Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 12, 2019

"We were never going find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.

After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.

But investigators disagree along party lines when it comes to the implications of a pattern of contacts they have documented between Trump associates and Russians -- contacts that occurred before, during and after Russian intelligence operatives were seeking to help Donald Trump by leaking hacked Democratic emails and attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton, on social media.

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.

Anyone want a nothing burger?

#1 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-12 11:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the senate is owned by the nra, which is up to it's eyeballs in russia.

#2 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-02-12 11:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Anyone want a nothing burger?

#1 | Posted by boaz at 2019

Donald Trump is not an honest or good man.

So sure, I'll take two to start..

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2019-02-12 11:22 AM | Reply

At this point, I expect Mueller to find the same thing: Lots of innuendo and suspicious contacts and meetings but no direct evidence of conspiracy between the Campaign and Russia.

That will leave it up to the House to spend the next two years wasting all their time and money on Bengazi, The Sequel.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 11:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

the senate is owned by the nra, which is up to it's eyeballs in russia.

#2 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019

Major point here. As we deal with Trump we need to deal with everyone who has flacked for him because they are being paid off. That these people are also traitors explains a lot of what Donald has been allowed to get away with.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2019-02-12 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That will leave it up to the House to spend the next two years wasting all their time and money on Bengazi, The Sequel.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019

In the strange event we can't prove conspiracy, we're going to get Trump for money-laundering.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2019-02-12 11:29 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

#1 | Posted by boaz at 2019

I know, I know, I know. You didn't hire Trump to be honest or good.

Having to defend those truths over and over again must suck.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2019-02-12 11:32 AM | Reply

you have a both siderism problem, rightocenter.

there have already been multiple indictments, convictions, and jail time for "collusiongate"

and none of that for benghazi. dumb comparison!

#8 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-02-12 11:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Natasha Bertrand @NatashaBertrand

Senate Intelligence Committee aide tells me, re: NBC story, that right now there is "a common set of facts" that the panel is working with, "and a disagreement about what those facts mean."
They add: "We are closer to the end than the beginning, but we're not wrapping up."

Re: the headline, "Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia," same aide says: "the word 'direct' is doing a lot of work here."

#9 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-12 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The investigation was never meant to find anything.

Congrats boaz, you took it hook, line and sinker.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-12 11:55 AM | Reply

I think even Boaz understands that the Senate Investigation was bullsh from the start. He's just hoping people will read the headline, assume it is meaningful, and never bother to think critically about it. He should get a job at the Drudge Report.

#11 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-02-12 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


@#4 ... "the word 'direct' is doing a lot of work here." ...

Yup, that's why I make sure I included it in the headline I put on the summary. After reading the entire article, I thought the word "direct" was quite important.

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-02-12 12:19 PM | Reply

Joyce Alene @JoyceWhiteVance

A GOP-chaired Senate Committee is unable to clear Trump from conspiring with Russia. Saying there is "no direct evidence" is hardly a clean bill of health. Trump will spin it, but this report is bad news for him.

Prosecutors often make cases on circumstantial evidence. The absence of direct evidence, i.e. a witness who saw Trump make an agreement with Putin, hardly proves innocence. And a body of circumstantial evidence can and often does add up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

#13 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-12 12:22 PM | Reply

The Senate Intelligence Committee has been conducting the sole bipartisan inquiry, led by Burr and ranking Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia.

I would trust this inquiry over the cluster that happening in the house. That unending fiasco needs to end NOW. I guess Mueller will be soon issuing speeding tickets down Pennsylvania avenue. Seems he's investigating everything except collusion.

#14 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-12 12:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

I would trust this inquiry over the cluster that happening in the house. - #8 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-12 12:24 PM
As the posters above must have made abundantly clear to you, Boaz, there have only ever been 2 options for any investigation: Either it finds evidence of wrongdoing by Trump, or it is flawed in some way. Facts-be-damned. You know as well as I do that there was never going to be any acceptance by some people of any result other than the ignorant, preconceived notion that Trump and Russia colluded to steal the 2016 election.

#15 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-12 12:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

The real Senate investigation only started last month, you impatient dolt.

#16 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-12 12:51 PM | Reply

Same thing could be said this way as well:

"As the posters on the DR must have made abundantly clear to you, ____, there have only ever been 2 options for any investigation: Either it finds evidence of wrongdoing by Clinton, or it is flawed in some way. Facts-be-damned. You know as well as I do that there was never going to be any acceptance by some people of any result other than the ignorant, preconceived notion that Hillary Clinton intentionally hung our Ambassador and his security detail out to dry in Bengazi and then lied about it."

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 12:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#10

You must mean the House investigation, you impatient dolt.

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 12:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1


@#9 ... Facts-be-damned. ...

Including, apparently, a proper reflection of the article's content in the headline.

Dropping the word "direct" from the original headline was an interesting maneuver.

#19 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-02-12 01:30 PM | Reply

It is obvious that the Senators on the committee are in 'cahoots' with Russia - Impeach them all!~

#20 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-02-12 01:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The GOP "found" no direct evidence of a conspiracy you say?

Well I guess that settles it.

"Senate Intelligence Committee" Well now ain't that a yuge effing paradox?

These are the same ----- that passed the #taxscam.

#21 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-02-12 01:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is it possible to have an IQ in the negative numbers? If so,'the racist redneck known as Comrade Boazo is likely the first to achieve such a feat.

#22 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-02-12 01:42 PM | Reply

That will leave it up to the House to spend the next two years wasting all their time and money on Bengazi, The Sequel.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter

Yeah you can call it bengazi the sequel when trump testifies before a hostile congress under oath for 11 hours like hillary did.

Until then continue to play every republican's favorite game - pretending trump is no worse than obama or hillary.

And speaking of bengazi - it was an investigation to solve what happened to a few soldiers. Do you consider that to be comparable to investigating whether or not the president is a foreign agent?

If the deaths in bengazi deserved a 3 year investigation, what about the 4 soldiers that died in Niger under trump. Where's the investigation in to that?

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-12 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It is obvious that the Senators on the committee are in 'cahoots' with Russia - Impeach them all!~

#20 | Posted by MSgt

They all take NRA money, so you are correct.

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-12 02:12 PM | Reply

Yeah you can call it bengazi the sequel when trump testifies before a hostile congress under oath for 11 hours like hillary did.

Considering that Crazy Eyes Schiff just said that he wants Trump to testify for a whole week, I will get back to you.

#25 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 02:25 PM | Reply

what happened to a few soldiers.

I think you conveniently forgot about the death of Ambassador Stevens and that whole "blame the video" thingy that the Administration was forced to retract.

#26 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 02:26 PM | Reply

"that whole "blame the video" thingy that the Administration was forced to retract."

IIRC participants in the assault on the consulate were comprised of multiple groups, some of which were there due to that video "thingy." Others had a different agenda.

#27 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-02-12 02:32 PM | Reply

Considering that Crazy Eyes Schiff just said that he wants Trump to testify for a whole week, I will get back to you.

#25 | Posted by Rightocenter

The difference being that trump couldnt testify for 5 minutes without lying and the entire GOP knows it.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-12 02:32 PM | Reply

RoC deflects to Benghazi?

Hilarious.

#29 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-02-12 02:33 PM | Reply

OK, all right troglodytes....

Let's compare indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas between the Benghazi witch hunt and the Mueller/SDNY investigations. ....then get back to me.

Until then STFU.

#30 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-02-12 02:33 PM | Reply

If the deaths in bengazi deserved a 3 year investigation, what about the 4 soldiers that died in Niger under trump. Where's the investigation in to that?

The military investigates things like that, so you would have to ask them. No Ambassador died in Niger, unless you know more about it than I do.

Any time a US Ambassador dies overseas, the State Department automatically investigates it or refers it to Congress.

#31 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 02:34 PM | Reply

-Crazy Eyes Schiff

He reminds me of Marshall Applewhite:

brewsaderspodcast.com

#32 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-02-12 02:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

MFA, which doesn't read like the "no collusion" exoneration some are claiming it is:

The final Senate report may not reach a conclusion on whether the contacts added up to collusion or coordination with Russia, Burr said.

Democrats told NBC News that's a distinct possibility.

"What I'm telling you is that I'm going to present, as best we can, the facts to you and to the American people," Burr told CBS. "And you'll have to draw your own conclusion as to whether you think that, by whatever definition, that's collusion."

#33 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-12 02:37 PM | Reply

OK, all right troglodytes....

Let's compare indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas between the Benghazi witch hunt and the Mueller/SDNY investigations. ....then get back to me.

Until then STFU.

#34 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-02-12 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

31
I believe they determined that the SF team went where they were told not to, lied about it, and did so without the proper support. They panned all their tactics/security too.
The video is horrific, and critiquing from the cheap seats seems in poor taste, but that was a cluster ---- and it looked like they not only reacted poorly to the ambush, but it looked like it was every man for himself.

#35 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2019-02-12 02:43 PM | Reply

www.armytimes.com

#36 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2019-02-12 02:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 12:53 PM
We should give equally little weight to the thoughts and opinions of those who only accept outcomes that agree with their particular brand of partisanship regardless of that brand.

#37 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-12 02:46 PM | Reply

IIRC participants in the assault on the consulate were comprised of multiple groups, some of which were there due to that video "thingy." Others had a different agenda.

#27 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE AT 2019-02-12 02:32 PM

Uhhh, completely wrong, publicly Clinton said that it was due to the video, privately, she admitted that it was a single, premeditated attack that had nothing to do with the video:

About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

Sept. 12: Clinton delivers a speech at the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise the victims as "heroes." She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim video in similar language.

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear -- there is no justification for this, none.

Sept. 12: Jake Sullivan, Clinton's deputy chief of staff, sends an email prior to Obama's Rose Garden address to Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security advisor for strategic communications at the White House, and others that says, "There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.'"

Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack -- not a protest." An account of that call was contained in an email written by State Department Public Affairs Officer Lawrence Randolph. The email was released by the House Benghazi committee.

Factcheck.org: The Benghazi Timeline, Clinton Edition

#38 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 02:47 PM | Reply

"Let's compare indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas between the Benghazi witch hunt and the Mueller/SDNY investigations. ....then get back to me"

Can you list all of the indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas? Not because I doubt it...I'm just don't know how many there have been.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-12 02:49 PM | Reply

"I think you conveniently forgot about the death of Ambassador Stevens and that whole "blame the video" thingy that the Administration was forced to retract."

The truth turned out to be "blame the GOP for not fully funding State Dept. security requests."

I can see why no American would have expected that explanation at first.

Who would have thought the GOP would put an ambassador in harm's way just to score political points against Secretary Clinton?

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-12 02:49 PM | Reply

"Can you list all of the indictments, convictions, and guilty pleas? Not because I doubt it...I'm just don't know how many there have been."

No problem.

"Alexa, ask Siri to Google that for Eberly."

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-12 02:51 PM | Reply

Until then STFU.

#34 | Posted by aborted_monson

Aborted Monson,

You really need to STFU.

#42 | Posted by boaz at 2019-02-12 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The truth turned out to be "blame the GOP for not fully funding State Dept. security requests."

Laughably false, from the Democrats own statement on the release of the Benghazi report:

"Democrats did acknowledge, as had been previously determined, that "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate as a result of decisions made by officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and not as a result of inadequate funding." But their report concluded, "Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi."

#43 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 02:58 PM | Reply

Glad we're talking about what's really important - Benghazi. The truly pressing issue of the day.

If you losers aren't getting rubles for this, you're cheating yourselves.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-12 02:59 PM | Reply

RoC deflects to Benghazi?
Hilarious.

#29 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2019-02-12 02:33 PM | FLAG: EYE ROLL

I LOOOOOVE Benghazi too... the hearing were awesome... watching Hillary publicly spank on republicl*wn senators... one after another over and over and over... OMG and they stood in line to wait their turn for a slap... asking the same stupid questions and getting smacked...... funny stuff... took the wind right out of the tea-scrots sails. I still giggle thinking about it.

The repukes had 8 years and decided to focus on two things... repeal the ACA and Benghazi... 0 for 2

Sure lets talk about Benghazi you freaking masochists.

#45 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-02-12 03:01 PM | Reply

-Sure lets talk about Benghazi you freaking masochists.

Yeah, let's talk about Dick Cheney's shooting accident.

#46 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-02-12 03:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

Glad we're talking about what's really important - Benghazi. The truly pressing issue of the day.

Agreed, I first brought it up to acknowledge what a waste of time and money Benghazi was, then to show Avigdore that his statement criticizing blind partisans on the left applied equally to the blind partisans on the right.

Shreek got all offended and we were off to the races.

#47 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 03:03 PM | Reply

The repukes had 8 years and decided to focus on two things... repeal the ACA and Benghazi... 0 for 2 - #45 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-02-12 03:01 PM
Pretty sure they were focused on taking back control of the House, the Senate, & the Presidency.
Guess you were focused on the wrong things.

#48 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-02-12 03:06 PM | Reply

"that whole "blame the video" thingy that the Administration was forced to retract."
IIRC participants in the assault on the consulate were comprised of multiple groups, some of which were there due to that video "thingy." Others had a different agenda.
#27 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

You do remember correctly, as I'm am sure so does ROC, he's just conveniently ignoring that aspect for political expediency.

Shame on me, I expected more from him.

#49 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-02-12 03:06 PM | Reply

I recall an investigation finding Trump to have been a coconspirator.

#50 | Posted by Tor at 2019-02-12 03:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy"

This is comical. Of course these things are difficult to prove. That is why they often get away with it.

#51 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-12 03:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Agreed, I first brought it up to acknowledge what a waste of time and money Benghazi was, then to show Avigdore that his statement criticizing blind partisans on the left applied equally to the blind partisans on the right.

Shreek got all offended and we were off to the races.

#47 | Posted by Rightocenter

If we dig up your old posts about bengazi, what are we going to find?

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-12 03:31 PM | Reply

Pretty sure they were focused on taking back control of the House, the Senate, & the Presidency.
Guess you were focused on the wrong things.

#48 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE AT 2019-02-12 03:06 PM | REPLY | FLAG:PPPPFFFFFTTTTTT

He's leaving office in disgrace...which is way worse than losing office by electoral college...so suck it

#53 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-02-12 04:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If we dig up your old posts about bengazi, what are we going to find?

#52 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-02-12 03:31 PM

That I was a friend of Ambassador Stevens from Law School and that I always thought that the Benghazi investigation was a political hatchet job.

Anything else I can clear up?

#54 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 05:43 PM | Reply

You do remember correctly, as I'm am sure so does ROC, he's just conveniently ignoring that aspect for political expediency.
Shame on me, I expected more from him.

#49 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2019-02-12 03:06 PM

No he doesn't (and neither do you apparently), see #36.

#55 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 05:44 PM | Reply

Sorry, see #38

#56 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 05:45 PM | Reply

"the Benghazi investigation was a political hatchet job."

Including your quote in #43?

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-12 06:06 PM | Reply

#55

As was common during that time, there was more nuance to it than offered in that assessment. Numerous sources depicted the situation as HC described it. Which explains the other protests elsewhere that didnt get nearly the attention Benghazi got for obvious reasons.

Now, to the thread's topic:

Warner splits with Burr on collusion question

www.cnn.com

#58 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-02-12 06:54 PM | Reply

Jesus Christ, its 2019 and the sheep are still droning on about the GOP killing those men at Benghazi...

#59 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-12 07:08 PM | Reply

#57

That was an official quote from the Democratic response to the Benghazi report, which I only posted to refute your "GOP for not fully funding State Dept. security requests" statement.

Try to keep up.

the sheep are still droning on about the GOP killing those men at Benghazi...

LOL, this is a special kind of stupid.

#60 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 07:24 PM | Reply

#60 "Special kind of stupid" is an apt description, but I think you missed the bit where you are one of the sheep.

#61 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-12 07:37 PM | Reply

#61

Read #43 as many times as you need to realize that your "GOP killed those men at Benghazi" statement isn't even supported by the Democrats (or those pesky facts) themselves.

#62 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 07:53 PM | Reply

#62

We should start just calling you Debbie Double Downer!

You can lie to yourself all you want, but the republican congress is more responsible than Hillary Clinton. Every objective person comes to that conclusion.

Seriously, its now been 6 years but you're desperate to cling to anything that makes your side sound less evil.

#63 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-12 08:04 PM | Reply

"That was an official quote from the Democratic response to the Benghazi report"

Oh, so who does the Benghazi report blame?

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-12 08:55 PM | Reply

Every objective person comes to that conclusion.

Except for the people on both sides of the aisle who did the investigation. Those men and women all disagree with the talking points that you have been told to believe.

#65 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 09:02 PM | Reply

Numerous sources depicted the situation as HC described it.

Except for the official investigation, the opposition's response to it, and Hillary Clinton herself as set forth in #38.

#66 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 09:05 PM | Reply

who does the Benghazi report blame?

Both the official report and the Democrat response state that "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate as a result of decisions made by officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and not as a result of inadequate funding."

#67 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 09:08 PM | Reply

Regardless, the whole Benghazi mess was truly a senseless "witch" hunt (all puns intended) and a complete waste of time and resources. Sadly, we are about to see a redux of that whole fiasco.

#68 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-12 09:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

4 strikes. You're long passed OUT, Ted.

And you look like a fool blaming Hillary Clinton while also saying the investigation was a waste of resources. Arguing out of both your -------- now, I see.

You also look like a fool because you are one.

#69 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-12 11:14 PM | Reply

In a related news story:

A dog was sent to a butcher shop to pick up a couple pounds of ground beef.
The dog returned home with nothing. Apparently, the ground beef wasn't ready for pickup.

#70 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2019-02-13 04:13 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Warner splits with Burr on collusion question

www.cnn.com

#71 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-13 08:07 AM | Reply

And you look like a fool blaming Hillary Clinton while also saying the investigation was a waste of resources. Arguing out of both your -------- now, I see.

Looks like Vizzindy missed his Reading Comprehension Tutoring session again, nowhere in any post on this issue do I blame Hillary Clinton. In fact, when Snoofy directly asked "Oh, so who does the Benghazi report blame?" I respond, in #67:

"Both the official report and the Democrat response state that "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate as a result of decisions made by officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and not as a result of inadequate funding."

Now go in the corner and eat paste with Corky.

#72 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-13 12:53 PM | Reply

the whole Benghazi mess was truly a senseless "witch" hunt and a complete waste of time and resources. Sadly, we are about to see a redux of that whole fiasco.

Are you referring to the Mueller investigation?

#73 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-13 12:58 PM | Reply

Are you referring to the Mueller investigation?

#73 | POSTED BY JOE

I think he's referring to the impending Dem-lead House investigation.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-13 01:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ah, ok.

#75 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-13 01:48 PM | Reply

- eat paste with Corky.

I'm going to have to start paying my rent in his head with rubles like everyone else.

#76 | Posted by Corky at 2019-02-13 01:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#76 | POSTED BY CORKY

He's getting mixed up between blaming Hillary and not blaming Hillary. "Deflect to Corky" is his eject button.

#77 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-13 02:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

...says the GOP senate members of the committee, who refused to interview dozens of witnesses that the Dems on the committee wanted to call.
FTFY

#78 | Posted by e1g1 at 2019-02-13 03:17 PM | Reply

DemoKKKrats have nothing. Just like AOC's NGD, they are tilting at windmills.

#79 | Posted by sawdust at 2019-02-13 06:00 PM | Reply

they are tilting at windmills.

#79 | Posted by sawdust at 2019-02-13 06:00 PM | Reply

Do you support getting Trump's taxes? Stupid question? Yeah, I know. That's too much like wanting the truth about something. Gang members aren't into that sort of thing.

Anyway, we law-abiding citizens want them. Going to get them, too, but not before you and Donald utter one protracted pig squeal.

#80 | Posted by Zed at 2019-02-13 06:11 PM | Reply

DemoKKKrats have nothing. Just like AOC's NGD, they are tilting at windmills.

#79 | Posted by sawdust

You can spew ignorance or you can educate yourself. Up to you:

www.cnn.com

#81 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-13 06:20 PM | Reply

#81 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-02-13 06:20 PM | FLAG: One cannot get an education from CNN, nor MSNBC, which explains their minuscule viewership; but at least they have you : )

#82 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-02-13 08:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

CNN,silly boy...

#83 | Posted by sawdust at 2019-02-13 08:35 PM | Reply

"On the same day that Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) officially joined the Trump campaign as a senior national security advisor, the U.S. intelligence community released a statement that the Kremlin was trying to interfere in the election. But the Senator already knew those facts, and much more. Burr had been fully briefed in secret by the U.S. intelligence community a few weeks earlier. Senior U.S. officials told Burr that Russia's interference was designed to support Donald Trump's electoral chances. Burr decided to team up with the Trump campaign anyway, and hitch his own electoral fate in North Carolina to Trump's political fortunes."

www.justsecurity.org

#84 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-02-14 06:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I've operated under the premise that Trump didn't think he'd win and didn't particularly want to win - he wanted to use his candidacy to launch a media outlet and leverage his real estate investments.

If that was his intent why would he conspire with Moscow to try and throw the election?

He was trying to build a hotel in Russia and his candidacy helped that.

I have no doubt that he was (and still is) involved in sleazy and illegal business deals and these could well be his downfall.

I don't think he conspired with Putin to try and throw the election (Russian influence was at most minimal).

As it is, I think winning the election was the worst thing that could have happened to Trump. It put all of his sleazy business deals under a microscope which would not have happened had he lost.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 10:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If that was his intent why would he conspire with Moscow to try and throw the election?

I don't think he was. I think the Russians were doing it on their own, duping team donald in the process.

#86 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-02-14 10:11 AM | Reply

"I've operated under the premise that Trump didn't think he'd win and didn't particularly want to win - he wanted to use his candidacy to launch a media outlet and leverage his real estate investments.
If that was his intent why would he conspire with Moscow to try and throw the election? "

You've been operating under a comopletely false assumption. Of course he wanted to win. Of course Putin wanted him to win. He wouldn't have ran in the primaries if he didn't want to win.

#87 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-14 10:22 AM | Reply

I don't think he was. I think the Russians were doing it on their own, duping team donald in the process.

#86 | POSTED BY REDIAL

It would require a degree of sophistication and planning that I don't think Team Trump is capable of.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 10:23 AM | Reply

"One cannot get an education from CNN, nor MSNBC, which explains their minuscule viewership; but at least they have you : "

Not having attended the University of Fox News I can only stand in awe of your education. Hilarious. Do you people post that crap with a straight face or do you start laughing at yourself halfway through. Do your kids laugh at you too? Do you notice neighbors pointing and laughing when you go outside?

#89 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-14 10:25 AM | Reply

"DemoKKKrats have nothing. Just like AOC's NGD, they are tilting at windmills."

Do you wear and actual clown costume when you post?

#90 | Posted by danni at 2019-02-14 10:26 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Of course he wanted to win.

I really doubt that. He wanted exactly what Hillary got... win the popular vote for bragging rights, but not have to actually do the job.

#91 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-02-14 10:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It would require a degree of sophistication and planning that I don't think Team Trump is capable of.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ

No putin handles the planning. Trump is the stupid tool putin uses.

Tell me Jeff, if trump knew NOTHING about putin's efforts to help and influence him (highly unlikely), he merely trusted the wrong people, was taken advantage of by russian assets and grifters, what should the outcome of that be?

Do you think america should keep a president in power after he hired a bunch of russian assets into his campaign and the white house?

#92 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-14 11:11 AM | Reply

Those are excellent questions, Speaks.

I am hoping that Mueller sheds light on how deep the ties were/are.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 11:21 AM | Reply

I am hoping that Mueller sheds light on how deep the ties were/are.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ

Does that matter? What is the LEAST DEEP ties the president can have to enemy nations?

Either A: Trump colluded with putin
or B: Trump is so stupid that he surrounded himself with russian assets.

Which of these is deserving of keeping his job?

#94 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-14 11:39 AM | Reply

DemoKKKrats have nothing. Just like AOC's NGD, they are tilting at windmills.
#79 | Posted by sawdust
You can spew ignorance or you can educate yourself. Up to you:
www.cnn.com
#81 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-02-13 06:20 PM | FLAG:

#81 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-02-13 06:20 PM | FLAG: One cannot get an education from CNN, nor MSNBC, which explains their minuscule viewership; but at least they have you : )
#82 | POSTED BY MSGT

MSGT and Sawdust get their education directly from 4Chan memes and Breitbart.

#95 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-02-14 12:05 PM | Reply

Angry Staffer @AngrierWHStaff

There's nothing else to argue. There are really only two options left at this point:

1. Trump is the only innocent person in a coterie of criminals.

2. The President of the United States is a criminal.
9:00 AM - 14 Feb 2019

#96 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-02-14 12:18 PM | Reply

So...

If they did nothing illegal, why are they so desperate to shut down the investigation?

If they did nothing illegal, why have some many Trump aides and Trump himself lied about so much?

#97 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-02-14 12:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

CNN,silly boy...

#83 | Posted by sawdust

Yeah. CNN. The network trump tells you not to trust.

Just like he said he never paid stormy daniels, he had a secret plan for better cheaper healthcare, he wouldn't play golf as president, he had no business deals in russia... do you see the pattern here moron?

#98 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-14 12:59 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort