Remember when Donald Trump made that $500,000 speech in Russia? Oops, that was Bill Clinton.

Then Trump signed off on selling U.S. uranium resources to Russia? Silly me, that was Hillary Clinton.

But then after the uranium deal Trump got $145 million for his foundation. Wait, now I remember, the Clinton Foundation is the one that got the money from shareholders who sold their company to the Russian government.

Oh, but didn’t Trump forget to disclose that his foundation received millions more from Russian oligarchs for his foundation? Oh Lord, my memory is slipping. That was also the Clinton Foundation.

There's a Moscow connection, that's for sure. Just not Trump.

 

Shocking DOJ report links Trump campaign manager to ‘upper-echelon’ of Russian mobsters

PS I am not dealing with belligerent drunks spouting the same old stupid lies that have already been debunked dozens of times.

 

If police believe bank robbers were hoping for inside help on a heist, they don’t hold a press conference to smear the bank manager with their suspicions about “collusion.” They go about the quiet police work of building a conspiracy case. Unless and until they find concrete evidence and are ready to file formal charges, they keep their big mouths shut. Those rudimentary rules of the road are worth remembering when we consider the transparently political testimony of former Obama-administration CIA director John Brennan before the House intelligence committee.

Brennan’s story can be summed up as follows: The Russians are insidious, and they plot to manipulate Americans into helping them, wittingly or unwittingly. The Russians interfered with the American election by orchestrating the publication of unflattering information (mainly, Democrat e-mails), hoping either that Donald Trump would win, or that the likely winner, Hillary Clinton, would be badly damaged. While carrying out this plan, Russian operatives reached out to some people who were connected to the Trump campaign. Brennan supposes that the Russians must have attempted to “suborn” those people because . . . well . . . um . . . that’s “what the Russians try to do.” But he can’t say whether they actually did. More to the point, Brennan has no idea whether these suspected but unproved Russian entreaties actually worked.

When he left the government at the end of President Obama’s term, Brennan said, “I had unresolved questions in my mind as to whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting U.S. persons involved in the [Trump] campaign or not to work on their behalf. That’s a weasel’s way of saying he’s got nothing. Brennan, the hardest charger in Obama’s patently politicized intelligence community, spent goo-gobs of energy on this, throughout the closing months of the 2016 campaign. And he’s got nothing. The “Russian collusion” scandal is manufactured. Like all good subterfuge, it is premised on a kernel of truth: The Russian regime is always on the look-out for Americans willing to betray their country. Sometimes it works. So, when our security services detect such Russian outreach, of course they must investigate it. But the fact that the Kremlin wants to flip an American does not mean the American in question will play along. The fact that an American ends up speaking to a Russian operative — just as Democratic lawmakers and administration officials regularly speak to Russian operatives — does not mean the American is a traitor. To establish that an America is doing Russia’s bidding, you need to prove that the American is doing Russia’s bidding.

Brennan apparently can’t even prove that Russia beseeched Trump associates to do anything related to influencing the election outcome, much less that any particular Trump associate agreed to do anything, and less still that anything was actually done. Thus is “Collusion with Russia” a scandal built on feints. The Democrats’ entire case relies on two things: 1) malevolent Russian intentions, and 2) our mercurial president’s overreaction to being placed under a cloud of suspicion in the absence of evidence. After all this time and effort, Democrats are unable to show that Trump and his minions did anything wrong.

 

TwoCards it takes a drunken fool to copy and paste something from the National Review and pretend you wrote it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ans-testimony-how-fight-politicized-narrative

 

@Jdbfromnj

Your obvious lie is highlighted below.

Tens of millions more people are watching the news than WWE. And just because they are not watching it on cable does not mean they are not interested in the Trump/Russian story. You are just obviously lying about that.

 

@shootersa

According to who, @shootersa? And what evidence is there of the allegations in the Fox Story? You can answer those two simple questions can't you?

 

Stumbler wrote: "On all of cable, Maddow only trailed WWE on USA"

 

When He Moves On Way Before You Do

 

One of the most dramatic developments is after Trump's attacks on his loyal lap dog AG Jeff Sessions trying to make him quit the Republicans in congress have turned against him and are threatening Trump not to try and fire Sessions and taking steps to make sure Trump can't fire Sessions and make a recess appointment with someone who will fire Robert Muller.

 

You guys have to do a huddle or something and make up your minds. Put your heads together. Get your stories straight.

 

Not that they ever would of course but if anyone did actually want to know what laws Donald Trump violated. What laws Jared Kushner may have violated. And what laws Paul Manafort may have violated when they met with the Russian attorney. And all the subtle differences that apply. That information is available right here.

https://forum.xnxx.com/threads/shooter-stands-corrected.477173/

 

It means most people read their news; I don't know what you're smoking

 

And do you know what one of the things that keeps coming up over and over and over again? Connections to Russian money laundering. Going back decades and continuing right now.

And it was just one of his stupid lies anyway. ABC, NBC, and CBS News all have about 10 million viewers per night and that doesn't count all the internet and print news.

 

So are you going to change your view now that someone testified that she was, in fact, there about sanctions?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-j...about-sanctions-financier-tells-senate-panel/


My guess is no

 

It's like he forgot that he was using the Internet, a handy tool where any information you could want is at your fingertips. Something tells me he doesn't do much research.

 

Actually Jdbfromnj claims so many things he can never keep his stories straight. And that's when he not deliberately lying.

 

Why does Glenn Simpson's name keep popping up when this is being discusssed?

 

Why does Russian money laundering keep coming up in every aspect of the Trump/Russian investigations?