Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Grassley and other members of Congress knew Trump wasn’t the subject of the investigation, yet neither he, his fellow Congresspersons, nor their staffs leaked that detail. If Grassley or any of his peers, then as apparently by his speech he does now, felt that detail was so important for the American people to know, he could have found a way to get that pearl of info leaked.
It can't, it doesn't, and it has not. The AltRat Right propagandists like you working with other traitors are trying to overturn our constitutional liberties. That won't happen.It can. It does. And it has. The subject of this thread is an example. Were it not for the press, in collusion with traitors in the intelligence community, and the leaks, fake or otherwise, we would not now be forced to endure this national humiliation.
It doesn't get any better than this stupidI don't know if Trump directly colluded with Russia to win the election, but he has been collaborating with them every since.
He's a traitor.
Prove it and shut us up. Ready?It can't, it doesn't, and it has not. The AltRat Right propagandists like you working with other traitors are trying to overturn our constitutional liberties. That won't happen.It can. It does. And it has. The subject of this thread is an example. Were it not for the press, in collusion with traitors in the intelligence community, and the leaks, fake or otherwise, we would not now be forced to endure this national humiliation.
I have by pointing out you and your ilk. You ae failures. The GOP is moving toward the center and away from your tripe.Prove it and shut us up. Ready?It can't, it doesn't, and it has not. The AltRat Right propagandists like you working with other traitors are trying to overturn our constitutional liberties. That won't happen.It can. It does. And it has. The subject of this thread is an example. Were it not for the press, in collusion with traitors in the intelligence community, and the leaks, fake or otherwise, we would not now be forced to endure this national humiliation.
Well that isn't what sessions' said. Try again with a quote instead of your made up version.Grassley is astounding. He knows as well as I do that the matter of Trump's not being a "person of interest" in the "Russia" investigation and who else may be the subject(s) of it can be likened to that of the eye of a hurricane. There apparently is nothing going one with Trump himself, but all around him there are individuals who've misrepresented the mere fact of their having had dialogues with a known/suspected Russian spy, at least one of whom happens to be the ambassador.
Quite simply, if one's job necessarily calls for one to interact with the likes of Sergei Kislyak, and one knows from the briefings one received from the IC that Russia/Putin implemented a campaign to interfere in the U.S. electoral process, why attest to having had no contact with the man (or any other Russian official)? I mean really. Does one forget that such meetings are a natural part of one's job and that one has been doing one's job? I'm sorry, but I don't see one innocuous reason for misrepresenting basic binary facts the way several Trump Administration players have and in the climate in which they have done.
Consider the scenario where one and one's partner last night willfully participate in S&M intimacies that include striking one's partner, and one is asked did you hit someone yesterday. The truthful answer is "yes." The question wasn't did one strike another in anger; it was whether one struck someone. Answering truthfully allows one to explain the nature of the hit and move on. Answering untruthfully can lead to all sorts of other questions -- inquiries that didn't need to be pursued had one merely told the truth from the start -- if/when it's discovered that one did in all likelihood hit someone.
What's been going on with the Trump Administration and its key players is, right now at least, a matter of those individuals being discovered to have misrepresented simple truths, which in turn has engendered a storm of doubt and questions. This didn't need to be; and it wouldn't be had those individuals been unequivocal and honest in their remarks. But they didn't, and here we are.
C'mon, Xelor, you are smarter than that. You are way out in Merchant of Venice territory, here. If the police were looking for a person who had violently committed assault during a mugging on the street the night before and happened to ask the S&M couple whether he had hit anyone the night before, they, knowing the intent of the question, are not bound to disclose their private, irrelevant sex lives in order to cooperate.
But the context at hand isn't a police investigation. For instance, re: Sessions, it was a Congressional hearing in which he volunteered that he'd had no contact with Russian officials when the fact of the matter is that he had, regardless of the context. He could have said something to the effect of "In the course of my job as a senator, I occasionally met with Russian officials, but otherwise I had no contact with them."
Now did he say that? No. And he's an attorney, so it's not as though precision and context aren't things he knows well to include in his statements. Moreover, you know as well as I that as an attorney, he'd demand that his clients (or in a prosecutorial role, a witness) answer the question they were asked -- by telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the the truth" -- and not to infer anything about its intent. The same principle applies in my example and to Session's, just to name one individual, testimony.
What makes Sessions, Flynn and maybe Kushner's (I don't recall the situational details of his attestations) paltering worse is that they volunteered their attestations of having had no contact with Russian officials. Quite simply, they didn't have to voluntarily tell anything other than "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the the truth," yet that's exactly what they did. So, no, I'm not in "Merchant of Venice" territory. Would that Sessions et al to have heeded Portia's caution before uttering their assertions about their interactions with Russians.
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
Sessions? He gave bad testimony twice and refused, wisely, to lie a third time.Well that isn't what sessions' said. Try again with a quote instead of your made up versionGrassley is astounding. He knows as well as I do that the matter of Trump's not being a "person of interest" in the "Russia" investigation and who else may be the subject(s) of it can be likened to that of the eye of a hurricane. There apparently is nothing going one with Trump himself, but all around him there are individuals who've misrepresented the mere fact of their having had dialogues with a known/suspected Russian spy, at least one of whom happens to be the ambassador.
Quite simply, if one's job necessarily calls for one to interact with the likes of Sergei Kislyak, and one knows from the briefings one received from the IC that Russia/Putin implemented a campaign to interfere in the U.S. electoral process, why attest to having had no contact with the man (or any other Russian official)? I mean really. Does one forget that such meetings are a natural part of one's job and that one has been doing one's job? I'm sorry, but I don't see one innocuous reason for misrepresenting basic binary facts the way several Trump Administration players have and in the climate in which they have done.
Consider the scenario where one and one's partner last night willfully participate in S&M intimacies that include striking one's partner, and one is asked did you hit someone yesterday. The truthful answer is "yes." The question wasn't did one strike another in anger; it was whether one struck someone. Answering truthfully allows one to explain the nature of the hit and move on. Answering untruthfully can lead to all sorts of other questions -- inquiries that didn't need to be pursued had one merely told the truth from the start -- if/when it's discovered that one did in all likelihood hit someone.
What's been going on with the Trump Administration and its key players is, right now at least, a matter of those individuals being discovered to have misrepresented simple truths, which in turn has engendered a storm of doubt and questions. This didn't need to be; and it wouldn't be had those individuals been unequivocal and honest in their remarks. But they didn't, and here we are.
C'mon, Xelor, you are smarter than that. You are way out in Merchant of Venice territory, here. If the police were looking for a person who had violently committed assault during a mugging on the street the night before and happened to ask the S&M couple whether he had hit anyone the night before, they, knowing the intent of the question, are not bound to disclose their private, irrelevant sex lives in order to cooperate.
But the context at hand isn't a police investigation. For instance, re: Sessions, it was a Congressional hearing in which he volunteered that he'd had no contact with Russian officials when the fact of the matter is that he had, regardless of the context. He could have said something to the effect of "In the course of my job as a senator, I occasionally met with Russian officials, but otherwise I had no contact with them."
Now did he say that? No. And he's an attorney, so it's not as though precision and context aren't things he knows well to include in his statements. Moreover, you know as well as I that as an attorney, he'd demand that his clients (or in a prosecutorial role, a witness) answer the question they were asked -- by telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the the truth" -- and not to infer anything about its intent. The same principle applies in my example and to Session's, just to name one individual, testimony.
What makes Sessions, Flynn and maybe Kushner's (I don't recall the situational details of his attestations) paltering worse is that they volunteered their attestations of having had no contact with Russian officials. Quite simply, they didn't have to voluntarily tell anything other than "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the the truth," yet that's exactly what they did. So, no, I'm not in "Merchant of Venice" territory. Would that Sessions et al to have heeded Portia's caution before uttering their assertions about their interactions with Russians.
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
Again you can't provide evidence of your posts. ShamefulI have by pointing out you and your ilk. You ae failures. The GOP is moving toward the center and away from your tripe.Prove it and shut us up. Ready?It can't, it doesn't, and it has not. The AltRat Right propagandists like you working with other traitors are trying to overturn our constitutional liberties. That won't happen.It can. It does. And it has. The subject of this thread is an example. Were it not for the press, in collusion with traitors in the intelligence community, and the leaks, fake or otherwise, we would not now be forced to endure this national humiliation.
Respected Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley lambastes the treasonous--yes, treasonous--actions of the media and fellow senators Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein for their roles in the Comey/Russia circus. It's detailed and it's devastating. Schumer should be brought up on charges.
He answered questions the way they were asked. The questioners not too goodSessions? He gave bad testimony twice and refused, wisely, to lie a third time.Well that isn't what sessions' said. Try again with a quote instead of your made up versionGrassley is astounding. He knows as well as I do that the matter of Trump's not being a "person of interest" in the "Russia" investigation and who else may be the subject(s) of it can be likened to that of the eye of a hurricane. There apparently is nothing going one with Trump himself, but all around him there are individuals who've misrepresented the mere fact of their having had dialogues with a known/suspected Russian spy, at least one of whom happens to be the ambassador.
Quite simply, if one's job necessarily calls for one to interact with the likes of Sergei Kislyak, and one knows from the briefings one received from the IC that Russia/Putin implemented a campaign to interfere in the U.S. electoral process, why attest to having had no contact with the man (or any other Russian official)? I mean really. Does one forget that such meetings are a natural part of one's job and that one has been doing one's job? I'm sorry, but I don't see one innocuous reason for misrepresenting basic binary facts the way several Trump Administration players have and in the climate in which they have done.
Consider the scenario where one and one's partner last night willfully participate in S&M intimacies that include striking one's partner, and one is asked did you hit someone yesterday. The truthful answer is "yes." The question wasn't did one strike another in anger; it was whether one struck someone. Answering truthfully allows one to explain the nature of the hit and move on. Answering untruthfully can lead to all sorts of other questions -- inquiries that didn't need to be pursued had one merely told the truth from the start -- if/when it's discovered that one did in all likelihood hit someone.
What's been going on with the Trump Administration and its key players is, right now at least, a matter of those individuals being discovered to have misrepresented simple truths, which in turn has engendered a storm of doubt and questions. This didn't need to be; and it wouldn't be had those individuals been unequivocal and honest in their remarks. But they didn't, and here we are.
C'mon, Xelor, you are smarter than that. You are way out in Merchant of Venice territory, here. If the police were looking for a person who had violently committed assault during a mugging on the street the night before and happened to ask the S&M couple whether he had hit anyone the night before, they, knowing the intent of the question, are not bound to disclose their private, irrelevant sex lives in order to cooperate.
But the context at hand isn't a police investigation. For instance, re: Sessions, it was a Congressional hearing in which he volunteered that he'd had no contact with Russian officials when the fact of the matter is that he had, regardless of the context. He could have said something to the effect of "In the course of my job as a senator, I occasionally met with Russian officials, but otherwise I had no contact with them."
Now did he say that? No. And he's an attorney, so it's not as though precision and context aren't things he knows well to include in his statements. Moreover, you know as well as I that as an attorney, he'd demand that his clients (or in a prosecutorial role, a witness) answer the question they were asked -- by telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the the truth" -- and not to infer anything about its intent. The same principle applies in my example and to Session's, just to name one individual, testimony.
What makes Sessions, Flynn and maybe Kushner's (I don't recall the situational details of his attestations) paltering worse is that they volunteered their attestations of having had no contact with Russian officials. Quite simply, they didn't have to voluntarily tell anything other than "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the the truth," yet that's exactly what they did. So, no, I'm not in "Merchant of Venice" territory. Would that Sessions et al to have heeded Portia's caution before uttering their assertions about their interactions with Russians.
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
Respected Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley lambastes the treasonous--yes, treasonous--actions of the media and fellow senators Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein for their roles in the Comey/Russia circus. It's detailed and it's devastating. Schumer should be brought up on charges.
Respected Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley lambastes the treasonous--yes, treasonous--actions of the media and fellow senators Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein for their roles in the Comey/Russia circus. It's detailed and it's devastating. Schumer should be brought up on charges.
I have news for your buddy Grassley, how the fuck can this asshole stand there & preach transparency & yet say nothing & will support the Senate heralthcare bill.
Assholes Incorporated AKA the GOP.
Respected Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley lambastes the treasonous--yes, treasonous--actions of the media and fellow senators Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein for their roles in the Comey/Russia circus. It's detailed and it's devastating. Schumer should be brought up on charges.
Them the stupid fuck ignores the investigation into the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians & doesn't give a shit whether that is true. Nooooooo., That evil Comey.
We do know that the Trump campaign had multiple secret meetings with the Russians that were denied. WE know Trump lied about this.
Where is the GOP outrage about thios?
Respected Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley lambastes the treasonous--yes, treasonous--actions of the media and fellow senators Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein for their roles in the Comey/Russia circus. It's detailed and it's devastating. Schumer should be brought up on charges.
Them the stupid fuck ignores the investigation into the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians & doesn't give a shit whether that is true. Nooooooo., That evil Comey.
We do know that the Trump campaign had multiple secret meetings with the Russians that were denied. WE know Trump lied about this.
Where is the GOP outrage about thios?
