Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You do understand that they have a responsibility to respond to the DOJ IG report, right?
Will Trump win again???
Started by Planktonmd
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
- Status
You do understand that they have a responsibility to respond to the DOJ IG report, right?
You're wrong, and that's what you don't get and probably will never get. Barr has a duty to make sure the IG report is comprehensive and impartial, not to make unsubstantiated contrarian allegations about an ongoing political sham "investigation."
Horowitz is doing a fine job right now pissing off both sides of the aisle. Dems flaunt that the report says there was a legitimate predicate for the Russia investigation and there was no political bias to its initiation. Repubs tout that there were FBI FISA warrant application errors and omissions in regard to Page. The fact that both sides are happy and unhappy with things tells me Horowitz did his job.
Is there any doubt in your mind what the result (if any) will be from the Durham report? I know what it'll say and how it'll be spun. So do you. That's the hallmark that it's a sham investigation. And it's because Barr is no longer the US AG but rather the president's personal political hack lawyer. Trump has been looking for a new Roy Cohn and now he's found one.
I assume that is exactly what they will do.
Crossfire Hurricane investigation was started bc Papadopoulos met with an unnamed foreign agent who discussed the possibility of Russia having dirt in Clinton. So Horowitz states the FBI started the investigation in an appropriate manner. Why did you think Durham and Barr traveled to Australia, Italy etc over the last year? My guess they went there to interview the foreign agents who contacted Papadopoulos and their intelligence agencies...you then have to wonder who asked the foreign agents to contact Papadopoulos...maybe Brennan and Clapper...and if that is the case you would assume Obama was in the know.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Obama might have known, or it might have all been Brennan. Brennan is nuts enough to have tried it.
Great, they can waste taxpayer money traveling all over the world if that’s their prerogative and start giving press statements after their “investigation” is over. The point is that it’s DOJ policy not to comment on an ongoing investigation (remember when people were so angry at comey? remember when mueller didn’t say a damn thing until the final report came out?)
You guys seem to be pretty slow on the uptake that coming out contrarian to something without providing any evidence is disingenuous.
I think if there is a conspiracy, they will be indicted and fully prosecuted.
The IG report certainly seems to have been inaccurate enough with regards to the predication that there is now a criminal investigation into that, and it actually warranted a rebuke from those who have access to evidence that the IG didn't have access to.
IG shouldn't have written a conclusion on political motivations without adequate evidence to conclude it, which is what the AG notified the IG about weeks ago.
Ok provide some evidence it was inaccurate or stfu
I'll come back to your comment once the indictments roll in. 😆
Sure thing, chief. 🙄
Btw, and for the third time, you gonna tell us what we should do with neonazi Stephen Miller, or are you just gonna continue to shamelessly toss out your Jewish heritage every time you simply wanna show false indignation?
The topic of our intelligence community working with foreign allies to frame and set up a US citizen running for the presidency of the United States in order to undermine them is far more interesting. Probably one of the biggest political story of our lives is playing out before us and you still want to focus on name calling. No thanks
We can easily discuss multiple topics, so feel free not to respond if you’d rather talk about something else. Regardless, maybe you personally don’t care, but there are some people concerned that a neonazi (unless you have a better term for a guy who has sent dozens of emails espousing neonazi and white nationalist ideology) is currently a senior staffer in charge of immigration policy in the WH.
Also, cool conspiracy theory. Let me know when you come back down to planet earth with some evidence for your deep state 4chan qanon fantasies.
Horowitz today said the FBI illegally surveilled president Trumps campaign...just 2 days ago you called that a conspiracy/fantasy...so there is some proof and I will make sure to stop back and continue to film you in as it comes out. Get back to your conspiracies.
Lol, you're about to join Mikkel as Deputy Propaganda Minister if you're going to take Lindsey's editorializing of a hypothetical question and spin it as "HE SAID." Horowitz has already said the initial basis of the investigation was legal and not politically biased.
----------
2. Horowitz won’t bite on ‘spying’
The idea that the FBI was “spying” on the Trump campaign has crept into the mainstream. Initially regarded as a hyperbolic claim by Trump, eventually Republicans warmed to it and started using it. Barr has also controversially used it.
But Horowitz isn’t going there. Under questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), he was given two chances to label what the FBI allegedly did to the Trump campaign “spying.” He demurred both times.
Graham asked him about when an FBI agent went in to brief Trump but also used the meeting to collect information for the investigation. “Was that FBI agent spying on Donald Trump when he went in there?” Graham asked.
Horowitz responded, “It was a pretext meeting that I’m not going to —” Horowitz then trailed off.
Soon after, Graham asked him hypothetically whether it would spying if you “don’t have a legal foundation to surveil somebody, and you keep doing it.” (This was not a conclusion Horowitz actually reached about the surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.) Horowitz would say only: “It’s illegal surveillance. It’s not court-authorized surveillance.”
---------
Last edited:
It's unfortunate you're so deep into Trumpism that you're unable to see that if you were to step back and approach this whole thing from the 30,000 ft view, you'd realize that absolutely Trump and his cronies did (and do) stink to high heaven of some strange Russian involvement, and there was plenty probable cause for a counterintelligence operation at the time.
Page is a Putin sympathizer. Flynn was paid $45,000 by a Russian TV station. Kusher was denied security clearance because he didn't disclose business ties with a Russian bank. Tillerson brokered Exxon's deal with Rosneft and was awarded the Russian Order of Friendship. Manafort is a convicted felon who accepted 20 million in dirty money from soviet bloc oligarchs. Same goes for Gates. Stone chatted back and forth with Guccifer 2.0 (aka the GRU). Trump just met with with Lavrov (the same guy who he revealed classified intel to) again yesterday, the first time anyone has met with a Russian foreign minister twice. He met Putin without an interpreter or staff in Finland. At the same summit, he said he believes Putin when Putin tells him Russia didn't interfere in 2016. He hid in the oval office when he was forced essentially against his will to sign sanctions against Russia. And he's been trying to build Trump Tower Moscow for 30 years.
One of my favorites though is his dumb@ss son:
On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort had a meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya after being promised information about Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. told The New York Times the meeting was about the Magnitsky Act.[132] However, in emails proposing the meeting, publicist Rob Goldstone did not mention the Magnitsky Act and instead promised "documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump", to which Donald Trump Jr. responded, "if it's what you say I love it."[133][134]
Page is a Putin sympathizer. Flynn was paid $45,000 by a Russian TV station. Kusher was denied security clearance because he didn't disclose business ties with a Russian bank. Tillerson brokered Exxon's deal with Rosneft and was awarded the Russian Order of Friendship. Manafort is a convicted felon who accepted 20 million in dirty money from soviet bloc oligarchs. Same goes for Gates. Stone chatted back and forth with Guccifer 2.0 (aka the GRU). Trump just met with with Lavrov (the same guy who he revealed classified intel to) again yesterday, the first time anyone has met with a Russian foreign minister twice. He met Putin without an interpreter or staff in Finland. At the same summit, he said he believes Putin when Putin tells him Russia didn't interfere in 2016. He hid in the oval office when he was forced essentially against his will to sign sanctions against Russia. And he's been trying to build Trump Tower Moscow for 30 years.
One of my favorites though is his dumb@ss son:
On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort had a meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya after being promised information about Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. told The New York Times the meeting was about the Magnitsky Act.[132] However, in emails proposing the meeting, publicist Rob Goldstone did not mention the Magnitsky Act and instead promised "documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump", to which Donald Trump Jr. responded, "if it's what you say I love it."[133][134]
Horowitz would say only: “It’s illegal surveillance. It’s not court-authorized surveillance.”
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I don’t disagree that the FBI did the correct thing by opening an initial investigation with the information they had. The issue I had was with everything done by the team to keep the investigation open once they found out their sources where not reliable. The team changed emails for the CIA that states Page was a CIA asset and source who was making contact with Russians on behalf of the CIA. The FBI lawyer changed the email to state Page was not a source. Steele was paid opposition researcher whose information was determined to be unreliable and when the FBI decided to no longer use him as a reliable source they continue to get and use information from him via Ohr.
Jesus f, yes, that was Horowitz’s response to Lindsey’s hypothetical question, not actually Horowitz position on what actually happened. It’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes...
I’m not contesting any of the problems with the FBI or the FISA process in the report. If there is proof that there was criminal malicious intent, charge them. Keyword being proof. Barr and Durham speculating for months on end without providing evidence is a blatantly political, disingenuous hack job. Which is why I keep saying that Barr and Durham need to zip it about Horowitz’s report unless they have the goods in hand.
Ultimately, the point is that the IG report, for better or worse, is a faaarrrrrrr galaxy away from Trump fanboys’ and Lewandowski’s deep state fever dream about Obama and a cadre of malcontents “spying” on Trump. Save your outrage for the fact that a credible initiation of an FBI investigation into the trump campaign was even necessary in the first place, and definitely save your outrage for the half dozen campaign staff with Russia ties (the majority of whom are in jail) and the idiot son who has actually released an email saying he would “love” getting Russian dirt on hrc.
Last edited:
It wasn’t hypothetical. Unless your saying it is legal to blatantly change information presented and withhold information in order to obtain a fisa warrant legal
You are jumping the gun. Horowitz didn’t have the scope to look outside of the crossfire hurricane FBI investigation. The story has just begun
Your reading comprehension needs work. I’ll post again. Read the bolded sections numerous times
—-
2. Horowitz won’t bite on ‘spying’
The idea that the FBI was “spying” on the Trump campaign has crept into the mainstream. Initially regarded as a hyperbolic claim by Trump, eventually Republicans warmed to it and started using it. Barr has also controversially used it.
But Horowitz isn’t going there. Under questioning by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), he was given two chances to label what the FBI allegedly did to the Trump campaign “spying.” He demurred both times.
Graham asked him about when an FBI agent went in to brief Trump but also used the meeting to collect information for the investigation. “Was that FBI agent spying on Donald Trump when he went in there?” Graham asked.
Horowitz responded, “It was a pretext meeting that I’m not going to —” Horowitz then trailed off.
Soon after, Graham asked him hypothetically whether it would spying if you “don’t have a legal foundation to surveil somebody, and you keep doing it.” (This was not a conclusion Horowitz actually reached about the surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.) Horowitz would say only: “It’s illegal surveillance. It’s not court-authorized surveillance.”
---------
No, Barr, Durham, and you are jumping the gun by pontificating before their “investigation” is over.
Horowitz is a Democrat appointee.
FISA, national security letters, wiretaps, confidential intelligence assets, foreign intelligence assets, reading emails...
That's not spying, according to a Democrat.😆
Unsubstantiated word salad is proof now? Yawn. Don't you have better things to do like apologizing for neonazis?
It's unfortunate that you accuse him of supporting trump with so much bias yet you show your bias by having a negative connotation for President Trump and his staff. You accuse someone of Trumpism while you are full of anti-Trumpism. If we want to get anywhere in a political debate such as this thread that goes on for 122 pages and 6,073 posts, we must all (yes both political parties) take a step back and look at it without political bias.
Another post that isn’t going to age well.
Also it wasn’t Horowitz responsibility to make the above conclusion just provide the investigative facts which clearly outline it was an illegal surveillance. But again we will just have to wait until Durham and Barr.
You must be new here. Go through the last 60 pages of Mikkel’s post history if you want a case study in rightwing disingenuousness. I make no secret about being partisan but I at least live in a fact-based reality. If anybody of any political color presents a cogent argument with evidence, I’m all ears.
You constantly say people are right wing hacks, craven, and disingenuous just because they disagree with how you see the world. Your insults are so tiresome and do nothing to make people want to see your viewpoint or even consider the validity of what you are trying to say. I’m shocked an alleged physician would talk to people the way that you constantly do. Honestly. Grow up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know you’re spinning your wheels trying to find something to grasp onto, but the FBIs investigation was still carried out with warrants and within the scope of the justice system. Lindsey asked a hypothetical and got an answer. When Lindsey asked about what actually happened, he got a different answer.
That’s about the only thing we agree on is let’s wait for Durham’s report. Unfortunately in the mean time we know Barr and Durham will continue to run their mouths about an ongoing “investigation,” contrary to DOJ policy.
Bud, you got a problem when even the politically moderate libertarian forums admin and FFP both think you’re disingenuous.
Deflect deflect deflect. Insult insult insult.
Keep up the strong work [emoji106]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s crazy to think that you really have no introspection and likely no clue why so many people have blocked you. But don’t worry, I still find your trolling entertaining, at least for now. Lol, “alleged physician,” that was good
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Warrants that were issued using a discredited dossier paid for by a rival presidential candidate, with willful omissions of contradictory information, and intentional fraudulent documentation.
In other words, invalid warrants.
I don’t know you from any other stranger behind a pseudonym on line, so yeah, alleged. And aside from you and AMEHigh, and I guess not really you, obviously, I’m not sure there are hordes of people blocking me.
Out of my own dumb trolling curiosity, what pray tell have I done that is worthy of blockage? I don’t insult or demean in every post (like you), never said anything vile or filthy...you just hate someone who makes points you can’t argue?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You mean Steele who was originally hired by Free Beacon and who is a friend of Ivanka? “Willful” and “intentional” is your editorialization. Since, for the 700th time, neither you or Barr or Durham has provided any proof. And again, Page was never charged with anything.
And beyond Page, what about all the other people in jail? Do you think Manafort is innocent of all his numerous, numerous crimes? Was his investigation illegitimate? And I guess you don’t care at all right that Mueller would’ve indicted trump for obstruction if it weren’t against DOJ policy?
FYI, we all notice how strange it is that you’re totally mum about Stephen Miller.
Last edited:
I'm 100% on board with waiting until Barr and Durham announce their indictments before I do my victory lap. I've waited this long, I can hang on just a little bit longer. However, I find it truly ironic (laughable, really) that anyone is complaining about one statement made by Barr and one statement made by Durham about having a difference in opinion about IG Horowitz's findings. For 3 years, while attempting to receive and digest news, I have been subjected to constant speculation, exaggeration, misrepresentations (aka LIES) about President Trump. This has been coming from all directions (from all media outlets, so-called insiders, experts and even current politicians). So excuse me if I don't give a darn about any of your histrionics about being subjected to two simple statements of disagreement without concurrent presentation of evidence. The evidence will come when the investigations are complete and the reports are written.
Barr gave a full length interview on NBC. Did you miss it? But honestly, the best part was that Horowitz asked Barr and Durham to contribute any evidence or materials which could change his findings and they didn’t have any, lol.
Further, what I really can’t imagine is the wild histrionics that you’d be engaged in if the Mueller investigation hadn’t been airtight like it was.
After attempting to read a few pages of this thread that I started... I am saddened to say that I have never seen this country so divided.
It's incredible how political propaganda could very easily become conceived as facts by a highly educated group of very smart people as physicians.
No one is attempting to see the pure striking reality, the simple fact that... ladies and gentlemen... the emperor is naked!
You can spin it anyway you want... but this emperor is naked no matter what fox news says.
It's incredible how political propaganda could very easily become conceived as facts by a highly educated group of very smart people as physicians.
No one is attempting to see the pure striking reality, the simple fact that... ladies and gentlemen... the emperor is naked!
You can spin it anyway you want... but this emperor is naked no matter what fox news says.
I think I was working when the NBC interview aired. So, no, I didn't watch it. It was one interview, right?
I am pretty sure that the IG is supposed to function independently (like an internal affairs guy in law enforcement), so I don't find it odd that Barr and Durham didn't get involved with his report. But Horowitz had a much narrower scope and power than Durham has. Durham can dig deeper and wider, and therefore can find info that Horowitz couldn't, hence Durham's conclusions may be very different than those of Horowitz.
I seriously don't think any aspect of the Russian Hoax was airtight. It was filled with leaks, speculations, and unsubstantiated claims from many major players. We even had former intelligence agency heads turn into paid media talking heads. If I have any wild histrionics about Mueller, it's that the American taxpayers paid $40 million dollars for an attempted political coup. And I think I'm entitled to be pissed off about that.
I have seen the "emperor" and "naked/no clothes" line used a few times in reference to Trump, but I honestly don't understand it. I get that you're trying to say that Trump thinks of himself as an emperor rather than as a President (which I disagree with, but you're entitled to your own thoughts), but I honestly don't understand the he's "naked" part. To me, that means, he's not who he says he is (which I disagree with, because he is a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy) or he's exposed in some way. I don't get what has been exposed. He hasn't been found guilty of a single thing. Can you, please, explain what this "naked emperor" line means? I love a good analogy. I'm just not understanding with this one.
From Wikipedia:
"The Emperor's New Clothes" (Danish: Kejserens nye klæder) is a short tale written by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen, about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent – while in reality, they make no clothes at all, making everyone believe the clothes are invisible to them. When the emperor parades before his subjects in his new "clothes", no one dares to say that they do not see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as stupid. Finally a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" The tale has been translated into over 100 languages.[1]
Just to be clear, you do realize that the Democrat platform is now for gun confiscation, restriction on free speech and restriction of the exercise of religion, abortion at any time during pregnancy, anti privacy rights, wealth confiscation, high taxes, higher energy costs, college student debt forgiveness, reparations...?
Sounds like a lot of the progressive ideas these days that everyone recognizes as idiocy but speaks not for fear of being labeled a racist/bigot/homophobe, where the emperor isn’t an individual, but an idea of wokeness.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Right, nothing to see here, just a coordinated effort to use a discredited dossier, paid for by Hillary Clinton via a law firm illegally, and withholding known information that would have caused the FISA application to be denied, and persisting with incorrect information and falsehoods for subsequent applications. Nothing wrong with any of that since it was to try to undermine Trump's candidacy and his presidency.
If you assume they are honest non biased mistakes, about 1 on 1.048 million [emoji57]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And these "errors" and "omissions" in this high-priority investigation were made by the cream of the crop, top agents in the world's premier law enforcement agency. I mean, what are the chances of that?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Are you having a stroke? Like this is literally just a word for word rehashing of your last three posts on the topic, and you're about three steps away from just being Brick Tamland's LOUD NOISES. Minus of course any little thought on Stephen Miller.
Last edited:
---
Giuliani Ally Parnas Got $1 Million From Russia, U.S. Says
Rudy Giuliani’s associate Lev Parnas got $1 million from an account in Russia in September, a month before he was charged with conspiring to funnel foreign money into U.S. political campaigns, according to U.S. prosecutors who asked a judge to jail him for understating his income and assets.
“The majority of that money appears to have been used on personal expenses and to purchase a home,” prosecutors said in a court filing Wednesday. Parnas failed to disclose the payment to the government, prosecutors said.
The pair was charged, in part, with working on behalf of one or more Ukrainian government officials to seek the removal of then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. They have pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Bloomberg and other news organizations have also reported that Parnas was added to the legal team of Dmitry Firtash, a Ukrainian oligarch fighting extradition to the U.S.
Giuliani and his lawyer didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
There was little detail or explanation about the source or purpose of the payment to Parnas in the court filing. Prosecutors said the money was sent to an account in the name of Parnas’s wife, Svetlana Parnas. It appeared “to be an attempt to ensure that any assets were held in Svetlana’s, rather than Lev’s, name,” prosecutors claimed.
The payment came the same month that Parnas and Fruman received the first of two requests for documents from Congressional committees investigating the Trump administration’s actions in Ukraine. The pair initially refused to comply with the requests, and were arrested days later on a jet bridge at Dulles International Airport near Washington D.C., as they sought to board a plane with one-way tickets to Vienna. Parnas’s lawyer has subsequently said his client is willing to comply with the congressional investigation.
Parnas, a U.S. citizen who was born in Ukraine, could face at least five years in prison on the counts with which he has already been charged, but prosecutors have said he remains under investigation and will likely face more charges.
Parnas and Fruman are also accused of using an unnamed Russian national as the source of funds for political donations to curry favor with state and federal officials for support in starting a retail marijuana business. The government didn’t say whether the same Russian was the source of the $1 million payment in September.
Prosecutors asked the judge to revoke Parnas’s bail, saying he also lied about his income. While he presented varying pictures of his financial condition to authorities on three different occasions, prosecutors say he never disclosed the $1 million payment, or a $200,000 escrow deposit he had made on a $4.5 million Boca Raton property -- and that he really received $200,000 for his work on Firtash’s legal team, not the $50,000 he claimed.
Parnas poses an extreme risk of flight, and that risk of flight is only compounded by his continued and troubling misrepresentations,” prosecutors said.
The government was responding to Parnas’s request for less strict bail conditions. He asked to be allowed some time each day outside his apartment while he is under home detention.
Parnas’s lawyer, Joseph Bondy, declined to comment and said he would respond to the prosecutors with his own filing.
---
Just a matter of time before Rudy gets indicted and Trump has to give the old "Rudy who? He was just a low-level staffer, I hardly know the guy"
Giuliani Ally Parnas Got $1 Million From Russia, U.S. Says
Rudy Giuliani’s associate Lev Parnas got $1 million from an account in Russia in September, a month before he was charged with conspiring to funnel foreign money into U.S. political campaigns, according to U.S. prosecutors who asked a judge to jail him for understating his income and assets.
“The majority of that money appears to have been used on personal expenses and to purchase a home,” prosecutors said in a court filing Wednesday. Parnas failed to disclose the payment to the government, prosecutors said.
The pair was charged, in part, with working on behalf of one or more Ukrainian government officials to seek the removal of then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. They have pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Bloomberg and other news organizations have also reported that Parnas was added to the legal team of Dmitry Firtash, a Ukrainian oligarch fighting extradition to the U.S.
Giuliani and his lawyer didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
There was little detail or explanation about the source or purpose of the payment to Parnas in the court filing. Prosecutors said the money was sent to an account in the name of Parnas’s wife, Svetlana Parnas. It appeared “to be an attempt to ensure that any assets were held in Svetlana’s, rather than Lev’s, name,” prosecutors claimed.
The payment came the same month that Parnas and Fruman received the first of two requests for documents from Congressional committees investigating the Trump administration’s actions in Ukraine. The pair initially refused to comply with the requests, and were arrested days later on a jet bridge at Dulles International Airport near Washington D.C., as they sought to board a plane with one-way tickets to Vienna. Parnas’s lawyer has subsequently said his client is willing to comply with the congressional investigation.
Parnas, a U.S. citizen who was born in Ukraine, could face at least five years in prison on the counts with which he has already been charged, but prosecutors have said he remains under investigation and will likely face more charges.
Parnas and Fruman are also accused of using an unnamed Russian national as the source of funds for political donations to curry favor with state and federal officials for support in starting a retail marijuana business. The government didn’t say whether the same Russian was the source of the $1 million payment in September.
Prosecutors asked the judge to revoke Parnas’s bail, saying he also lied about his income. While he presented varying pictures of his financial condition to authorities on three different occasions, prosecutors say he never disclosed the $1 million payment, or a $200,000 escrow deposit he had made on a $4.5 million Boca Raton property -- and that he really received $200,000 for his work on Firtash’s legal team, not the $50,000 he claimed.
Parnas poses an extreme risk of flight, and that risk of flight is only compounded by his continued and troubling misrepresentations,” prosecutors said.
The government was responding to Parnas’s request for less strict bail conditions. He asked to be allowed some time each day outside his apartment while he is under home detention.
Parnas’s lawyer, Joseph Bondy, declined to comment and said he would respond to the prosecutors with his own filing.
---
Just a matter of time before Rudy gets indicted and Trump has to give the old "Rudy who? He was just a low-level staffer, I hardly know the guy"
Isn't it amazing that three separate investigative teams were all making the same mistakes? It's not like they were coordinated in their deception to the FISA court judge. But no, they definitely weren't coordinated, and of course these teams wouldn't have been using commonly available phone apps to encrypt their communications, they're not devious enough to do that.
And of course, even if they didn't use encrypted communication apps, Horowitz would have been able to get access to the messages without the power of any subpoenas. Subpoenas are totally not necessary to collect evidence that criminal conspirators would be unwilling to give up voluntarily.
So you enjoy the sound of slamming your head against a wall?
New Quinnipiac poll out:
If the general election for president were being held today, 51 percent of registered voters say they would vote for Joe Biden, while 42 percent say they would vote for President Trump. When Trump is matched against other Democratic contenders the race remains in single digits:
At this point in the 2016 election cycle, a December 2, 2015 Quinnipiac University national poll found that 47 percent of voters said that they would vote for the eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, while 41 percent said that they would vote for eventual Republican nominee Donald Trump.
poll.qu.edu
If the general election for president were being held today, 51 percent of registered voters say they would vote for Joe Biden, while 42 percent say they would vote for President Trump. When Trump is matched against other Democratic contenders the race remains in single digits:
- Bernie Sanders gets 51 percent, while Trump has 43 percent;
- Elizabeth Warren receives 50 percent and Trump gets 43 percent;
- Michael Bloomberg gets 48 percent to Trump's 42 percent;
- Pete Buttigieg has 48 percent, while Trump receives 43 percent;
- Amy Klobuchar receives 47 percent, while Trump has 43 percent.
At this point in the 2016 election cycle, a December 2, 2015 Quinnipiac University national poll found that 47 percent of voters said that they would vote for the eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, while 41 percent said that they would vote for eventual Republican nominee Donald Trump.
Poll Results | Quinnipiac University Poll
Quinnipiac University Poll’s list of recent and past poll results for political races, state and national elections, and issues of public concern.
poll.qu.edu
- Status
