Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 23, 2019

WAPO Editorial Board: Sen. Lindsey O. Graham, one of President Trump's most ardent defenders in the Ukraine affair, has said he sees no evidence of wrongdoing in the president's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky ... But Mr. Graham did say the other day that "if you could show me that, you know, Trump was actually engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing." We think we can help the South Carolina Republican.

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.

JEFFJ, there's a call for you on the white courtesy phone in the lobby. Again, JEFFJ, there is a call for you on the white courtesy phone in the lobby.

Thank you.

#1 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-23 01:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Beach, I only answer the red phone.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-23 01:30 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Beach, I only answer the red phone.
#2 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Damn...figures.

#3 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-23 01:43 AM | Reply

The first orange POTUS and the most likely to go to prison.

Lock him up!

#4 | Posted by bored at 2019-10-23 01:43 AM | Reply

RSTY

You reminded me of back when I was in my early 20's playing with this star in Vegas and we duped the hotel operator, calling from a booth in the restaurant and requested her to "please page Mr. Rotch, first name Mike" and "Mr Jablomi, first name Haywood," etc. We got away with three or four before they caught on.

#5 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-23 02:09 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#2 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Jeff, I gave you a funny flag because that made me chuckle, but this is where you need to take a side. You keep saying when there is evidence you will make a decision, how much more do you need?

#6 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-10-23 09:46 AM | Reply

#6
As if...

#7 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-10-23 09:54 AM | Reply

... But Mr. Graham did say the other day that "if you could show me that, you know, Trump was actually engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing." ...

Sen Graham is usually not one for self-induced errors.

I wonder if his statement was a way to give him cover as he changes his viewpoint in the [near?] future?

#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-23 09:55 AM | Reply

Or maybe Jeff is Graham, hmmm. I mean he went from never Trump to whatever this is... LMAO

#9 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-10-23 09:58 AM | Reply

but this is where you need to take a side. You keep saying when there is evidence you will make a decision, how much more do you need?

#6 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

Patience, grasshopper.

I haven't had an opportunity to dig into this yet.

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

Advertisement

Advertisement

Wow, a Washington Post editorial proving it! Case cracker! I guess that means the Dems will have a vote so the American people can watch the trials instead of hearing about the Dem's closed doors questioning and then sending cherry picked testimony to the Washington Post. Maybe because they won't their is a problem with their story?

#11 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-10-23 10:12 AM | Reply

#10
It has been quite a while since this news broke. You and our other righties have had plenty of time since yesterday afternoon to read accounts of the blatantly illegal quid pro quo.

Waiting for the official talking points is liikely to be kind of useless. They will be 'Attack the process. ignore the news'. Thats all Republicans have been left with.

#12 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-10-23 10:13 AM | Reply

I guess that means the Dems will have a vote so the American people can watch the trials

#11 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-10-23 10:12 AM | Reply

Golly, gee. You're right. Can't wait.

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-23 10:27 AM | Reply

#13 Glad you agree, why won't they have it?

#14 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-10-23 10:29 AM | Reply

I guess that means the Dems will have a vote so the American people can watch the trials

#11 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-10-23 10:12 AM | Reply

In a formal trial in the Senate, does anyone get to ignore a Congressional subpoena? Because, you know, there are a lot of people I'd like to hear from. On the record; under oath.

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-23 10:29 AM | Reply

You do realize, Fish, that those hearings have all the Republicans - until they get up and leave, anyway, present? That this isn't a trial, but a hearing to gather evidence, like a Grand Jury? That so far there's no leaking, or nothing significantly leaking out? The reason it's closed door is, like any Grand Jury, witnesses don't hear what others are saying and make their testimony conform to it? That there is no leaking going on, no testimony being leaked?

Once this is done a vote will be taken in the House on Impeachment. If the vote is "Aye" then it goes to the Senate for TRIAL.

How can you be on this site and not know the basics of Impeachment?

#16 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-23 10:33 AM | Reply

#13 Glad you agree, why won't they have it?

#14 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

I am sure they will once they are ready to send this to the Senate. Yesterday's testimony was explosive and there are several more to hear from before the Dems hand this over to the Republicans to sweep under the mat. We will all be shown that Trump is a criminal and that the Republicans are complicit by the time this is over. If Obama had done a quarter of what we now know Trump did the GOP would have run him out of town.

#17 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-10-23 10:34 AM | Reply

Idaho,

I would very much like to read this op-ed but it's hiding behind a pay-wall.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-23 10:35 AM | Reply

@#11 ... hearing about the Dem's closed doors questioning ...

Maybe the question you should be asking is why the Republicans decide to leave the hearings, instead of staying, participating and hearing the testimony?

#19 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-10-23 10:39 AM | Reply

I haven't had an opportunity to dig into this yet.

#10 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No offense but nobody (few?) believe your opinion will change.

If you're still on the fence after everything that we know has been revealed it's because you're stuck on the post and need to be surgically removed.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-23 10:47 AM | Reply

Jeff,
it's one case after another of Trump Admin saying "We need this, or else" and Ukraine saying "OK," only to have the WH come back and say "When is the date you're going to publicly announce the investigation into 2016 and the Biden's? Until then, you get nothing."

from the WaPo summary after all the cases like the one example above are documented:

The Ukrainians eventually told Mr. Volker that they did not want to promise investigations of Mr. Biden and the Democrats. The statement, Mr. Volker said, "was shelved." And Mr. Zelensky never got his White House meeting. U.S. military aid, which Mr. Trump had ordered held up on July 18, was released on Sept. 11 " only after the corrupt quid pro quo was becoming public. By that date, House Democrats had announced that they would investigate whether the aid had been blocked to force Ukraine to assist Mr. Trump's reelection campaign.

Sept 11 is 2 days after the Whistleblower came forward. It appears the WB and resulting pressure was the only reason Ukraine got any aid at all.

#21 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-23 10:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I haven't had an opportunity to dig into this yet.

#10 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Turn on the nightly news. Oh wait, they report things you purposely do not want to know about.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-23 11:00 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#13 Glad you agree, why won't they have it?

#14 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

They are still investigating. Any RESPONSIBLE PERSON would gather the facts before making a decision.

I know you want them to vote BEFORE they get all the facts, so that conservatives can plead ignorance (they are VERY good at that) when they vote against it. Which is why Pelosi has not put it up for a vote yet. Let the committees get as much as they can without voting (and it looks like they are getting A LOT, even though the White House has ordered EVERYONE not to cooperate), then take that evidence to the full house so it can pass a resolution for an "impeachment inquiry" with the weight of the full house behind it. Then you can pull in all the obstructionists who refuse to testify under the committees' subpoena power and get their testimony under oath. Once you have gathered ALL the evidence, you vote on impeachment and move to the "trial" in the Senate.

Your requested vote is coming. But, like a typical conservative, you are ready to shoot your load too early and leave everyone else disappointed. Be patient, try to restrain yourself. The journey is important too. If you relax a little bit, restrain your impulses, and don't focus solely on getting to the end as fast as possible, then you might actually find the journey illuminating and gratifying, as well finding the ultimate ending a lot more fulfilling.

#23 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-23 11:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If the ------------ were smart they would use this situation for their benefit by getting control of him when he is feeling vulnerable. They could promise to keep him out of jail for one more year and use that time to attempt repairs to their image. But he would be reined in. Or, it would be better politically for them to dump trump now.

#24 | Posted by grumpy_too at 2019-10-23 11:05 AM | Reply

If the ------------ were smart they would use this situation for their benefit by getting control of him when he is feeling vulnerable.

#24 | POSTED BY GRUMPY_TOO

I think they are past that point. He is going to be impeached. The only question is how long it will take. More and more stuff is going to come out as the dems one by one depose everyone (first just the people that do it "voluntarily", but at some point the whole house is going to vote for the inquiry and the "hostile" ones won't be able to hide behind executive privilege and will have to appear under oath as well).

The more Republicans tie themselves to Trump, the more they will be tied to him once everything else comes out. They have no good options. The first ones to break with Trump will be DESTROYED (politically) by the Trump base. But, the longer they take to break with him, the more they lose everyone else. They need to tee up some sacrificial lambs (probably representatives who are retiring) to open the floodgates, and then hope that they can go with the crowd and get ignored in the flurry.

#25 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-23 11:32 AM | Reply

Contradicting Trump, Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze Before It Became Public

Following testimony by William B. Taylor Jr., the top United States diplomat in Ukraine, to House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the freezing of the aid was directly linked to Mr. Trump's demand for the investigations, the president took to Twitter on Wednesday morning to approvingly quote a Republican member of Congress saying neither Mr. Taylor nor any other witness had "provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld."

But in fact, word of the aid freeze had gotten to high-level Ukrainian officials by the first week in August, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.

The problem was not a bureaucratic glitch, the Ukrainians were told then. To address it, they were advised, they should reach out to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the interviews and records.

Well, there goes another false defense that Trump and the Republicans were trying to sell his gullible base.

Wonder what new lie will be next?

#26 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-10-23 11:47 AM | Reply

Arguing about "quid pro quo" plays right into Trump's hands. His game is to come up with a word or phrase to encapsulate a months or years-long scandal and then have his TV lawyers parse it to death and pretend that if you don't meet this amorphous standard, he hasn't done anything wrong (No collusion! No quid pro quo!). I hope the media has learned this but it doesn't look like they have.

Facts are: Trump and his shadow Ukraine team dangled a White House meeting and hundreds of millions in Congressionally-appropriated aid to Ukraine in exchange for headlines that Trump's primary political rival and his son were under investigation, headlines which Trump would then useas a vehicle to better his electoral prospects.

Call that whatever the ---- you want. It's not right.

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-23 11:52 AM | Reply

You know yesterday was a bruising day for righties when the noise machine is arguing about being bipartisan, moral and thinking about whether something will hurt the country in regards to impeachment.

They're no longer defending or deflecting, they're trying to shift blame for negative fallout to the Dems.

Because, you know, the problem isn't the corruption and criminal behavior of Trump, it's the Dems daring to call him on it and hold him accountable.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-23 11:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

That so far there's no leaking, or nothing significantly leaking out? How can you be on this site and not know the basics of Impeachment?

#16 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2019-10-23 10:33 AM | FLAG:

What??? Everyday the Washington Post has a cherry picked review from Schiff of the days testimonies!

#29 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-10-23 12:15 PM | Reply

Do you have a subscription to the WaPo?
I'd like some examples, please.
Thank you.

#30 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-23 12:20 PM | Reply

"I guess that means the Dems will have a vote "

Yup. When they are ready. Not a moment sooner. And not in your time frame. Not when it is convenient for Republicans. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IN CHARGE OF THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE.

Thank the Gawds!

Patience Grasshopper.

You will have to be patient to get what you have wanted all along.

But you will get what you wanted and more! And you will finally get what Humpy has been asking for since day one of his term. A wrecked legacy. Hell. He was asking for impeachment BEFORE he was even elected.

"Russia, if you are listening..."

What an F -ing Joke of a human being this guy turned out to be. Just like we were afraid of from the very start. And now. He will get exactly what he deserves.

It's Impeachment from here on out bro!

Congrats!!!!

You built that.

ps
Isn't it a shame you could not wreck Obama's legacy this way?

#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-10-23 12:37 PM | Reply

Yep, and they also had 'proof' of Russian collusion, did they not?

#32 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-10-23 01:19 PM | Reply

Yep, and they also had 'proof' of Russian collusion, did they not?

#32 | Posted by MSgt

The only people how make comments this stupid are people who rely on others to tell them what to think.

There was loads of evidence of contact and communication between the Trump campaign and transition committees. What was lacking was hard evidence of a conspiracy, but as we know from the Ukraine business that evidence may very well exist on the super encrypted server thing.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-23 01:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yep, and they also had 'proof' of Russian collusion, did they not?

#32 | Posted by MSgt

They had evidence of russian collusion, despite trump and his puppet government doing all they could to hide that evidence, even if required breaking the law and committing obstruction of justice.

I'd love to hear your theory on how rex tillerson ended up as our secretary of state, if he wasn't chosen by putin.

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-23 01:27 PM | Reply

I'd love to hear your theory on how rex tillerson ended up as our secretary of state, if he wasn't chosen by putin.

#34 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-10-23 01:27 PM | FLAG: I'm sorry, did not realize that you were a conspiracy theorist : )

#35 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-10-23 01:35 PM | Reply

I'd love to hear your theory on how rex tillerson ended up as our secretary of state, if he wasn't chosen by putin.

#34 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-10-23 01:27 PM | FLAG: I'm sorry, did not realize that you were a conspiracy theorist : )

#35 | Posted by MSgt

Yeah tell me more about how the deep state is out to get trump.

At this point, you need to be a conspiracy theorist to NOT think trump is working for putin. All the evidence says he is.

Again - exxon and putin had a $500 billion dollar oil deal that got put on hold because of the sanctions. Then trump wins and JUST HAPPENS to pick the head of exxon to be in charge of our foreign policy? Trump had never met rex tillerson, and rex tillerson had no relevant experience. Then trump immediately starts trying to lift sanctions on russia and only a bipartisan bill from congress can stop him. I'd love to hear your explanation for these events that don't involve putin choosing rex for trump.

#36 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-23 01:43 PM | Reply

Idaho,
I would very much like to read this op-ed but it's hiding behind a pay-wall.

#18 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-10-23 10:35 AM | REPLY

Pro tip: Open the article in Incognito Mode. I know papers hate it but it gets around the paywall.

#37 | Posted by bartimus at 2019-10-23 02:07 PM | Reply

Trump had never met rex tillerson, and rex tillerson had no relevant experience.

#36 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You didn't know? "No relevant experience" only matters when it is a Democrat's child getting a position at a foreign company. And it means that they HAD TO have done "very bad things".

If you are a Republican, then having "no relevant experience" is EXPECTED if you want to run a department in our government.

#38 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-23 02:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If Obama had done a quarter of what we now know Trump did the GOP would have run him out of town.

#17 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2019-10-23 10:34 AM | FLAG:

Wait till the Barr report comes out.

#39 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-10-23 04:03 PM | Reply

They are still investigating. Any RESPONSIBLE PERSON would gather the facts before making a decision.
I know you want them to vote BEFORE they get all the facts, so that conservatives can plead ignorance (they are VERY good at that) when they vote against it. Which is why Pelosi has not put it up for a vote yet. Let the committees get as much as they can without voting (and it looks like they are getting A LOT,

#23 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-10-23 11:00 AM | FLAG: |

They have been investigating for three years. Dems have been trying to create an impeachable offence and in addition because of re-elections in Trump won states I don't think you have the votes in Congress, Dems in congress in these districts like all Dems don't have the b_lls to actually vote to impeach. And if they are getting such damning evidence out of these closed door committees why don't they make them public? I mean the whole point of this is to get rid of Trump right? If all this evidence is obvious why not let the public see it? If you are so right he wouldn't get elected or the public would want him impeached.

#40 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-10-23 04:14 PM | Reply

They have been investigating for three years.

Uhh... this call happened three MONTHS ago. And it only became public about a month ago. You seem to be confused.

I mean the whole point of this is to get rid of Trump right? If all this evidence is obvious why not let the public see it? If you are so right he wouldn't get elected or the public would want him impeached.

#40 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

As a conservative, I see why your are confused. If Republicans were running this, you would be correct. It would be all about embarrassing their political opponents. See Benghazi.

But, liberals actually care about their constitutional responsibility to oversight and the checks and balances between the branches. So this is more about investigating abuses of power. If you don't investigate, then you set the precedent that this sort of behavior is acceptable.

If you were to ask Pelosi and get an honest answer, she would probably say that she would prefer that this not happen. We are a year out from the election. The whole process is likely to take that long. At this point, there is very little benefit to impeaching and removing Trump (possibly remove him a couple months early?), but there is a lot of risk (electoral backlash and Trump gets re-elected). It would have been much better for Democrats if he HADN'T abused his position so that they were forced to take up impeachment. But wishing for conservatives not to be corrupt is like wishing for the sky not to be blue.

Now, the cat is out of the bag, and we have to play the cards we are dealt. That means following through on impeachment. Because it is the right thing to do for the future of our country.

#41 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-23 04:30 PM | Reply

Wait till the Barr report comes out.

#39 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

I can't wait to see the spin in that report.

Or in the idiots (see Fishpaw) trying to make it more than it turns out to be.

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-23 04:32 PM | Reply

#42 | POSTED BY JPW

NOTHINGBURGER!!!!!1!

Conservatives... am I doing this right?

#43 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-23 04:47 PM | Reply

Wait till the Barr report comes out.

#39 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Will it be like the hillary email investigation that just concluded that she didn't do anything wrong?

After YEARS of saying she was doing something wrong, even TRUMP'S cops couldn't pin anything on her. Did they tell yall about that on fox news this week or just hope you didn't hear about it?

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-23 05:30 PM | Reply

2 posts since I asked for evidence of your claim, Fishpaw.
I'll accept your non-response as proof you have no evidence and were talking out your a**.
I'm not blaming you for not actually knowing. I suspect you're heard that on Right-wing "news" or media.
I hope you've learned something.
At least my fingers are crossed for that.

#45 | Posted by YAV at 2019-10-23 07:14 PM | Reply

#34 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-10-23 01:27 PM | FLAG: I'm sorry, did not realize that you were a conspiracy theorist : )

#35 | POSTED BY MSGT AT 2019-10-23 01:35 PM

Weren't you just commenting on the "deep state" a day or so ago?

Plus you support a guy that promised investigations into 9/11 and vaccinations. Distance yourself if I'm wrong.

#46 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-10-23 08:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Trump's acting ambassador to Ukraine blew apart the president's 'no quid pro quo' impeachment defense, leaving Republicans to clutch at straws to defend him
www.businessinsider.com

#47 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-23 11:14 PM | Reply

Patience, grasshopper.

I haven't had an opportunity to dig into this yet.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ

The phone call happened 3 months ago. The transcript has been out there for a month. Not only did the transcript alone provide evidence of Trump's crimes, but Bill Taylor's opening remarks evidence Trump withholding $400,000,000 in much needed military aid for the Ukraine - that was already appropriated by Congress and would have expired September 30th - in an extortion attempt to benefit his own reelection.

We have the same information at our fingertips you have. This is not a he said/she said scandal about a blowgob, it's a black & white case of presidential abuse of power.

What are you waiting for?

#48 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-10-24 03:19 AM | Reply

I only answer the red phone.

#2 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Of course you do.. comrade.

#49 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-10-24 12:01 PM | Reply

Sen.Ben Sasse(R-Neb.) said there was "terrible stuff" in the transcript of the call and warned, "We shouldn't be having any American officeholder or any American candidate looking for foreign nations to come in and be involved in U.S. elections."
thehill.com

#50 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-24 04:41 PM | Reply

Both the white and red courtesy phones are ringing, JEFFJ.

Do you have the courage to answer either of them?

#51 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-24 04:42 PM | Reply

Jeff is hiding on his patio with the smokers... I dont think the phones are ringing because he left them off the hook. ^_^

#52 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-10-24 05:06 PM | Reply

Jeff is hiding on his patio with the smokers... I dont think the phones are ringing because he left them off the hook. ^_^

POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2019-10-24 05:06 PM | REPLY

Jeff's an intellectually dishonest partisan hack job. He went over the deep in long ago.

#53 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-10-24 05:11 PM | Reply

Idaho,

You're not far off the mark. I'm beginning dinner prep right now and I'll be cooking the steaks, potatoes and carrots on the big Weber kettle with 2 of my smokers nearby to keep me company.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-24 05:34 PM | Reply

The mushrooms too.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-24 05:35 PM | Reply

#54 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Enjoy your dinner. I am not on much Friday through Sunday but will peek in here and there. I hope by Monday you are able to pull the fence splinters out of your behind and decide where you will draw the line with Trump. You have been beyond lenient with his behavior and I honestly believe if it had been Hillary you would have been firmly for impeachment by now.

#56 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2019-10-24 05:49 PM | Reply

Idaho,

Part of the reason I'm not opining is just to be annoying.

BTW - these splinters are kind of painful.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-24 06:33 PM | Reply

Part of the reason I'm not opining is just to be annoying.
#57 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That's telling. Until you tell me otherwise, I'll take that as you taking these accounts into consideration and finally leaning over the fence towards the impeachment being justifiable.

#58 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-25 12:15 PM | Reply

Beach,

I think what we know about the Taylor testimony and what Mulvaney had to say was pretty damning.

Do you want to know why I'm so cautious about jumping over the fence?

The IRS targeting of conservative 503 groups thing.

I was convinced that it was deliberate and those groups were targeted for their political views.

The result of the investigation? Incompetence. That's what it was. Incompetence. It wasn't a scheme launched by the Democratic Party.

So, I had egg on my face on that. Then, I watched most of the left jump on the collusion bandwagon all frothing at their collective mouths. Every day, a new bombshell and the walls were closing in, Mueller was going to deliver the goods....Then, the report is released and Volume I, which addressed collusion, ends up being a dud.

With Schiff doing everything behind closed doors and with his long history of deceptively leaking to the press, yeah, I'm going to cautious route with this. Same for the investigation of the investigators. We are STILL waiting on the release of the IG report. We do know that Durham has opened a full-blown criminal investigation, which is serious in and of itself, but until we have something concrete and official, I'm keeping my powder dry.

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-25 01:22 PM | Reply

We do know that Durham has opened a full-blown criminal investigation, which is serious in and of itself, but until we have something concrete and official, I'm keeping my powder dry.
#59 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

If this was a court of law and you were on the jury, what sort of concrete proof would you now be requiring because of your previous experience having egg on your face for not sitting on the fence?

#60 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-25 01:34 PM | Reply

From the Durham investigation?

I'd need to see the communication between the key players - Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Halper, Mifsud, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Steele, et al.

I'd need to see the FISA warrants authorizing the government to spy on Carter Page, which supposedly the Horowitz IG report addresses.

That's where it would have to start.

Honestly, I think it's highly unlikely that this was a coordinated effort at a coup. I do think it's likely that some corners were cut by certain individuals out of bias, but some big grand conspiracy???

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-25 02:00 PM | Reply

I'd need to see the FISA warrants authorizing the government to spy on Carter Page

Trump declassified these months ago.

#62 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-25 02:07 PM | Reply

Trump declassified these months ago.

#62 | POSTED BY JOE

It's not just the applications themselves - how were they presented to the FISA judge(s), etc.

That it what we are supposed to learn from the IG report, among other things.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-25 02:13 PM | Reply

What?

The applications are what was presented to the judge.

Are you looking for videotaped courtroom proceedings?

What will make you stop following this dumb road?

#64 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-25 03:20 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