Absolutely....he intimidated congressional witnesses and was a threat to destroy evidence. So a message was sent to those who would commit this serious crime. I wonder who could have been the recipient of this message? Hmm......
Why do you disapprove?
He has had two years to destroy any evidence, fool....What happened yesterday was more befitting of East Germany than the USA.
It's nonsense that Steele is a foreign spy? I think even Steele admits that.
That doesn't enter into the minds of the police or the judges who grant search warrants . Just as it didn't with Cohen. Cohen had 10 years as Trump's criminal lawyer. So what you are saying is just contrived Trumpkin crybabying.
Meaningless. Incoming administrations communicate with foreign governments. It's not against the law, and no one in the Trump administration has denied that it happened.
Correct. He was, not is. Furthermore, the intermediary helped make the whole thing legal. Thats what happens when you have people with experience, instead of hiring Russian monsters, Infowars editors, and your own idiot groin spawn to make your campaign decisions. Cry us a river.
I haven't seen any evidence for that.
NO, the intermediary served as the money launderer. That's just another law Hillary broke. Things that you do personally that are crimes don't suddenly become legal when you have your lawyer pay for it.
Well no shit, Mueller doesn't brief you. But those are, in fact, the charges which lead to the warrant and arrest. Try to focus and stay on topic.
Wrong again, as the payments were disclosed and in no way represent illegal money laundering. Sorry dude, this fantasy of yours is going exactly nowhere.
I know those are the charges. Thanks for admitting you haven't seen any evidence to support them.
Of course I haven't. But I do believe evidence exists, as should you. But regardless, those are the charges which frame this arrest.
There is a federal statute which stipulates that foreign nationals cannot contribute to political campaigns. This contribution can be anything of value.
Once again, you admitted that you haven't seen any evidence. Stop while you are behind.
Correct, and I will say it again. But we aren't debating his guilt. We were talking about the arrest. And you are trying to change the subject, because that's what you think you are supposed to do.
Wrong, turd. I have been talking about the evidence. You want to divert the discussion by restating the charges, as if we don't already know what they are.
