Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Wednesday that the panel had seen an "abundance" of evidence of collusion with Russia and obstruction by Donald Trump's campaign and administration that is not yet public. Speaking to reporters in Washington, Schiff said a lot of information was already in the public domain that pointed to extensive contacts between the Trump campaign team and the Kremlin, and later efforts by the Trump entourage to cover up those contacts. But Schiff said there was much more to come out. He said: "There is certainly an abundance of non-public information that we've gathered in the investigation. And I think some of that non-public evidence is evidence on the issue of collusion and some ... on the issue of obstruction."

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Ah, the ShiffBurger with Trump fries. Nice!

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-14 10:31 PM | Reply

"There is certainly an abundance of non-public information that we've gathered in the investigation.
Ah transparency!

#2 | Posted by Federalist at 2018-02-14 10:33 PM | Reply

I have the evidence, but it is a secret. Trust me.

So says the liar and leaker Schiff.

#3 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-02-14 10:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

"the panel had seen an "abundance" of evidence of collusion with Russia"

I'm surprised the House Republicans haven't destroyed it all yet, like they did the Abu Ghraib torture videos.
I was really hoping the one of the boy being raped would be released someday.
You know, to honor The troops.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 11:06 PM | Reply

They should either out the evidence or STFU. America is tired of the drama.

#5 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2018-02-15 12:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Schiff is am embarrassment, but this was a nice diversion over the fact that they have no interest in correcting their 'memo' so it can be released. Question for the libs on this board, why did the Dems not give a copy of their memo to the FBI prior to giving it to the white house? As for this new 'evidence', I will go back to Feinstein when said said there has been no evidence.

#6 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-15 12:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

" the fact that they have no interest in correcting their 'memo' so it can be released"

The Republicans on the committee voted unanimously to release the memo in its current form. Are they all an embarrassment, too?

"As for this new 'evidence', I will go back to Feinstein when said said there has been no evidence."

Doesn't Feinstein's statement predate "new" evidence? I'm trying to follow your logic here.

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-15 12:45 AM | Reply

Doesn't Feinstein's statement predate "new" evidence? I'm trying to follow your logic here.
#7 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

"As for this new 'evidence', I will go back..."

His post suggests as much.

#8 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-02-15 12:51 AM | Reply

The question that is begging for an answer is how much of that abundance of non-public evidence involve the GOP Chairman of the House Intl Committee, Devin Nunes (R-Calif), and his thinly veiled participation in the cover up to obstruct justice?

#9 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-02-15 12:54 AM | Reply

Doesn't Feinstein's statement predate "new" evidence? I'm trying to follow your logic here.

#7 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

======================

Diane Feinstein was asked about this twice, once early in the investigation and then again a few months back. The important thing to remember is that all communication for the "collusion" would already be in the position of the FBI and NSA at the time the original statement was made. From that point until a few month late, NOTHING changed in regards to having ANY evidence whatsoever. So, you think they discovered 'new' communications? When would these have taken place? After the Trump admin knew all of their communications were already being monitored? Or, before that date in which timeframe all their communications were already in the possession of the FBI/NSA? Even with regards to "obstruction of justice", their has not been a single single underlying crime posited. Collusion with the Russians isn't even a crime so how can you obstruct justice if their is no underlying crime? Second, the only communications that have come to light with the promise of even more damning ones to come has been at the expense of the FBI, the now disgraced Jim Comey, and Bremmer and Clapper with solid proof they lied to Congress. Trump is sitting pretty here. The Dems are soiling themselves as the depths of their corruption comes to the surface. Want collusions with the Russians? I don't know how you could get any more solid than paying their FSB agents to provide false information against your political rival. The Dems bit off way more than they can chew with this and Schiff for brains is not smart enough to steer them clear. The whole lot of them are going down. Only question is if this will also expose Obama.

#10 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-15 01:13 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

REX

"Only question is if this will also expose Obama."

To what?

#11 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-02-15 01:29 AM | Reply

To what?

#11 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

===================

Pretty clear their were blatant constitutional infractions on behalf of Obama and his underlings. Read Rice's inauguration day email (below) which is a giant CYA.

"President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities "by the book". The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book."

You might want to start reading up on Bill Priestap now before the SHTF so you can try to discredit him. This weaponizing of intelligence services goes all the way to the top and the IG has them talking. Bill Priestap being one of them.

#12 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-02-15 01:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Posted by Rex_Buyt

Dude, you need to git a grip.

#13 | Posted by et_al at 2018-02-15 02:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Bill Priestap

lmgtfy.com

We got a long list of tabloids. You going with that?

#14 | Posted by et_al at 2018-02-15 02:27 AM | Reply

REX

"You might want to start reading up on Bill Priestap now before the SHTF"

OK, I read some of links to Bill Priestrap and, without much effort, found too many holes and outright distortions to believe anything I read.

You don't have any credibility on this forum to begin with but I gave you a shot.

Sorry, you blew it. I don't give second chances. You're done!

#15 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-02-15 02:29 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

The Republicans on the committee voted unanimously to release the memo in its current form. Are they all an embarrassment, too? - #7 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-15 12:45 AM

Uh....yes.

#16 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 07:01 AM | Reply

Seems to me that with all that evidence, the House would be pushing to wrap up the investigation so that the report can be presented and any legal process begun.

#17 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 07:16 AM | Reply

"Diane Feinstein was asked about this twice, once early in the investigation and then again a few months back. "

Do you understand what the word "new" means, or are you feigning ignorance?

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-15 07:51 AM | Reply

"Trump's False claim Dianne Feinstein said ‘there is no collusion'"

Fact-checkers found President Trump's recent interview in The New York Times chock-full of false and misleading statements.

Trump rattled off falsehoods published in the Dec. 28, 2017 article on everything from how many social media followers he has to what's known about possible collusion between Russia and his presidential campaign.

On that topic, Trump made an eye-opening claim about Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California:

"Virtually every Democrat has said there is no collusion. There is no collusion. . . . I saw Dianne Feinstein the other day on television saying there is no collusion."

Feinstein is the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, two of the three congressional panels investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.

So, a statement from Feinstein declaring "no collusion," would be significant.

Was this another false claim or was there some truth to Trump's words?

We set out on a fact check.

....
"Feinstein spoke more generally about collusion during an Oct. 8, 2017 CBS interview, saying she did not know whether it had taken place.

"It's an open question because there's no proof yet that it's happened, and I think that proof will likely come with Mr. Mueller's investigation," Feinstein said referring to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

In this case, again, Feinstein did not say there is no collusion."

www.politifact.com

#19 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-15 07:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Schiff gets his information from a Nigerian Prince.

#20 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-02-15 08:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That shift has changed the narrative most Americans have been hearing about this story and is why the remarks Rep. Adam Schiff made at a newsmaker breakfast yesterday are not only significant, but worth repeating. He pointed out that "there is already ample evidence in the public domain on the issue of collusion if you are willing to see it." Here is the evidence:

-- Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about talking in April 2016 to a professor with close ties to the Kremlin who told Papadopoulos that Moscow had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. The professor told him about thousands of emails the Russians had from the Clinton campaign.

-- Donald Trump Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort met with a Russian attorney at Trump Tower in June 2016 after being promised "dirt" on Clinton. The campaign later communicated to meeting organizers that they were disappointed they didn't get what they were promised.

-- In July 2017, the president and White House advisers put together a misleading statement about the nature of the Trump Tower meeting, saying that it was for the purpose of discussing Russian adoptions.

-- The Trump campaign knew through Papadopoulos that the Russians had obtained thousands of emails from the Clinton campaign. Then-candidate Trump publicly asked the Russians in July 2016 to hack Clinton and find her "30,000 emails that are missing" from the personal email server she used while secretary of State. WikiLeaks began posting emails from the Clinton campaign in October, just weeks before the November election.

-- Former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn held secret conversations with Russian officials in December 2016 during the presidential transition period, promising to undermine sanctions imposed against Russia by the Obama administration for meddling in the U.S. election. Flynn pleaded guilty late last year to lying to the FBI about those conversations.

That is a great summary, but it only covers information that is already in the public domain. It is very likely that the Mueller team has amassed a whole lot more.

washingtonmonthly.com

This doesn't even include the communications between Trumpers and Julian Assange in pushing Wikileaks information in Trump tweets. Trump himself ASKED the Russians to find and publish Hillary's missing emails (which again would have been stolen property, as were all the emails released during the campaign which were immediately and happily weaponized by Trump himself as daily cudgels to bludgeon Clinton with).

Most objective people would say that what we already know shows collusion between Russia/Russia cutouts and the Trump campaign, and no one would deny that one of Trump's most dominant themes was that Hillary had without a doubt broken the law. What exactly are skeptics waiting for, since they dismiss criminal convictions and indictments directly showing campaign operatives were either approached or actively sought out Russian-connected help and assistance? And Cambridge Analytica hasn't even been mentioned yet and most missed Trey Gowdy's pronouncement about their email(s) to Wikileaks just last week.

#21 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-02-15 08:29 AM | Reply

Sciff's saying this because he feels he's not going out on a limb. I note he suggests there is more evidence for collusion than for obstruction of justice.

These are the first stages of the End Game. Trump's actions going forward will be dominated either with negotiating a fearful withdrawal from power without prison time or some form of terrified coup, to begin with Mueller's firing.

When Trump terminates Mueller some people here and the entire Republican Party will be faced with the choice of being Russian roaches or American human beings

#22 | Posted by Zed at 2018-02-15 08:48 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Excerpt digging up trash on your political opponent is not illegal. Accepting foreign donations is illegal, except every Corporation in America with majority or minority foreign ownership donates all the time. It might be unseemly that Junior sought dirt from Russia. There is still no reason to believe the Russians had anything to offer except the nonsense the Republicans were already using.

We are left with: Accepting foreign donations? Laundering money. Obstructing justice.

#23 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-02-15 09:08 AM | Reply

#23 | POSTED BY BAYVIKING

Sorry.... wrong. Digging up dirt is legal (usually) and accepted. Colluding with an unfriendly foreign power to dig up that dirt is illegal and, to anyone with any sense of right and wrong (read... not Republicans), improper.

#24 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2018-02-15 09:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Are you referring to some law, outside of wartime, which I am unaware of?

Otherwise, what is the difference between what I said and what you said? Digging up dirt is legal. Junior met with the Russians who contributed nothing to what Republicans were already alleging in their billion dollar campaign. The Trumps are deeply in debt to Russia, which should disqualify all of them from ever getting a security clearance, President excepted, of course, because he doesn't need one. The position President Trump is in should be troubling to every American. But he was quickly beat into place by the deep State and has reignited the Cold War, except for never reinstating Obama's sanctions, as demanded by Congress.

We should not be so cavalier about reinstating a cold war with Russia, which wants to trade with the West. They are not now and have never been a greater threat to peace than the United States. Remember, it was the Russians who stood down during the Cuban missile crisis. We, on the other hand, routinely act belligerently, against everyone , unless they too have nuclear weapons. Then, and only then, we act more prudently.

We should not have surrendered our manufacturing capacity to China. I have no idea how to recover quickly from that mistake, only to stop doing it and hope that technological change can restore our balance of trade over the next fifty years, if we are aware and diligent about reversing that fatal trend.

#25 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-02-15 10:06 AM | Reply

Sorry.... wrong. Digging up dirt is legal (usually) and accepted. Colluding with an unfriendly foreign power to dig up that dirt is illegal and, to anyone with any sense of right and wrong (read... not Republicans), improper.

#24 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2018-02-15 09:38 AM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 2

So I would assume you are referring to to the DNC paid for dossier and Schiff himself taking the bait from Russians saying they had dirt on Trump.

#26 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-02-15 10:17 AM | Reply

Re # 25

A wealthy friend of mine once gave me some great advice on how to deal with China and its growing economic power.

Learn Chinese.

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-15 10:19 AM | Reply

Learn Chinese.

Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-15 10:19 AM | Reply

Wang Chung tonight?????

#28 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-15 10:20 AM | Reply

#19 Danni try this one...straight from Feinstein.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN: The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me -- and I am quoting you now -- you said, ‘not at this time.' Has anything changed since we spoke last?

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Well, no -- no, it hasn't...

BLITZER: But, I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the -- you have had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee, all of the access you have had to very sensitive information, so far you have not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Well, evidence that would establish that there's collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that's not necessarily evidence.

#29 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-02-15 10:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#29 When was that interview done? Link? Unless it was done recently, it's probably irrelevant now.

#30 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-15 10:23 AM | Reply

-- In July 2017, the president and White House advisers put together a misleading statement about the nature of the Trump Tower meeting, saying that it was for the purpose of discussing Russian adoptions.

-- The Trump campaign knew through Papadopoulos that the Russians had obtained thousands of emails from the Clinton campaign. Then-candidate Trump publicly asked the Russians in July 2016 to hack Clinton and find her "30,000 emails that are missing" from the personal email server she used while secretary of State. WikiLeaks began posting emails from the Clinton campaign in October, just weeks before the November election.

#21 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-02-15 08:29 AM
Hey, TonyRoma. Those bolded parts above are false. You should probably examine more closely the statements made by
Washington Monthly, "These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy".

The statement by the white house did not say that the purpose was to discuss Russian adoption, but it did say that that is what the primarily spoke of


Donald Trump Jr., July 8 statement: It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian childrenn that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up. I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.

You yourself know that the 2nd is a lie, you mention it yourself in your follow-up to the quote.
Left-wing sites that engage in dishonesty of this nature lead people to distrust all of the rest of the stuff they say. That's why people are asking to see actual evidence instead of a partisan version of events.

#31 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 10:38 AM | Reply

#30 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-15 10:23 AM
That interview was
May 2017

#32 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-15 10:43 AM | Reply

#32 TY, A. "On Date May 19, 2017". Right around the time Comey was fired and Mueller was appointed. Like I said, not sure how relevant comments made nine months ago are to the status of the investigation today.

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-15 10:47 AM | Reply

Trump himself ASKED the Russians to find and publish Hillary's missing emails (which again would have been stolen property, as were all the emails released during the campaign which were immediately and happily weaponized by Trump himself as daily cudgels to bludgeon Clinton with). #21 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2018-02-15 08:29 AM | FLAG:

To continue to use this as evidence of collusion is not even laughable, it's a complete joke. Did you even watch the debate when he said this?

#34 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-02-15 11:03 AM | Reply

#34 Sorry it was during a news conference.

#35 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-02-15 11:06 AM | Reply

I believe Trump said, "Russia, if you are listening" during a campaign rally.

#36 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-15 11:14 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

House Russia Investigation Has 'abundance' of Evidence Against Trump, Says Top Democrat

Great, let's see it.

#37 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-15 11:14 AM | Reply

"the panel had seen an "abundance" of evidence of collusion with Russia"

I'm surprised the House Republicans haven't destroyed it all yet, like they did the Abu Ghraib torture videos.
I was really hoping the one of the boy being raped would be released someday.
You know, to honor The troops.

#4 | Posted by snoofy

You sure aren't a rocket scientist. If the house has it, muller has it.

#38 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-15 11:16 AM | Reply

#36 He was using it to bust on the press who obviously had no desire to see those emails show up but was obsessed with Russia.

#39 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-02-15 11:17 AM | Reply

You don't have any credibility on this forum to begin with but I gave you a shot.

Sorry, you blew it. I don't give second chances. You're done!

#15 | Posted by Twinpac

You are right twin peaks......... on a far left blog a conservative doesn't stand a chance.

#40 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-15 11:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You are right twin peaks......... on a far left blog a conservative doesn't stand a chance.

Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-15 11:20 AM | Reply

That was offensive and uncalled for.

#41 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-15 11:21 AM | Reply

#29 When was that interview done? Link? Unless it was done recently, it's probably irrelevant now.

#30 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

It was done long after the BS paper was released that the dems and clinton funded.

#42 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-15 11:24 AM | Reply

Laura and Gal , head on over to the Buzzfeed thread for an education.

#43 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-02-15 12:59 PM | Reply

Fine.

Then present the evidence.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-15 01:51 PM | Reply

Then present the evidence.

#44 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

What part of "classified" do you not understand? I imagine some of this info is in the Democratic memo that POTUS refuses to declassify (like he did the Republican one).

#45 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-02-15 03:41 PM | Reply

With proper redactions and responsible de-classification, the meat of what Democrats are saying could easily be presented to the public. It certainly wouldn't read like a file on Frank Moses.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-15 04:08 PM | Reply

"With proper redactions and responsible de-classification, the meat of what Democrats are saying could easily be presented to the public."

You don't really know what they were saying nor what they were told to redact. The administration could have wanted them to redact all the pertinent facts.

#47 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-15 04:14 PM | Reply

Ultimately, congress doesn't have to get Executive approval to release the findings of a congressional investigation.

If they really have something better it come out sooner rather than later.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-15 04:16 PM | Reply

That was offensive and uncalled for.

#41 | Posted by LauraMohr

Just exactly is a twinpac? she has 2 of something and I don't think it is her head.

#49 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-15 04:26 PM | Reply

Wang Chung tonight?????

#28 | Posted by LauraMohr

No.

Sum Ting Wong

#50 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-15 05:42 PM | Reply

Just exactly is a twinpac? she has 2 of something and I don't think it is her head.

#49 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-15 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

She got the handle from a twinpac of toothpaste or toothbrushes I forget which.

#51 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-15 05:45 PM | Reply

"A wealthy friend of mine once gave me some great advice on how to deal with China and its growing economic power.

Learn Chinese.
#27 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY"

^
This might be the best piece of economic advice that's ever appeared on the DR.

Wi Tu Dum.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-15 05:46 PM | Reply

Fine.

Then present the evidence.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ

Great, let's see it.

#37 | Posted by Sniper

Look at you eager beavers! We will all see it soon enough.

It ain't over until the Fat Man sings.

By the way.. how is all that evidence coming along for Crooked Hillary? The email/ security breach portion has been going on since when? 2015?

Ready to locked her up yet?

#53 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-15 05:49 PM | Reply

Ultimately, congress doesn't have to get Executive approval to release the findings of a congressional investigation.
If they really have something better it come out sooner rather than later.

#48 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I understand that is true. I wonder which party is in control of making those decisions in Congress?

#54 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-02-15 07:41 PM | Reply

Ready to locked her up yet?

#53 | Posted by donnerboy

In due time donnie.

#55 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-16 11:00 AM | Reply

and when they finally charge the pervident with conspiracy to obstruct, conspire and money laundering, the DR trump worshippers will scream..."see, we told you, NO COLLUSION". i just hope they remember there are a lot of guns available out there. they should get one and go somewhere private and do the right thing

#56 | Posted by ABlock at 2018-02-16 12:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We will all see it soon enough. - #53 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-15 05:49 PM

The very same people who scream from the rooftops how much damage the Trump presidency has/is/will cause are ALSO the same folks who claim that it's just not soon enough to see any of the evidence that will actually put a stop to that damage.

#57 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-16 01:01 PM | Reply

The very same people who scream from the rooftops how much damage the Trump presidency has/is/will cause are ALSO the same folks who claim that it's just not soon enough to see any of the evidence that will could actually put a stop to that damage.

#58 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-16 01:04 PM | Reply

"The very same people who scream from the rooftops how much damage the Trump presidency has/is/will cause are ALSO the same folks who claim that it's just not soon enough to see any of the evidence that will actually put a stop to that damage."

Patience is a virtue which will probably reward us with charges which will stick and be prosecuted. I'm happy to wait as long as Mr. Mueller needs for him to thoroughly do his job.

#59 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-16 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

yet they indict 16 russians

#60 | Posted by scooter28054 at 2018-02-16 01:15 PM | Reply

#60

Lot more Russians in that woodpile, son.

#61 | Posted by Zed at 2018-02-16 04:22 PM | Reply

Patience is a virtue - #59 | Posted by Danni at 2018-02-16 01:05 PM
You going to say the same in gun control discussions post Florida shooting?

#62 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-02-17 10:55 AM | Reply

"You going to say the same in gun control discussions post Florida shooting?"

That's weak sauce, and you know it.

#63 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-17 10:58 AM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort