Russiagate

[billvon 2,476]

>Now, time to get off that shark Bill.

Only one this time! You are really slipping. (But fun to watch.)

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Now, time to get off that shark Bill.

Only one this time! You are really slipping. (But fun to watch.)

I know you are easily entertained......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Now, time to get off that shark Bill.

Only one this time! You are really slipping. (But fun to watch.)

You do find ways to avoid admitting you jumped in way to early in these posts

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,476]

Now Sessions is being investigated for his Russian connections. Quick, RushMC! Try to deflect, distract and distort! Talk about sharks or noserings or Clinton!
==========================
Sources: Congress investigating another possible Sessions-Kislyak meeting

By Jim Sciutto
Thu June 1, 2017

Washington (CNN) - Congressional investigators are examining whether Attorney General Jeff Sessions had an additional private meeting with Russia's ambassador during the presidential campaign, according to Republican and Democratic Hill sources and intelligence officials briefed on the investigation.

Investigators on the Hill are requesting additional information, including schedules from Sessions, a source with knowledge tells CNN. They are focusing on whether such a meeting took place April 27, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC, where then-candidate Donald Trump was delivering his first major foreign policy address. Prior to the speech, then-Sen. Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak attended a small VIP reception with organizers, diplomats and others.
============================

[rushmc 18]

You have surprised me this morning I will admit.

You avoided the shark and have not posted about Comey supposedly going to tell the Senate the Trump did try and force him into dropping the Flynn investigation.

I hope he does because he then puts himself into a position of defending himself against a perjury charge (He stated, under oath,on May 3rd that Trump did not try to force him).

or

He committed a felony by not informing the DOJ immediately of that.

I wonder if he really will testify to this?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

billvon

Now Sessions is being investigated for his Russian connections. Quick, RushMC! Try to deflect, distract and distort! Talk about sharks or noserings or Clinton!
==========================
Sources: Congress investigating another possible Sessions-Kislyak meeting

By Jim Sciutto
Thu June 1, 2017

Washington (CNN) - Congressional investigators are examining whether Attorney General Jeff Sessions had an additional private meeting with Russia's ambassador during the presidential campaign, according to Republican and Democratic Hill sources and intelligence officials briefed on the investigation.

Investigators on the Hill are requesting additional information, including schedules from Sessions, a source with knowledge tells CNN. They are focusing on whether such a meeting took place April 27, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC, where then-candidate Donald Trump was delivering his first major foreign policy address. Prior to the speech, then-Sen. Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak attended a small VIP reception with organizers, diplomats and others.
============================

Investigators doing what they should do.

But it is all still a bunch of wondering. Nothing more at this point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[gowlerk 1,956]

billvon

>Now, time to get off that shark Bill.

Only one this time! You are really slipping. (But fun to watch.)

Hey Marc, just wondering here. You do realize that "jumping the shark" does not involve anyone riding on a shark, right?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jump%20the%20shark

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DJL 232]

rushmc

You have surprised me this morning I will admit.

You avoided the shark and have not posted about Comey supposedly going to tell the Senate the Trump did try and force him into dropping the Flynn investigation.

I hope he does because he then puts himself into a position of defending himself against a perjury charge (He stated, under oath,on May 3rd that Trump did not try to force him).

or

He committed a felony by not informing the DOJ immediately of that.

I wonder if he really will testify to this?

I just had this conversation with some friends of mine. There's a big difference between coersion and just asking him to drop it. Comey has only said that Trump asked him, his answer was obviously, "no". There needs to be a lot of proof in order to connect him saying "no" with him being fired. And again, as far as we know, this conversation was only about Flynn, not about the rest of the Russia investigation.

He did NOT say that he's now going to testify that Trump forced him.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,476]

> There needs to be a lot of proof in order to connect him saying "no" with him being fired.

Agreed. And so far the strongest proof comes from Trump himself, because he said he fired him while thinking about how to end the investigation.

[normiss 644]

COMEY: That's not something I'm going to comment on.

[rushmc 18]

gowlerk

***>Now, time to get off that shark Bill.

Only one this time! You are really slipping. (But fun to watch.)

Hey Marc, just wondering here. You do realize that "jumping the shark" does not involve anyone riding on a shark, right?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jump%20the%20shark

LOL

Are you trying to impress yourself?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

DJL

He did NOT say that he's now going to testify that Trump forced him.

You are correct.
He has NOT said that however, the news stories out there today say he might!

These types of stories have provided much shark jumping material in the not too distant past!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

billvon

> There needs to be a lot of proof in order to connect him saying "no" with him being fired.

Agreed. And so far the strongest proof comes from Trump himself, because he said he fired him while thinking about how to end the investigation.

LOFL

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,476]

>LOFL

Your panic is showing again.

[billvon 2,476]

Looks like even Putin is starting to admit that Russians did indeed try to influence the election. From the NYT:
====================
Shifting from his previous blanket denials, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said on Thursday that “patriotically minded” private Russian hackers could have been involved in cyberattacks last year to help the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump.

[gowlerk 1,956]

Quote

Are you trying to impress yourself?

No, just getting tired of your misuse of this common metaphor.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>LOFL

Your panic is showing again.

What are you going to do when Trump is re-elected?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

gowlerk

Quote

Are you trying to impress yourself?

No, just getting tired of your misuse of this common metaphor.

The link you posted seems right in line.


Many here like to immediately post the new, great, damning anti Trump story of the day only to see it wither very quickly.

Well?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 232]

billvon

> There needs to be a lot of proof in order to connect him saying "no" with him being fired.

Agreed. And so far the strongest proof comes from Trump himself, because he said he fired him while thinking about how to end the investigation.

The conversation was about Flynn not the overall investigation of Russia meddling in the election. For the purposes of an investigation towards coercion that's an important distinction. We don't know exactly what was said but Flynn has NOT stated that he was coerced and he is only now saying that his testimony will include the fact that Trump asked him to stop going after Flynn. We know that Flynn's response was something other than "No" but that's where that story end for us.

As for the firing, Trump has said it's about the Russian investigation but didn't say why. Just because Flynn was part of that Russian investigation doesn't mean it had anything to do with it.

Even though we're all pretty sure Trump's motivation was to get rid of Comey because he didn't swear fealty and because Trump didn't like the negative publicity he was getting because of the Russia investigation, there's nothing that's linking by proof one thing to the other.

Again, the cause and effect seems pretty obvious but so far the proof isn't there. Comey is a smart guy and the FBI's job is to provide actionable evidence so he knows better than to testify anything but facts and he knows not to interject with his opinion and get the whole thing thrown out. His simple statement that Trump asked him to stop investigating Flynn needs to stand on it's own. It may very well get tied into a path leading from cause to effect but that's a pretty big "if" at this point.

It's very hard to prove someone's motivation for firing you unless there's the most blatant evidence on the table. Trump asking Comey to stop investigating Flynn over the course of one conversation does not constitute obstruction.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rushmc 18]

billvon

Looks like even Putin is starting to admit that Russians did indeed try to influence the election. From the NYT:
====================
Shifting from his previous blanket denials, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said on Thursday that “patriotically minded” private Russian hackers could have been involved in cyberattacks last year to help the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump.

So the gov reports that state that the hacking had no effect on the election results are now a lie in your mind?

Remember Bill, no one has stated here that I know of, that the Russia did not try and mess with the election.

But it is Hilary, the media and now you, who want to link this to a Trump win.

And you are calling ME desperate?

Got it!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

DJL

***> There needs to be a lot of proof in order to connect him saying "no" with him being fired.

Agreed. And so far the strongest proof comes from Trump himself, because he said he fired him while thinking about how to end the investigation.

The conversation was about Flynn not the overall investigation of Russia meddling in the election. For the purposes of an investigation towards coercion that's an important distinction. We don't know exactly what was said but Flynn has NOT stated that he was coerced and he is only now saying that his testimony will include the fact that Trump asked him to stop going after Flynn. We know that Flynn's response was something other than "No" but that's where that story end for us.

As for the firing, Trump has said it's about the Russian investigation but didn't say why. Just because Flynn was part of that Russian investigation doesn't mean it had anything to do with it.

Even though we're all pretty sure Trump's motivation was to get rid of Comey because he didn't swear fealty and because Trump didn't like the negative publicity he was getting because of the Russia investigation, there's nothing that's linking by proof one thing to the other.

Again, the cause and effect seems pretty obvious but so far the proof isn't there. Comey is a smart guy and the FBI's job is to provide actionable evidence so he knows better than to testify anything but facts and he knows not to interject with his opinion and get the whole thing thrown out. His simple statement that Trump asked him to stop investigating Flynn needs to stand on it's own. It may very well get tied into a path leading from cause to effect but that's a pretty big "if" at this point.

It's very hard to prove someone's motivation for firing you unless there's the most blatant evidence on the table. Trump asking Comey to stop investigating Flynn over the course of one conversation does not constitute obstruction.

Now you have done it.

You have thrown is a whole bunch of logic and common sense.

Now you are going to get it!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 232]

rushmc

******>Now, time to get off that shark Bill.

Only one this time! You are really slipping. (But fun to watch.)

Hey Marc, just wondering here. You do realize that "jumping the shark" does not involve anyone riding on a shark, right?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jump%20the%20shark

LOL

Are you trying to impress yourself?


This shark jumping term really needs to be clarified. Here's the original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4ZGKI8vpcg It then became a phrase for when a TV show sold out with some kind of a gimmick and lost viewers.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[kallend 1,679]

rushmc

(He stated, under oath,on May 3rd that Trump did not try to force him).

No, he didn't. You clearly read the right wing spin version rather than listening to the actual question asked and answer given.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,679]

gowlerk

Quote

Are you trying to impress yourself?

No, just getting tired of your misuse of this common metaphor.

It's his latest misuse. Previously he regularly misused "strawman".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 644]

So the comment comes here from a shark jumper.