman.... Russia.

Obama wasn't concerned with the Russian meddling because he assumed Clinton would win and knows Russia as well as the US do that all the time. It was only after Trump won that it became this huge deal.

 

[JimEverett]

yes, the Democrats are treating it as a political game. Doesn’t mean we should support it, right?

is it worth finding out if Trump was using his office to damage a political opponent and using national security funding to do so?

I think things should be done the right way. Process is as important as anything else, if not more so.

Practically speaking you should never want to make cutting corners part of a precedent-setting record, which an impeachment is certainly going to be.

 

[Dadsdream]

Do you think the existing record established the inculpatory facts below? I still haven’t seen you or Trump defenders acknowledge or dispute them. Perhaps Bolton could explain some of this away with his first-hand knowledge? Except Bolton called the whole shakedown of Zelensky a drug deal, so again, we’re all well aware the House didn’t avoid subpoenaing him due to a lack of helpful information.

The reason they didn’t subpoena him has been repeatedly explained, you are just ignoring it. And as you know, the Senate isn’t reviewing the House record like an appellate court so the trial is not limited to what’s in the “record.” The trial is a search for a truth — a truth Trump defenders simply prefer not to hear. Hence the pushback against testimony of a witness they think would be bad for them. List of inculpatory facts I’m not seeing defenders acknowledge

Hi TaylorB.

Let's see what we can do here. I've participated in every presidential election since 1976, when I voted for Jimmy Carter and I served in uniform under Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr.

I'm going to provide my thoughts as they occur in a stream-of-consciousness spontaneous response style, without looking anything up or Googling.

• The Trump administration cannot provide a legitimate explanation as to why the aid was withheld; Nor should he have to. He's the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief. The Supreme Court has long held that presidents have latitude in international military affairs.
• No one in the OMB or NSC knows why the aid was being withheld; I would amend this to say no one in the OMB or NSC will publicly say why the aid was being withheld. They serve at the pleasure of the President. Past presidents ensured their loyalty by keeping their pre-signed resignations in his desk.
• The Trump administration had set up an “irregular” foreign policy apparatus through Rudy Giuliani designed to conceal Giuliani's influence campaign; Sounds like Obama/Kerry all over again.
• US officials in the “regular” foreign policy channel to Ukraine did not understand why aid was being withheld; The "regular" foreign policy channel? The president appoints the Secretary of State and all the ambassadors. Previous presidents had all the ambassadors from the previous administration resign so they could appoint their own people. If this president did anything wrong, it was not doing so as well.
• No one is able to provide an alternative explanation for what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine in recent months; Damage control, I would think, but Giuliani is the only one who really knows.
• Numerous non-partisan witnesses, including diplomats involved with Ukraine policy, ultimately came to understand (after being kept out of the “irregular” loop) that aid was being withheld as part of a potential quid pro quo for investigations; The keyword here is "potential." No proof otherwise, so it's speculation.
• Certain people within the “irregular” channel, including Ambassador Sondland, have admitted under oath that military aid was conditioned on Zelensky publicly announcing an investigation; Sondland was engaging in a bit of CUYA, in my opinion.
• Mulvaney admitted to a quid pro quo on TV; Blurs together with other quid pro quo news bites in my head.
• The transcript of the Zelensky call, in the context of prior communications with Ukraine via our “irregular” back-channel, indicates that Zelensky must have understood that the reason aid was being withheld was because he had not yet publicly announced these investigations; Keyword is "indicates," which is an opinion.
• The Trump administration has gone to great lengths to prevent those with knowledge from testifying; Separation of powers means that presidents, regardless of political party, do not automatically roll over and answer every request that a single house of Congress issues, especially those involving Congress sticking their noses into the internal workings of the Executive Branch.
• The Trump administration hid the transcript of the call on a private server until it became obvious that the public, after learning of the concealed whistleblower complaint, would demand its release; and Had not heard this. I wouldn't doubt it, though.
• The Trump administration has offered practically zero exculpatory evidence Ever watch Cool Hand Luke? Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand.

Nice talking with you, TaylorB. Now, I'm going to tune in to the Iranians firing ballistic missiles at bases in Iraq. Jesus.

 

[TaylorB]

Every single person was indicted for process crimes and not a single person was indicted for anything to do with the Russian interference. You trying to blur the lines doesn't change those facts.

With all due respect I do have to laugh at the importance that you are placing on the polling data. Just about the entire premise of your post relies on Kilimnik having links to Russian intelligence when there is zero evidence for that and we now know that he was a State Department source which Mueller did his best to hide. Maybe you should recalibrate your argument based on what you didn't know about Kilimnik.

My initial post on this topic was reacting to the suggestion that the media was falsely claiming for 3 years that Trump was a Russian agent. I responded saying that's not what the media said, but that there were many reasons to be suspicious of Trump's relationship with Russia. I gave you lots of reasons for that in my last post.

No, the entire premise of my post was not based on the FBI's assessment that Kilimnik had ties to Russian intelligence. I simply did not expect you to find John Solomon more credible than the FBI (I do read his disinformation to better understand arguments like this so yes, I did know there were people who didn't believe the FBI assessment -- lots of your points mirror his 6/6/19 article), nor do I have the documents upon which the FBI's assessment is based. I could send you links to articles about this, but they're generally based on court filings by the special counsel and/or the FBI assessment, not John Solomon's opinion.

My response is a "term paper" because there's a lot of bad behavior to talk about, and a lot of disinformation to respond to. So if we assume arguendo that Kilimnik's only role was as a conduit from Manafort to Deripaska, setting aside his alleged GRU ties since you don't believe the FBI, you've still got Trump's campaign manager sharing campaign polling data with a close Putin ally while pitching a "peace plan" which was designed to give control of Eastern Ukraine to Russia, both of which he lied to Mueller about. Plus the numerous other things I said that have nothing to do with the polling data. How does it support your argument that Kilimnik wasn't GRU if he was giving the info to Deripaska? And offering private campaign briefings to Deripaska through Kilimnik?

When you say "not a single person was indicted for anything to do with Russian interference," you're leaving out Roger Stone, at a minimum (I assume you mean of the people I listed -- obviously there were many other indictments of Russian nationals and entities). But you're also implicitly saying I've argued there was a pre-election conspiracy to help Russia hack the election -- I didn't. I said there's plenty of evidence upon which one could wonder whether Trump's working to benefit the Kremlin. I cited to numerous indictments pertaining to lies told by Trump's people regarding a spectrum of Russia-related topics that had no obvious ties to the polling data.

"Process crimes." Imagine yourself being innocent of something and all your close allies getting indicted for lying about various aspects of that thing, including lies you directed them to tell. If Trump is innocent, what an incredibly specific set of unlucky events that had to unfold to get all his friends in trouble. Thankfully according to the Mueller report, he doesn't remember any of it.

I read the Mueller report cover to cover. It's riveting. I read everything I can get my hands on with this story. When you say my "term paper" only "documents all the lies and questionable activity by shady Trump officials" -- yes! That's exactly what I was going for. You're free to focus on one small piece of the puzzle you find objectionable, or take a big step back and see the rest of it.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Do you also think it's worth letting Durham find out if Obama was using his office to damage his party's political opponent using US intelligence services?

Umm... yes, you can go back and see all my posts regarding the subject. I've been consistent is supporting investigations when trust is lost in institutions. Just make it open and publish your info.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think things should be done the right way. Process is as important as anything else, if not more so.

Practically speaking you should never want to make cutting corners part of a precedent-setting record, which an impeachment is certainly going to be.

I agree, so you should be concerned that Trump did not follow a proper process in investigating corruption, right?

Overall, I agree with your sentiment though.

 

[FullMonte]

Do you also think it's worth letting Durham find out if Obama was using his office to damage his party's political opponent using US intelligence services?

yes, without a doubt. If there is reason to believe that Obama did such, he should be prosecuted and punished.

Now, with that out of the way...Here's the question in response....What actual evidence is there to show that Obama (personally, not members of his administration or government employees that were working during his term) did something or ordered something to damage his political opponent using US intelligence services?

Because we have an actual document that shows that Trump asked a foreign government to investigate his political opponent, and we have multiple other documents showing that immediately after that request, Trump directed his people to withhold aid to that foreign government without notifying congress as he is legally obligated to do.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I think things should be done the right way. Process is as important as anything else, if not more so.

Practically speaking you should never want to make cutting corners part of a precedent-setting record, which an impeachment is certainly going to be.

What is the "right way" in this situation, especially as it applies to witness (specifically Bolton) being called to testify in the Senate during the actual impeachment trial?

 

[SaintForLife]

My initial post on this topic was reacting to the suggestion that the media was falsely claiming for 3 years that Trump was a Russian agent. I responded saying that's not what the media said, but that there were many reasons to be suspicious of Trump's relationship with Russia. I gave you lots of reasons for that in my last post.

No, the entire premise of my post was not based on the FBI's assessment that Kilimnik had ties to Russian intelligence. I simply did not expect you to find John Solomon more credible than the FBI (I do read his disinformation to better understand arguments like this so yes, I did know there were people who didn't believe the FBI assessment -- lots of your points mirror his 6/6/19 article), nor do I have the documents upon which the FBI's assessment is based. I could send you links to articles about this, but they're generally based on court filings by the special counsel and/or the FBI assessment, not John Solomon's opinion.

My response is a "term paper" because there's a lot of bad behavior to talk about, and a lot of disinformation to respond to. So if we assume arguendo that Kilimnik's only role was as a conduit from Manafort to Deripaska, setting aside his alleged GRU ties since you don't believe the FBI, you've still got Trump's campaign manager sharing campaign polling data with a close Putin ally while pitching a "peace plan" which was designed to give control of Eastern Ukraine to Russia, both of which he lied to Mueller about. Plus the numerous other things I said that have nothing to do with the polling data. How does it support your argument that Kilimnik wasn't GRU if he was giving the info to Deripaska? And offering private campaign briefings to Deripaska through Kilimnik?

When you say "not a single person was indicted for anything to do with Russian interference," you're leaving out Roger Stone, at a minimum (I assume you mean of the people I listed -- obviously there were many other indictments of Russian nationals and entities). But you're also implicitly saying I've argued there was a pre-election conspiracy to help Russia hack the election -- I didn't. I said there's plenty of evidence upon which one could wonder whether Trump's working to benefit the Kremlin. I cited to numerous indictments pertaining to lies told by Trump's people regarding a spectrum of Russia-related topics that had no obvious ties to the polling data.

"Process crimes." Imagine yourself being innocent of something and all your close allies getting indicted for lying about various aspects of that thing, including lies you directed them to tell. If Trump is innocent, what an incredibly specific set of unlucky events that had to unfold to get all his friends in trouble. Thankfully according to the Mueller report, he doesn't remember any of it.

I read the Mueller report cover to cover. It's riveting. I read everything I can get my hands on with this story. When you say my "term paper" only "documents all the lies and questionable activity by shady Trump officials" -- yes! That's exactly what I was going for. You're free to focus on one small piece of the puzzle you find objectionable, or take a big step back and see the rest of it.

All of the images I posted were from the Mueller report, or the transcript from the DC Federal judge saying that, despite the FBI claiming they had assessed Kilimnik as linked to Russian intelligence, that the Special Counsel provided no evidence to support that claim. I think I'll side with the DC Federal judge over the FBI and you can continue with your strawman about the Solomon article. I linked to a New York Times article showing that Kilimnik was a high level State Department source. What's your response to that and why would Mueller try to hide that in his report? Any theories on why Mueller did that? Maybe his dementia was acting up again. I'm sure it was just an honest mistake.

Have you seen how the FBI gamed the FISA court to get the warrant to spy on Page? What about the statement from the FBI that if the Nunes memo was released it would harm national security? The FBI also said the Nunes memo wasn't true and the IG report showed the Nunes memo was true and the Schiff memo was full of lies. So I prefer to see actual evidence before I believe the FBI on this particular subject.

I didn't vote for Trump, but I believe most people knew he was of questionable character and he lies a lot. Is it really a surprise that he surrounded himself with those same kind of people on his campaign? The Republican establishment wanted nothing to do with him after the nomination so it makes even more sense how all those shady guys ended up on his campaign. He probably took anyone who was interested.

Roger Stone wasn't indicted or found guilty with anything to do with Russian election interference.

Bannon Tells of Campaign Willing to Try ‘Dirty Tricks’ to Win in 2016 (Published 2019)

The former Trump campaign chairman testified at the trial of a longtime Trump adviser, Roger J. Stone Jr.

www.nytimes.com

The whole investigation started with the weak predicate of Papadapoulous telling Downer about a rumor at a bar over drinks. Apparently that wasn't strong enough to jumpstart the investigation so then they included opposition research aka Russian disinformation from Clinton.

 

[SaintForLife]

yes, without a doubt. If there is reason to believe that Obama did such, he should be prosecuted and punished.

Now, with that out of the way...Here's the question in response....What actual evidence is there to show that Obama (personally, not members of his administration or government employees that were working during his term) did something or ordered something to damage his political opponent using US intelligence services?

Because we have an actual document that shows that Trump asked a foreign government to investigate his political opponent, and we have multiple other documents showing that immediately after that request, Trump directed his people to withhold aid to that foreign government without notifying congress as he is legally obligated to do.

We aren't even sure about everything that happened before and around the time of the investigation started. But we have seen plenty of warning signs that things weren't done lawfully and properly. So it could turn out to just be sloppy work by the FBI and some confirmation bias, but from what we've seen so far that seems doubtful.

Hypothetically, if maybe Brennan was involved somehow in getting the investigation started or some other cabinet level official, you can be guaranteed that Obama at minimum knew what was going on or at worst approved it all. If soemthing nefarious happened it's very unlikely it was just a rogue government cabinet official where the president had no knowledge even if they can maintain plausible deniability.

I've said it before, I do find Trump's behavior in the Ukraine situation concerning, but IMO it seems back room politics even if Trump takes it to another level and/or is sloppy. It doesn't rise to the level of impeachment for me especially since Ukraine got the aide and there was no investigation of Biden or an announcement.

 

[TaylorB]

All of the images I posted were from the Mueller report, or the transcript from the DC Federal judge saying that, despite the FBI claiming they had assessed Kilimnik as linked to Russian intelligence, that the Special Counsel provided no evidence to support that claim. I think I'll side with the DC Federal judge over the FBI and you can continue with your strawman about the Solomon article. I linked to a New York Times article showing that Kilimnik was a high level State Department source. What's your response to that and why would Mueller try to hide that in his report? Any theories on why Mueller did that? Maybe his dementia was acting up again. I'm sure it was just an honest mistake.

Have you seen how the FBI gamed the FISA court to get the warrant to spy on Page? What about the statement from the FBI that if the Nunes memo was released it would harm national security? The FBI also said the Nunes memo wasn't true and the IG report showed the Nunes memo was true and the Schiff memo was full of lies. So I prefer to see actual evidence before I believe the FBI on this particular subject.

I didn't vote for Trump, but I believe most people knew he was of questionable character and he lies a lot. Is it really a surprise that he surrounded himself with those same kind of people on his campaign? The Republican establishment wanted nothing to do with him after the nomination so it makes even more sense how all those shady guys ended up on his campaign. He probably took anyone who was interested.

Roger Stone wasn't indicted or found guilty with anything to do with Russian election interference.

Bannon Tells of Campaign Willing to Try ‘Dirty Tricks’ to Win in 2016 (Published 2019)

The former Trump campaign chairman testified at the trial of a longtime Trump adviser, Roger J. Stone Jr.

www.nytimes.com

The whole investigation started with the weak predicate of Papadapoulous telling Downer about a rumor at a bar over drinks. Apparently that wasn't strong enough to jumpstart the investigation so then they included opposition research aka Russian disinformation from Clinton.

The transcript you’re referring to was from a hearing to determine whether Manafort breached his plea deal by lying about his contacts with Kilinmik. In the hearing Judge Jackson said she had not been provided evidence Kilimnik was linked to Russian intelligence, but that she didn’t need to decide that in order to determine Manafort breached his plea deal because she found he was using Kilimnik to share info with Deripaska, and she found the government proved he lied about that. She did not find that the government couldn‘t prove he was a GRU, just that there was no evidence of that in front of her at that time. It wasn’t a trial, nor was that issue central to Manafort’s trial. By the way, Rick Gates, Trump’s deputy campaign chair, also described Kilimnik as GRU. But no, the DC federal judge did not contradict the FBI‘s assessment. That’s simply not what happened.

I honestly don’t know for sure why Mueller didn’t reveal Kilimnik as a US source publicly. My best guess is that if Kilimnik was an asset to the US, he was still an asset when the Mueller report come out and divulging his status would burn him as a source, endanger him, or reveal sources and methods. It’s possible his status was disclosed to courts in redacted filings in certain prosecutions, but we don’t have all the materials due to there being ongoing investigations. Do you have a theory on that? ABJ’s point in the plea hearing still seems applicable though — the point is that Kilimnik was used as a conduit to a Putin ally. It doesn’t change the culpability of Gates and Manafort’s behavior in doing whatever it was they were doing.

I generally trusted Mueller and thought they tried to do the right thing and exposed a lot in the process, but I wouldnt pretend to have an answer for everything they did. It seems like the FISA process needs a legislative overhaul. Seems like there‘s been a tendency to abuse that process going back to post 9/11 terrorism fright. The IG report seemed credible about the FISA on Carter Page. Had he been indicted I think his lawyers may have had some good arguments under the 4th amendment.

Here‘s a link to the Roger Stone indictment:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1124706/download

Of course, Organization 1 is Wikileaks. You keep saying Stone‘s charges were unrelated to election interference, but the truth is they were. You’re either playing word games or not understanding the charges.

I’ve heard the claim that Trump’s campaign ended up with bad people like Manafort because they were stuck with the bottom of the barrel. Like they all picked teams at recess and the only ones left were career criminals and liars. I’ll pass.