if you have no evidence a law was broken that is not NEED

Posted on: March 22, 2018 at 12:48:28 CT

for a special counsel. in fact, that violates the mandate on special counsels.

so the existence of a MASSIVE investigation justifies itself and makes any behavior suspect? smh what circular logic that is.

Yes i hear myself. He met him the course of doing business as a senator. the problem you have is you apparently didn't listen to senator franken's dip**** question.

This is what happened. Senator Franken asked me a rambling question after some six hours of testimony that included dramatic new allegations that the United States intelligence community, the U.S. intelligence community had advised President-elect Trump "That there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government." I was taken aback by that explosive allegation which he said was being reported as breaking news that very day, in which I had not heard. I wanted to refute that immediately. Any suggestion that I was part of such an activity.

I replied to Senator Franken this way. "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians and I'm unable to comment on it."

That was the context in which I was asked the question and in this that context my answer was a fair and correct response to the charge as I understood it. I was responding to the allegation That surrogates had been meeting with Russians on a regular basis. It simply did not occur to me to go further than the context and to list any conversations that I may have had with Russians in routine situations as I had many routine meetings with other foreign officials.

So please hear me now. It was only in March, after my confirmation hearing, that a reporter asked my spokesperson whether I had ever met with any Russian officials. This was a first time that question had squarely been posed to me. On the same day, we provided that reporter with the information related to the meeting that I and my staff held in my Senate office with Ambassador Kislyak as well as the brief encounter in July after a speech that I had given during the convention in Cleveland, Ohio.

I also provided the reporter with a list of 25 foreign ambassador meetings that I had had during 2016. In addition, I provided supplemental testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain this event. So I readily acknowledged these two meetings and certainly, not one thing happened that was improper in any one of those meetings

Hiring a PI firm for dirt is better than getting it from a geopolitical adversary? lol is the Russian chick attorney a geopolitical adversary? smh, there's ZERO difference. the only real difference is in the subsequent weaponization of the dossier.

The intel community never analyzed the DNC's server. And do to HRC's actual obstruction it was severely difficult to analyze hers and they only concluded that it was LIKELY foreign entiities accessed her server.

Trump Jr.s exchange with Wikileaks has been published. have you not read it. there's NOTHING remotely insidious about it. Stone did talk with wikilieaks. you can read the entire thing online. it's also NOTHING. And yes i do choose to belive Assange. He's never been proven wrong yet.