Democrats Met With Russians

[Darkwind]

So you have a list where Jeff Sessions is part of the campaign staff? I'm not interested in pictures or nonsense about endorsements.

Unless Sessions was taking a paycheck from the Trump campaign or was officially listed as part of the campaign, he was NOT part of the Trump campaign.

So, provide a link to some official campaign document listing Sessions as part of the Trump campaign team.

why so you can whine fake news ? I doubt there is a "list of Trump campaign advisors"

but he was a Trump advisor regardless how ******* stupid you are.

I said nothing about news, fake or otherwise.

So, there is no official record of Sessions being a member of the campaign. Therefore he could not have been acting in any official capacity for Donald Trump.

Russian loving communists don't care what Sessions did or said behind closed doors with other Russians

Americans loyal to their country deserve to know what elected, and appointed officials do and say.

I'm an American, and you ..

You know what he said and did. This means that you're good with his being the U.S. AG.

Good to know.

correct, I had no problem with his appointment. Now I have the right to question whatever it is he's covering up .. I don't recall... HORSESHIT.

being from the Reagan era anything Russian gives me pause, especially when KGB Putin is on the prowl killing his own people and seeing The Trump Cartel kissing his ass while he does it

pucker up.

Then you need to get up to speed. They are not trying to crucify him on the basis of contact with a Russian ambassador, but because he lied to Congress (Their assertion, not mine)

 

[The Original Tree]

I will say this again, The Dem Party is playing Russian Roulette and gambling their future on it in light of the fact that The Dem Leadership has deep and troubling ties to Russia, especially Clinton, Obama, Pelosi & Schummer.

You have legal and casual contact with Russian diplomats in official and sanctioned meetings with the Trump Admin.

But on The Dem side you have Millions given to Clinton and suspicious book deals with Publishing Forms with Russian Ties. We have gifts, trips, and money exchanging hands, Uranium, Nuclear weapons, deals with terrorists, contracts to carry out Assasinations, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, coups, lies, perjury and treason all on The Left.

And in the end it will take them down.

 

[Darkwind]

So you have a list where Jeff Sessions is part of the campaign staff? I'm not interested in pictures or nonsense about endorsements.

Unless Sessions was taking a paycheck from the Trump campaign or was officially listed as part of the campaign, he was NOT part of the Trump campaign.

So, provide a link to some official campaign document listing Sessions as part of the Trump campaign team.

In fact, even if some one were a paid member of the campaign staff there would be nothing wrong with talking to the Russian ambassador.

Very true.

The entire scandal has two weak points for the GOP.

Sessions traveled to the GOP Convention on campaign funds. Not illegal, but it limits what he can do while at the convention. It appears that Sessions was approached by the Russian Ambassador, not the other way round, so he can't be held responsible for it.

The other issue they seem to be making dog shit about is the fact that while being vetted by the Senate, he did not admit to having spoken to Russian officials in any capacity. So, an issue has arisen regarding why he did not go back and correct the record afterward? Every nominee does it because no one can remember everything all the time and information left out of a Q&A can be amended into the record; even the Democrats do this.

So, then it becomes a matter of the questions he was asked. If the idiot from the Democrat party asked his questions about Russia in regard to Sessions being part of the Trump campaign, then Sessions had no real reason to go back to amend the record because he did not lie about his not having conversations with Russians on behalf of the Trump campaign, even after the election. He was never a member of the Trump campaign.

The record is correct as it stands. Sessions was asked twice about meeting with the Russian ambassador in specific contexts and he truthfully answered, no, he had not in those contexts. He was never asked if he had had any meetings with the Russian ambassador because nearly every important member of Congress had. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any American, even if he or she is a paid member of a campaign staff, meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Its an issue of being under oath and perjury. The question(s), in the context of Session's acting on behalf of the Trump campaign (or even as President-elect) is important because of the two reasons I described.

If he thought the question(s) was in context of acting for the President-elect, or that it had to do with acting on behalf of the Official Trump Campaign, then he's okay. Otherwise, there may be some legal issues at play.

You misunderstand what I meant by context. Franken asked him about contacts with Russians in the context of false rumors about Trump being blackmailed by the Russians, and Sessions answered accurately that he had not. Leahy asked him if he had had any contact with the Russian government about the 2016 election, and Sessions answered accurately he had not. The questions were about whether he had had contact with the Russian government in these two specific contexts and he had not. If they had asked him if he had had any contacts with the Russian government in any context and he had answered, no, then there might have been some question of perjury, but that was not the case.

Did Sessions ‘Lie’?

Their claim is that Leahy asked straight up if he had contact with the Russians in the past two years. There was no qualification about being in regard to the campaign.

So, we are back to My original position. Does anyone have a link to the actual questions and their context?

 

[basquebromance]

resign NOW

 

[Lakhota]

Did Democrats conspire with Russians to hack the RNC and send the information to Wikileaks for publication?

 

[Darkwind]

So you have a list where Jeff Sessions is part of the campaign staff? I'm not interested in pictures or nonsense about endorsements.

Unless Sessions was taking a paycheck from the Trump campaign or was officially listed as part of the campaign, he was NOT part of the Trump campaign.

So, provide a link to some official campaign document listing Sessions as part of the Trump campaign team.

In fact, even if some one were a paid member of the campaign staff there would be nothing wrong with talking to the Russian ambassador.

Very true.

The entire scandal has two weak points for the GOP.

Sessions traveled to the GOP Convention on campaign funds. Not illegal, but it limits what he can do while at the convention. It appears that Sessions was approached by the Russian Ambassador, not the other way round, so he can't be held responsible for it.

The other issue they seem to be making dog shit about is the fact that while being vetted by the Senate, he did not admit to having spoken to Russian officials in any capacity. So, an issue has arisen regarding why he did not go back and correct the record afterward? Every nominee does it because no one can remember everything all the time and information left out of a Q&A can be amended into the record; even the Democrats do this.

So, then it becomes a matter of the questions he was asked. If the idiot from the Democrat party asked his questions about Russia in regard to Sessions being part of the Trump campaign, then Sessions had no real reason to go back to amend the record because he did not lie about his not having conversations with Russians on behalf of the Trump campaign, even after the election. He was never a member of the Trump campaign.

The record is correct as it stands. Sessions was asked twice about meeting with the Russian ambassador in specific contexts and he truthfully answered, no, he had not in those contexts. He was never asked if he had had any meetings with the Russian ambassador because nearly every important member of Congress had. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any American, even if he or she is a paid member of a campaign staff, meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Its an issue of being under oath and perjury. The question(s), in the context of Session's acting on behalf of the Trump campaign (or even as President-elect) is important because of the two reasons I described.

If he thought the question(s) was in context of acting for the President-elect, or that it had to do with acting on behalf of the Official Trump Campaign, then he's okay. Otherwise, there may be some legal issues at play.

You misunderstand what I meant by context. Franken asked him about contacts with Russians in the context of false rumors about Trump being blackmailed by the Russians, and Sessions answered accurately that he had not. Leahy asked him if he had had any contact with the Russian government about the 2016 election, and Sessions answered accurately he had not. The questions were about whether he had had contact with the Russian government in these two specific contexts and he had not. If they had asked him if he had had any contacts with the Russian government in any context and he had answered, no, then there might have been some question of perjury, but that was not the case.

Did Sessions ‘Lie’?

Sorry, I didn't see your link to Factcheck.

 

[eagle7_31]

Those who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

Where’s the outrage?

Democrat Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer continues to push the Russia conspiracy.But it was Schumer who met with Putin in New York City – not Trump.

The picture above was taken in 2003 as Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, enjoys a Krispy Kreme doughnut and coffee with Senator Charles Schumer from New York as Putin visits the first New York gas station of the Russian company Lukoil.

The hysteria over Trump administration officials talking — or not talking — with Russia needs to end.

It’s getting in the way of putting America back on track.

Drudge Report​

Don't you know yet? Democrats can do most anything they want and get away with it for the most part.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In fact, even if some one were a paid member of the campaign staff there would be nothing wrong with talking to the Russian ambassador.

Very true.

The entire scandal has two weak points for the GOP.

Sessions traveled to the GOP Convention on campaign funds. Not illegal, but it limits what he can do while at the convention. It appears that Sessions was approached by the Russian Ambassador, not the other way round, so he can't be held responsible for it.

The other issue they seem to be making dog shit about is the fact that while being vetted by the Senate, he did not admit to having spoken to Russian officials in any capacity. So, an issue has arisen regarding why he did not go back and correct the record afterward? Every nominee does it because no one can remember everything all the time and information left out of a Q&A can be amended into the record; even the Democrats do this.

So, then it becomes a matter of the questions he was asked. If the idiot from the Democrat party asked his questions about Russia in regard to Sessions being part of the Trump campaign, then Sessions had no real reason to go back to amend the record because he did not lie about his not having conversations with Russians on behalf of the Trump campaign, even after the election. He was never a member of the Trump campaign.

The record is correct as it stands. Sessions was asked twice about meeting with the Russian ambassador in specific contexts and he truthfully answered, no, he had not in those contexts. He was never asked if he had had any meetings with the Russian ambassador because nearly every important member of Congress had. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any American, even if he or she is a paid member of a campaign staff, meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Its an issue of being under oath and perjury. The question(s), in the context of Session's acting on behalf of the Trump campaign (or even as President-elect) is important because of the two reasons I described.

If he thought the question(s) was in context of acting for the President-elect, or that it had to do with acting on behalf of the Official Trump Campaign, then he's okay. Otherwise, there may be some legal issues at play.

You misunderstand what I meant by context. Franken asked him about contacts with Russians in the context of false rumors about Trump being blackmailed by the Russians, and Sessions answered accurately that he had not. Leahy asked him if he had had any contact with the Russian government about the 2016 election, and Sessions answered accurately he had not. The questions were about whether he had had contact with the Russian government in these two specific contexts and he had not. If they had asked him if he had had any contacts with the Russian government in any context and he had answered, no, then there might have been some question of perjury, but that was not the case.

Did Sessions ‘Lie’?

Their claim is that Leahy asked straight up if he had contact with the Russians in the past two years. There was no qualification about being in regard to the campaign.

So, we are back to My original position. Does anyone have a link to the actual questions and their context?

Leahy: Several of the President-Elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?

Sessions: No.

Did Sessions ‘Lie’?

So Leahy, in fact, asked if Sessions had had any contacts with the Russian government about the 2016 elections.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In fact, even if some one were a paid member of the campaign staff there would be nothing wrong with talking to the Russian ambassador.

Very true.

The entire scandal has two weak points for the GOP.

Sessions traveled to the GOP Convention on campaign funds. Not illegal, but it limits what he can do while at the convention. It appears that Sessions was approached by the Russian Ambassador, not the other way round, so he can't be held responsible for it.

The other issue they seem to be making dog shit about is the fact that while being vetted by the Senate, he did not admit to having spoken to Russian officials in any capacity. So, an issue has arisen regarding why he did not go back and correct the record afterward? Every nominee does it because no one can remember everything all the time and information left out of a Q&A can be amended into the record; even the Democrats do this.

So, then it becomes a matter of the questions he was asked. If the idiot from the Democrat party asked his questions about Russia in regard to Sessions being part of the Trump campaign, then Sessions had no real reason to go back to amend the record because he did not lie about his not having conversations with Russians on behalf of the Trump campaign, even after the election. He was never a member of the Trump campaign.

The record is correct as it stands. Sessions was asked twice about meeting with the Russian ambassador in specific contexts and he truthfully answered, no, he had not in those contexts. He was never asked if he had had any meetings with the Russian ambassador because nearly every important member of Congress had. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any American, even if he or she is a paid member of a campaign staff, meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Its an issue of being under oath and perjury. The question(s), in the context of Session's acting on behalf of the Trump campaign (or even as President-elect) is important because of the two reasons I described.

If he thought the question(s) was in context of acting for the President-elect, or that it had to do with acting on behalf of the Official Trump Campaign, then he's okay. Otherwise, there may be some legal issues at play.

You misunderstand what I meant by context. Franken asked him about contacts with Russians in the context of false rumors about Trump being blackmailed by the Russians, and Sessions answered accurately that he had not. Leahy asked him if he had had any contact with the Russian government about the 2016 election, and Sessions answered accurately he had not. The questions were about whether he had had contact with the Russian government in these two specific contexts and he had not. If they had asked him if he had had any contacts with the Russian government in any context and he had answered, no, then there might have been some question of perjury, but that was not the case.

Did Sessions ‘Lie’?

Sorry, I didn't see your link to Factcheck.

No problem.

 

[eagle7_31]

Did Democrats conspire with Russians to hack the RNC and send the information to Wikileaks for publication?

The GOP did not either. Then again it does not matter because the demrats do what they want and rarely get called on it. Now they have to fabricate the GOP using the Russians or vice versa. Take a long walk off a short bridge.

 

[Siete]

In fact, even if some one were a paid member of the campaign staff there would be nothing wrong with talking to the Russian ambassador.

Very true.

The entire scandal has two weak points for the GOP.

Sessions traveled to the GOP Convention on campaign funds. Not illegal, but it limits what he can do while at the convention. It appears that Sessions was approached by the Russian Ambassador, not the other way round, so he can't be held responsible for it.

The other issue they seem to be making dog shit about is the fact that while being vetted by the Senate, he did not admit to having spoken to Russian officials in any capacity. So, an issue has arisen regarding why he did not go back and correct the record afterward? Every nominee does it because no one can remember everything all the time and information left out of a Q&A can be amended into the record; even the Democrats do this.

So, then it becomes a matter of the questions he was asked. If the idiot from the Democrat party asked his questions about Russia in regard to Sessions being part of the Trump campaign, then Sessions had no real reason to go back to amend the record because he did not lie about his not having conversations with Russians on behalf of the Trump campaign, even after the election. He was never a member of the Trump campaign.

The record is correct as it stands. Sessions was asked twice about meeting with the Russian ambassador in specific contexts and he truthfully answered, no, he had not in those contexts. He was never asked if he had had any meetings with the Russian ambassador because nearly every important member of Congress had. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any American, even if he or she is a paid member of a campaign staff, meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Its an issue of being under oath and perjury. The question(s), in the context of Session's acting on behalf of the Trump campaign (or even as President-elect) is important because of the two reasons I described.

If he thought the question(s) was in context of acting for the President-elect, or that it had to do with acting on behalf of the Official Trump Campaign, then he's okay. Otherwise, there may be some legal issues at play.

You misunderstand what I meant by context. Franken asked him about contacts with Russians in the context of false rumors about Trump being blackmailed by the Russians, and Sessions answered accurately that he had not. Leahy asked him if he had had any contact with the Russian government about the 2016 election, and Sessions answered accurately he had not. The questions were about whether he had had contact with the Russian government in these two specific contexts and he had not. If they had asked him if he had had any contacts with the Russian government in any context and he had answered, no, then there might have been some question of perjury, but that was not the case.

Did Sessions ‘Lie’?

Their claim is that Leahy asked straight up if he had contact with the Russians in the past two years. There was no qualification about being in regard to the campaign.

So, we are back to My original position. Does anyone have a link to the actual questions and their context?

.55 seconds in the video ..

"I have not met with any Russians"

AG Sessions: Whenever it's appropriate, I will recuse myself


Liar.

 

[eagle7_31]

Very true.

The entire scandal has two weak points for the GOP.

Sessions traveled to the GOP Convention on campaign funds. Not illegal, but it limits what he can do while at the convention. It appears that Sessions was approached by the Russian Ambassador, not the other way round, so he can't be held responsible for it.

The other issue they seem to be making dog shit about is the fact that while being vetted by the Senate, he did not admit to having spoken to Russian officials in any capacity. So, an issue has arisen regarding why he did not go back and correct the record afterward? Every nominee does it because no one can remember everything all the time and information left out of a Q&A can be amended into the record; even the Democrats do this.

So, then it becomes a matter of the questions he was asked. If the idiot from the Democrat party asked his questions about Russia in regard to Sessions being part of the Trump campaign, then Sessions had no real reason to go back to amend the record because he did not lie about his not having conversations with Russians on behalf of the Trump campaign, even after the election. He was never a member of the Trump campaign.

The record is correct as it stands. Sessions was asked twice about meeting with the Russian ambassador in specific contexts and he truthfully answered, no, he had not in those contexts. He was never asked if he had had any meetings with the Russian ambassador because nearly every important member of Congress had. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any American, even if he or she is a paid member of a campaign staff, meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Its an issue of being under oath and perjury. The question(s), in the context of Session's acting on behalf of the Trump campaign (or even as President-elect) is important because of the two reasons I described.

If he thought the question(s) was in context of acting for the President-elect, or that it had to do with acting on behalf of the Official Trump Campaign, then he's okay. Otherwise, there may be some legal issues at play.

You misunderstand what I meant by context. Franken asked him about contacts with Russians in the context of false rumors about Trump being blackmailed by the Russians, and Sessions answered accurately that he had not. Leahy asked him if he had had any contact with the Russian government about the 2016 election, and Sessions answered accurately he had not. The questions were about whether he had had contact with the Russian government in these two specific contexts and he had not. If they had asked him if he had had any contacts with the Russian government in any context and he had answered, no, then there might have been some question of perjury, but that was not the case.

Did Sessions ‘Lie’?

Their claim is that Leahy asked straight up if he had contact with the Russians in the past two years. There was no qualification about being in regard to the campaign.

So, we are back to My original position. Does anyone have a link to the actual questions and their context?

.55 seconds in the video ..

"I have not met with any Russians"

AG Sessions: Whenever it's appropriate, I will recuse myself


Liar.

Wrong again, Sessions in the senate was a member of the armed services committee. The question was about 2016.

 

[Darkwind]

Very true.

The entire scandal has two weak points for the GOP.

Sessions traveled to the GOP Convention on campaign funds. Not illegal, but it limits what he can do while at the convention. It appears that Sessions was approached by the Russian Ambassador, not the other way round, so he can't be held responsible for it.

The other issue they seem to be making dog shit about is the fact that while being vetted by the Senate, he did not admit to having spoken to Russian officials in any capacity. So, an issue has arisen regarding why he did not go back and correct the record afterward? Every nominee does it because no one can remember everything all the time and information left out of a Q&A can be amended into the record; even the Democrats do this.

So, then it becomes a matter of the questions he was asked. If the idiot from the Democrat party asked his questions about Russia in regard to Sessions being part of the Trump campaign, then Sessions had no real reason to go back to amend the record because he did not lie about his not having conversations with Russians on behalf of the Trump campaign, even after the election. He was never a member of the Trump campaign.

The record is correct as it stands. Sessions was asked twice about meeting with the Russian ambassador in specific contexts and he truthfully answered, no, he had not in those contexts. He was never asked if he had had any meetings with the Russian ambassador because nearly every important member of Congress had. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any American, even if he or she is a paid member of a campaign staff, meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Its an issue of being under oath and perjury. The question(s), in the context of Session's acting on behalf of the Trump campaign (or even as President-elect) is important because of the two reasons I described.

If he thought the question(s) was in context of acting for the President-elect, or that it had to do with acting on behalf of the Official Trump Campaign, then he's okay. Otherwise, there may be some legal issues at play.

You misunderstand what I meant by context. Franken asked him about contacts with Russians in the context of false rumors about Trump being blackmailed by the Russians, and Sessions answered accurately that he had not. Leahy asked him if he had had any contact with the Russian government about the 2016 election, and Sessions answered accurately he had not. The questions were about whether he had had contact with the Russian government in these two specific contexts and he had not. If they had asked him if he had had any contacts with the Russian government in any context and he had answered, no, then there might have been some question of perjury, but that was not the case.

Did Sessions ‘Lie’?

Their claim is that Leahy asked straight up if he had contact with the Russians in the past two years. There was no qualification about being in regard to the campaign.

So, we are back to My original position. Does anyone have a link to the actual questions and their context?

.55 seconds in the video ..

"I have not met with any Russians"

AG Sessions: Whenever it's appropriate, I will recuse myself


Liar.

You do understand we are talking about the confirmation hearings, right? Get a clue and get back to Me.

 

[Siete]

The record is correct as it stands. Sessions was asked twice about meeting with the Russian ambassador in specific contexts and he truthfully answered, no, he had not in those contexts. He was never asked if he had had any meetings with the Russian ambassador because nearly every important member of Congress had. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any American, even if he or she is a paid member of a campaign staff, meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Its an issue of being under oath and perjury. The question(s), in the context of Session's acting on behalf of the Trump campaign (or even as President-elect) is important because of the two reasons I described.

If he thought the question(s) was in context of acting for the President-elect, or that it had to do with acting on behalf of the Official Trump Campaign, then he's okay. Otherwise, there may be some legal issues at play.

You misunderstand what I meant by context. Franken asked him about contacts with Russians in the context of false rumors about Trump being blackmailed by the Russians, and Sessions answered accurately that he had not. Leahy asked him if he had had any contact with the Russian government about the 2016 election, and Sessions answered accurately he had not. The questions were about whether he had had contact with the Russian government in these two specific contexts and he had not. If they had asked him if he had had any contacts with the Russian government in any context and he had answered, no, then there might have been some question of perjury, but that was not the case.

Did Sessions ‘Lie’?

Their claim is that Leahy asked straight up if he had contact with the Russians in the past two years. There was no qualification about being in regard to the campaign.

So, we are back to My original position. Does anyone have a link to the actual questions and their context?

.55 seconds in the video ..

"I have not met with any Russians"

AG Sessions: Whenever it's appropriate, I will recuse myself


Liar.

You do understand we are talking about the confirmation hearings, right? Get a clue and get back to Me.

so its ok if he did lie .. thats setting the bar real high.

you do understand I don't give a rats ass about partisan hacks. Just get a clue, period.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This would be what? The 50th deflection thread on this topic?

lol

Deflecting from what?

Don't play dumb.

 

[Darkwind]

Its an issue of being under oath and perjury. The question(s), in the context of Session's acting on behalf of the Trump campaign (or even as President-elect) is important because of the two reasons I described.

If he thought the question(s) was in context of acting for the President-elect, or that it had to do with acting on behalf of the Official Trump Campaign, then he's okay. Otherwise, there may be some legal issues at play.

You misunderstand what I meant by context. Franken asked him about contacts with Russians in the context of false rumors about Trump being blackmailed by the Russians, and Sessions answered accurately that he had not. Leahy asked him if he had had any contact with the Russian government about the 2016 election, and Sessions answered accurately he had not. The questions were about whether he had had contact with the Russian government in these two specific contexts and he had not. If they had asked him if he had had any contacts with the Russian government in any context and he had answered, no, then there might have been some question of perjury, but that was not the case.

Did Sessions ‘Lie’?

Their claim is that Leahy asked straight up if he had contact with the Russians in the past two years. There was no qualification about being in regard to the campaign.

So, we are back to My original position. Does anyone have a link to the actual questions and their context?

.55 seconds in the video ..

"I have not met with any Russians"

AG Sessions: Whenever it's appropriate, I will recuse myself


Liar.

You do understand we are talking about the confirmation hearings, right? Get a clue and get back to Me.

so its ok if he did lie .. thats setting the bar real high.

you do understand I don't give a rats ass about partisan hacks. Just get a clue, period.

No one has proven he has lied. I don't really care what you believe. I'm not a Trump supporter, but I am anti-regressive party.

 

[pwjohn]

Flashback: Chuck Schumer Meets with Putin in New York City

'Democrat Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer continues to push the Russia conspiracy.
But it was Schumer who met with Putin in New York City – not Trump.'



What can be heard from the Left on this most recent flaming bout of hypocrisy?

View attachment 115226

Only the ( deeply stupid ) would draw a comparison between this and the criminal act perpetrated by now Attorney General Session during his confirmation hearing.

Criminal?

Name the crime.

Wow, open your mouth and leave no doubt. Attorney General Sessions lied to congress while under oath. That's a crime even he agrees, is in fact a crime.

No dumb ass...he did not lie to congress or the toad, al franken....he was asked what he would do if he had to investigate ties to Russia by the Trump campaign and he said he would recuse himself...asswipe.....so no, he did not lie under oath...but thanks for lying....

You're out of your fricken mind you dumass. Now Attorney General Sessions lied to congress while under oath about communications ha had with the Russians during Trumps campaign for president.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Another dozen news cycles and some other faux media outrage will replace this one.

Exactly. Just like when Pelosi wanted any Republican to go to prison for "torture"...

...then it was discovered that Pelosi herself was at meetings where EIT were discussed!

Oops!!! Then all of a sudden, the media and Dem obsession with throwing Pubs in prison went away fast.

Isn't it funny how that happened?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Large donations to the Clinton Foundation were made from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.

Such awkward collisions between Bill’s fundraising activities and Hillary’s public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Dems are hysterically hypocritical.

 

[owebo]

Did Democrats conspire with Russians to hack the RNC and send the information to Wikileaks for publication?

I heard an unnamed source said intelligence has proof democrats did try, and when they couldn't get through Trumps defenses,mthe then realized it was over for Obama and asked the Russians to hack them so they had a defense theme against Trump....