Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

[zinfamous]

And why did trump keep Pence out of the loop? Trump doesn't trust Pence enough to let him know he's saying wrong info about Flynn on national tv. There's definitely something fishy here.

unfortunately, it makes me think that this would keep Pence un-compromised, and so available to step into the seat if needed. Which would well, maybe, be worse than Trump.

 

[zinfamous]

So all you have is "appearances" of possible issues but zero facts. Got it.

at this point, I think you just aren't reading.

 

[jtvang125]

You know damn well if Hillary was President and this sort of thing happened there would be at least two active Congressional investigations pending right now, with active hearings going on now, all kinds of GOP calls for an independent prosecutor, etc. Heck they would probably already have the bills of impeachment drafted and ready to go.

Instead we have GOP committee heads dragging their heels, basically saying maybe we will start an investigation once the FBI is done (they never waited before) and not even scheduling a show hearing to get Flynn's testimony.

Doesn't the double standard and total hypocrisy bother you, or are you so concerned about partisanship that loyalty to the USA and its democratic institutions mean nothing?

They aren't just dragging their heels. They're outright refusing to. Sen. Rand Paul straight out said, "It makes no sense" for Republicans to investigate Republicans. How about that? Party before country.

 

[zinfamous]

The real question here is how any rational person can assume wrongdoing without having having definitive proof beyond mere appearance and speculation by partisans such as yourself.

so, in your mind, no need for an investigation, right?

But Hillary's EMAILS!!! waaaaahhhh!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

at this point, I think you just aren't reading.

I'm reading and I don't have a problem with an investigation. My issue is with those here who are all lathered-up acting as if a crime has been committed when they have zero proof.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

so, in your mind, no need for an investigation, right?

But Hillary's EMAILS!!! waaaaahhhh!

As I said above, I'm OK with an investigation. Were you OK with investigations of Hillary's email and Benghazi...or were those somehow fundamentally different?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I reading and I don't have a problem with an investigation. My issue is with those here who are all lathered-up acting as if a crime has been committed when they have zero proof.

Honest question. Did Hillary commit a crime with her emails?

 

[emperus]

The real question here is how any rational person can assume wrongdoing without having having definitive proof beyond mere appearance and speculation by partisans such as yourself.

Do you actually believe this? The NSA, Justice Department, FBI, and Republicans in Congress are all partisans now? You surely belong in Trump world. Honestly, I think there has been enough circumstantial evidence to trouble any RATIONAL person. The fact that because either partisanship or an internalization of your voted for Trump that you aren't troubled by this should worry you.

 

[zinfamous]

As I said above, I'm OK with an investigation. Were you OK with investigations of Hillary's email and Benghazi...or were those somehow fundamentally different?

Bengazi, fundamentally different: absolutely yes. emails, not so different, but very different. I'll let you digest the difference there.

But further, an investigation was not enough for you and your ilk with emails, or Bengazi. We needed dozens of investigations. If the investigation didn't find what you wanted it to find, then it must have been faulty, and we needed yet more investigations until we found evidence for those things that we so purely believed! I guarantee that you will not give the same deference to an investigation of your dear leader.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

As I said above, I'm OK with an investigation. Were you OK with investigations of Hillary's email and Benghazi...or were those somehow fundamentally different?

Doc you're a strong party guy and I respect that to a certain extent.
Just say you agree that there should be a competent non partisan or private individual to investigate and results should be timely and published to clear the fog.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Honest question. Did Hillary commit a crime with her emails?

Honest answer. I personally believe she did commit a crime...she was grossly negligent in my opinion which is a crime under the law. The legality here revolved around the actual degree of negligence...which is highly subjective.

 

[JSt0rm]

As I said above, I'm OK with an investigation. Were you OK with investigations of Hillary's email and Benghazi...or were those somehow fundamentally different?

buahahahaha. 10 investigations into benghazi made it dumb. Not 1.

 

[woolfe9998]

Man the right is so predictable. The only thing I've seen from the GOP etc... this morning is the issue is not the shitty things they've done. It's that you know they did it.

They better start another Hillary investigation quick.

Yes, and the irony is that when people complained about how Clinton's campaign was hacked, many republicans were saying we shouldn't focus on the illegal means by which the information was obtained, but on the information itself. They said it was important that we learned the "truth." Now that the "truth" is potentially bad for Trump, the only thing that matters is how we know about it.

No matter. Almost every day more information is coming to light about Trump's relationship with Russia. The GOP can't stop it from coming out. When it reaches a certain critical mass, they'll have no choice but to properly investigate. If they do not, they'd better hope the dems don't take control of either house of Congress in the mid terms, because at that point, it'll all be over and they will be seen as having obstructed attempts to investigate it.

 

[vi edit]

Bengazi, fundamentally different: absolutely yes. emails, not so different, but very different. I'll let you digest the difference there.

But further, an investigation was not enough for you and your ilk with emails, or Bengazi. We needed dozens of investigations. If the investigation didn't find what you wanted it to find, then it must have been faulty, and we needed yet more investigations until we found evidence for those things that we so purely believed! I guarantee that you will not give the same deference to an investigation of your dear leader.

Pretty much how I feel. Investigations are necessary in any job. It's how we learn of mistakes and correct things. The Hillary stuff went beyond investigations and was a witch hunt where they were never satisfied with the outcome and just kept flinging stuff at the wall to see if would stick. The "Letter" a week out from the election was icing on the cake that it went far beyond any normal investigation and was nothing more than a partisan spear being hurled. And don't get me started on Chaffetz who's all but crawled under a rock amidst all of this.

 

[woolfe9998]

I agree, we don't know anything about the substance of those conversations and saying treason was committed is a huge jump.

Considering the amount of inappropriate and potentially illegal things going on between Trump's team and Russia though I think an independent, nonpartisan investigation is definitely warranted either through Congress establishing a committee to look at this or the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Yes, this exactly. No reason to jump the gun with allegations of treason. We just need a full and complete investigation. There is way beyond sufficient reason to investigate at this point.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Honest answer. I personally believe she did commit a crime...she was grossly negligent in my opinion which is a crime under the law. The legality here revolved around the actual degree of negligence...which is highly subjective.

So you have no proof of a crime. All investigations found no proof of a crime. But you still believe there was one. But you are questioning those here who have belief of a crime with the same amount of proof. Difference is there haven't been dozens of investigations into this that failed to find any evidence of a crime.

And maybe I missed something but I don't see where anyone has said a crime was committed. I've seen people raise the possibility that one could have been and only asked that it be investigated. GOP... they don't think it should be.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Doc you're a strong party guy and I respect that to a certain extent.
Just say you agree that there should be a competent non partisan or private individual to investigate and results should be timely and published to clear the fog.

I good with this.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So you have no proof of a crime. All investigations found no proof of a crime. But you still believe there was one. But you are questioning those here who have belief of a crime with the same amount of proof. Difference is there haven't been dozens of investigations into this that failed to find any evidence of a crime.

Did you not read what I said?

 

[Bowfinger]

As I said above, I'm OK with an investigation. Were you OK with investigations of Hillary's email and Benghazi...or were those somehow fundamentally different?

The first (legitimate) investigations into each were fine. It was the politically-driven multitude of investigations that were wrong.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

buahahahaha. 10 investigations into benghazi made it dumb. Not 1.

Actually 8 (as many separate departmental investigations were formed to analyze their specific aspects of the overall investigation...but nice spin....and I would expect no less from you) ...most all of which concluded that the State Department under her direction didn't adequately address security concerns and could have done more to prevent the attack. The State Department's own investigation cited "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies". While nothing illegal was found...gross incompetence was indeed found.

 

[Bowfinger]

What exactly is the crime here?

I said corruption, not crime. The crime(s), if any, are TBD by a proper investigation.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The first (legitimate) investigations into each were fine. It was the politically-driven multitude of investigations that were wrong.

Which of the 8 investigations was wrong?

 

[Pens1566]

Which of the 8 investigations was wrong?

2-8

 

[Bowfinger]

Actually 8 (as many separate departmental investigations were formed to analyze their specific aspects of the overall investigation...but nice spin....and I would expect no less from you) ...most all of which concluded that the State Department under her direction didn't adequately address security concerns and could have done more to prevent the attack. The State Department's own investigation cited "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies". While nothing illegal was found...gross incompetence was indeed found.

"Gross incompetence" is your partisan spin, not an actual conclusion.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I said corruption, not crime. The crime(s), if any, are TBD by a proper investigation.

What corruption? The Flynn lied to Pence about the scope of his December call?