Russia Investigation Heating Up

[Androidpk]

2019 is going to be spicy~

WASHINGTON – A blocked number in Donald Trump Jr.’s phone records may be among the first targets for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee in January as they investigate possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Rep. Adam Schiff, who is poised to lead the committee when Democrats take over the House majority, told USA TODAY that his committee will have to prioritize the most important witnesses and records that Republicans blocked them from pursuing. The “clearest example” of that obstruction, he said, is phone records that would show whether the blocked phone number – logged as Trump Jr. was arranging a meeting with a Russian lawyer in Trump Tower – belonged to then-candidate Donald Trump.

Trump’s son arranged the June 2016 meeting after being promised “dirt” on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. At first, Trump Jr. said he never told his father of the meeting, but then later told Senate investigators that he couldn't recall who he spoke with that night.

“Republicans refused to look at the phone records so that we could find out because they were afraid of what the answer might be,” the California Democrat said.

[Stumplicker]

2019 is going to be spicy~

Is it? Is it really? I'm pretty sure people have been crying "the impeachment is just around the corner! Just look at what THIS might be!" since 2016, which you'll note is three years prior to 2019, or 75% of the Presidential term of office. At this point, based on the lack of any real evidence showing up so far...the impeachment should happen...what? Retroactively, a couple of years after Trump's second term ends?

I don't like Trump any more than the average person, but at some point you kind of have to realize that after years of not producing anything, not for lack of trying, it's probably not going to turn up.

[Androidpk]

Is it? Is it really? I'm pretty sure people have been crying "the impeachment is just around the corner! Just look at what THIS might be!" since 2016, which you'll note is three years prior to 2019, or 75% of the Presidential term of office. At this point, based on the lack of any real evidence showing up so far...the impeachment should happen...what? Retroactively, a couple of years after Trump's second term ends?

I don't like Trump any more than the average person, but at some point you kind of have to realize that after years of not producing anything, not for lack of trying, it's probably not going to turn up.

Not producing anything? Seriously? You are one dumb motherfucker.

[Stumplicker]

Not producing anything? Seriously? You are one dumb motherfucker.

Where's the impeachment if there's this mountain of evidence? What's being waited for? Thoroughness? How thorough does it need to be to start impeachment proceedings on a President whose term is already winding down?

I see a lot of "This might prove it!" and "this may be the link that ties Trump to Russia conclusively!" posted, and no actual followup as those things turn out to not be avenues worth pursuing.

It doesn't help to impeach a President retroactively, and the US Government is not known for acting swiftly on literally anything. Either impeachment proceedings start because there's evidence, preferably a year ago to get things done before Trump's out of office, or it's just bluster trying to posture for the next election cycle.

[Androidpk]

Where's the impeachment if there's this mountain of evidence? What's being waited for? Thoroughness? How thorough does it need to be to start impeachment proceedings on a President whose term is already winding down?

I see a lot of "This might prove it!" and "this may be the link that ties Trump to Russia conclusively!" posted, and no actual followup as those things turn out to not be avenues worth pursuing.

It doesn't help to impeach a President retroactively, and the US Government is not known for acting swiftly on literally anything. Either impeachment proceedings start because there's evidence, preferably a year ago to get things done before Trump's out of office, or it's just bluster trying to posture for the next election cycle.

Your concern trolling is truly touching.

[time4fun]

Also, it looks like Manafort was a regular guest of Assange's

Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, secretly met several times with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, including around the time he was made a top figure in the Trump campaign, The Guardian reported Tuesday.

The Guardian, citing sources, said Manafort met with Assange in 2013, 2015 and in the spring of 2016, around the time he joined Trump's campaign.

Both WikiLeaks and Manafort feature prominently in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. In a court filing on Monday, Mueller accused Manafort of lying to investigators after agreeing to cooperate with the special counsel's office.

The newspaper said it is unclear "why Manafort wanted to see Assange and what was discussed."

Citing a "well-placed source," The Guardian reported that Manafort met with Assange around March 2016, just months before WikiLeaks released Democratic emails believed to be stolen by Russian intelligence officers.

But no collusion here. I'm sure they were just catching up on the latest needlepoint patterns.

[Methais]

Also, it looks like Manafort was a regular guest of Assange's



But no collusion here. I'm sure they were just catching up on the latest needlepoint patterns.

Oh.

Tell us your thoughts on Mexico offering the "migrants" asylum and them declining it.

If you're going to play the off topic card to avoid responding, because the PC is notorious for staying on topic, you can respond here where it will be on topic: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthrea...89#post2067989

[Gelston]

Also, it looks like Manafort was a regular guest of Assange's



But no collusion here. I'm sure they were just catching up on the latest needlepoint patterns.

Also, how are the US Troops being used illegally?

[time4fun]

Also, how are the US Troops being used illegally?

If they're used to keep people from engaging in a legal right, they're illegal.

But you know that already, and you're just desperate to misconstrue my argument so you can feel like you've won..something.

But really it just shows, once again, that you're way out of your league here.

So why don't you let the adults talk, and you can go play with your little friends.

[Wrathbringer]

If they're used to keep people from engaging in a legal right, they're illegal.

But you know that already, and you're just desperate to misconstrue my argument so you can feel like you've won..something.

But really it just shows, once again, that you're way out of your league here.

So why don't you let the adults talk, and you can go play with your little friends.

you are the dumbest person here. lol @ you thinking you're not.