Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
That's because there's nothing to investigate.
That whole "Russian election interference" thing was made up by CNN and Buzzfeed.
Just like with the Dumps tax returns What is he hiding??That's because there's nothing to investigate.
That whole "Russian election interference" thing was made up by CNN and Buzzfeed.
If there's nothing to investigate, why don't the Republicans cooperate with the investigation?
If it's true that there is nothing to investigate, cooperating would mean that the investigation would be finished much faster and we could all move along.
The Republicans appear to be protecting someone from the investigation. It makes it appear that someone is awfully guilty.
Hmmm.... because leaking classified information to the media isn't a crime, but talking with the Russians is.
But hey, when your national security apparatus is engaging in warfare against people they don't like, that sets an authoritarian theme, doesn't it?
Tell us Lakhota - is your idol Nancy Pelosi "full of shit" too?
Nancy Pelosi: We can’t impeach Trump just because we dislike his hair“You’re talking about impeachment,” she said, “you’re talking about ‘what are the facts?’ Not, ‘I don’t like him,’ and ‘I don’t like his hair,’ what are the facts? ‘I don’t like what he said about this’ — what are the facts that you would make a case on?”
“What are the rules that he may have violated?” she asked, rhetorically. “If you don’t have that case, you’re just participating in more hearsay. And that’s not the basis of a — and we owe the American people just some stability in all of this.”
What is trump hiding??Hmmm.... because leaking classified information to the media isn't a crime, but talking with the Russians is.
But hey, when your national security apparatus is engaging in warfare against people they don't like, that sets an authoritarian theme, doesn't it?
There's a difference between 'classified' information and 'confidential' information. Leaking confidential information is not a crime. Leaking classified information is a crime. Leaking confidential information will get you fired, but that's about it.
It's doubtful that any information leaked was classified. It was probably confidential.
"According to two current and former". Standard terminology describing generic anonymous sources. Get someone on record and gain credibility.What is trump hiding??Hmmm.... because leaking classified information to the media isn't a crime, but talking with the Russians is.
But hey, when your national security apparatus is engaging in warfare against people they don't like, that sets an authoritarian theme, doesn't it?
There's a difference between 'classified' information and 'confidential' information. Leaking confidential information is not a crime. Leaking classified information is a crime. Leaking confidential information will get you fired, but that's about it.
It's doubtful that any information leaked was classified. It was probably confidential.
President Donald Trump asked the director of national intelligence and the director of the National Security Agency to push back against the FBI's Russia probe by publicly denying any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 election, The Washington Post reported on Monday.
According to two current and former intelligence officials, Trump asked DNI Dan Coats and NSA director Adm. Michael Rogers separately to publicly deny collusion after former FBI director James Comey revealed the existence of the FBI's Russia inquiry during a March 20 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Both Coats and Rogers denied the request, because they believed it was inappropriate, the officials said.
Senior White House officials also spoke to top intelligence officials about the possibility of the White House directly intervening in the FBI's investigation, officials told the Post.
I'm sure you're wrong .....Wait and see He went to Comey why not these other 2 ?? Think it's above his code of ethics?? He has none"According to two current and former". Standard terminology describing generic anonymous sources. Get someone on record and gain credibility.What is trump hiding??Hmmm.... because leaking classified information to the media isn't a crime, but talking with the Russians is.
But hey, when your national security apparatus is engaging in warfare against people they don't like, that sets an authoritarian theme, doesn't it?
There's a difference between 'classified' information and 'confidential' information. Leaking confidential information is not a crime. Leaking classified information is a crime. Leaking confidential information will get you fired, but that's about it.
It's doubtful that any information leaked was classified. It was probably confidential.
President Donald Trump asked the director of national intelligence and the director of the National Security Agency to push back against the FBI's Russia probe by publicly denying any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 election, The Washington Post reported on Monday.
According to two current and former intelligence officials, Trump asked DNI Dan Coats and NSA director Adm. Michael Rogers separately to publicly deny collusion after former FBI director James Comey revealed the existence of the FBI's Russia inquiry during a March 20 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Both Coats and Rogers denied the request, because they believed it was inappropriate, the officials said.
Senior White House officials also spoke to top intelligence officials about the possibility of the White House directly intervening in the FBI's investigation, officials told the Post.
Does anyone else notice that "former" officials are no longer officials and thus would be in no position to verify that something actually happened?
I would like to see someone go on record with an accusation that has some backing. This whole anonymous sources, may have, maybe, we think he did something wrong means nothing.I'm sure you're wrong .....Wait and see He went to Comey why not these other 2 ?? Think it's above his code of ethics?? He has none"According to two current and former". Standard terminology describing generic anonymous sources. Get someone on record and gain credibility.What is trump hiding??Hmmm.... because leaking classified information to the media isn't a crime, but talking with the Russians is.
But hey, when your national security apparatus is engaging in warfare against people they don't like, that sets an authoritarian theme, doesn't it?
There's a difference between 'classified' information and 'confidential' information. Leaking confidential information is not a crime. Leaking classified information is a crime. Leaking confidential information will get you fired, but that's about it.
It's doubtful that any information leaked was classified. It was probably confidential.
President Donald Trump asked the director of national intelligence and the director of the National Security Agency to push back against the FBI's Russia probe by publicly denying any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 election, The Washington Post reported on Monday.
According to two current and former intelligence officials, Trump asked DNI Dan Coats and NSA director Adm. Michael Rogers separately to publicly deny collusion after former FBI director James Comey revealed the existence of the FBI's Russia inquiry during a March 20 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Both Coats and Rogers denied the request, because they believed it was inappropriate, the officials said.
Senior White House officials also spoke to top intelligence officials about the possibility of the White House directly intervening in the FBI's investigation, officials told the Post.
Does anyone else notice that "former" officials are no longer officials and thus would be in no position to verify that something actually happened?
cooperate?That's because there's nothing to investigate.
That whole "Russian election interference" thing was made up by CNN and Buzzfeed.
If there's nothing to investigate, why don't the Republicans cooperate with the investigation?
If it's true that there is nothing to investigate, cooperating would mean that the investigation would be finished much faster and we could all move along.
The Republicans appear to be protecting someone from the investigation. It makes it appear that someone is awfully guilty.
There goes the name calling towards someone who can not respond.So what - exactly - is there to "investigate" Lakhota?
Once again, devout left-wing attorney Alan Dershowitz is on record bashing the fascism of the left and making it very clear that no laws were violated even if the idiotic accusations of the left turn out to be true.
The left has engaged in the most bizarre form of fantasies. They have no clue about the laws, the facts, or even their own government. And yet they insist that President Trump can be impeached.Dershowitz argued Mueller’s appointment would benefit Trump given that “collaborating with the Russians” to get elected wasn’t illegal and Mueller’s role would be to investigate illegalities.
“ think he will be the beneficiary of the special prosecutor,” Dershowitz said. “A special prosecutor is supposed to investigate a crime and most of the things that have been leveled at the Trump administration are not criminal acts. Collaborating with the Russians to get yourself elected — not a criminal act. Terrible, morally wrong, but not criminal. The same thing is true with the leaking of the information to the Russians.”
Dershowitz Questions Purpose of Special Counsel - 'What Is the Crime?' - Breitbart
Dooshawitch is full of shit.
She would have hated Ike because he had no hair.Tell us Lakhota - is your idol Nancy Pelosi "full of shit" too?
Nancy Pelosi: We can’t impeach Trump just because we dislike his hair“You’re talking about impeachment,” she said, “you’re talking about ‘what are the facts?’ Not, ‘I don’t like him,’ and ‘I don’t like his hair,’ what are the facts? ‘I don’t like what he said about this’ — what are the facts that you would make a case on?”
“What are the rules that he may have violated?” she asked, rhetorically. “If you don’t have that case, you’re just participating in more hearsay. And that’s not the basis of a — and we owe the American people just some stability in all of this.”
Someone needs to review the facts again..What is trump hiding??Hmmm.... because leaking classified information to the media isn't a crime, but talking with the Russians is.
But hey, when your national security apparatus is engaging in warfare against people they don't like, that sets an authoritarian theme, doesn't it?
There's a difference between 'classified' information and 'confidential' information. Leaking confidential information is not a crime. Leaking classified information is a crime. Leaking confidential information will get you fired, but that's about it.
It's doubtful that any information leaked was classified. It was probably confidential.
President Donald Trump asked the director of national intelligence and the director of the National Security Agency to push back against the FBI's Russia probe by publicly denying any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 election, The Washington Post reported on Monday.
According to two current and former intelligence officials, Trump asked DNI Dan Coats and NSA director Adm. Michael Rogers separately to publicly deny collusion after former FBI director James Comey revealed the existence of the FBI's Russia inquiry during a March 20 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Both Coats and Rogers denied the request, because they believed it was inappropriate, the officials said.
Senior White House officials also spoke to top intelligence officials about the possibility of the White House directly intervening in the FBI's investigation, officials told the Post.
The names were named Have they denied trump visited them?I would like to see someone go on record with an accusation that has some backing. This whole anonymous sources, may have, maybe, we think he did something wrong means nothing.I'm sure you're wrong .....Wait and see He went to Comey why not these other 2 ?? Think it's above his code of ethics?? He has none"According to two current and former". Standard terminology describing generic anonymous sources. Get someone on record and gain credibility.What is trump hiding??Hmmm.... because leaking classified information to the media isn't a crime, but talking with the Russians is.
But hey, when your national security apparatus is engaging in warfare against people they don't like, that sets an authoritarian theme, doesn't it?
There's a difference between 'classified' information and 'confidential' information. Leaking confidential information is not a crime. Leaking classified information is a crime. Leaking confidential information will get you fired, but that's about it.
It's doubtful that any information leaked was classified. It was probably confidential.
President Donald Trump asked the director of national intelligence and the director of the National Security Agency to push back against the FBI's Russia probe by publicly denying any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 election, The Washington Post reported on Monday.
According to two current and former intelligence officials, Trump asked DNI Dan Coats and NSA director Adm. Michael Rogers separately to publicly deny collusion after former FBI director James Comey revealed the existence of the FBI's Russia inquiry during a March 20 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Both Coats and Rogers denied the request, because they believed it was inappropriate, the officials said.
Senior White House officials also spoke to top intelligence officials about the possibility of the White House directly intervening in the FBI's investigation, officials told the Post.
Does anyone else notice that "former" officials are no longer officials and thus would be in no position to verify that something actually happened?
No one noticed the collusion conspiracy theory just ‘blew up,’ says National Review editor“But I think the thing that happened this weekend that is really important that people missed because they’re so giddy about this story about Kushner, is that it blew up the collusion conspiracy,” he explained, “because if there had actually been a collusion conspiracy, there would already be back channels to Russia.
“There would be no reason for Kushner, in December,” he added, “weeks after the election to need to set up a back channel to Russia, had there been one during the campaign.”
John Brennan, Obama loyalist and CIA director, drove FBI to investigate Trump associatesThe dossier was financed by a Clinton backer and written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele. He was hired by Democratic-tied Fusion GPS in Washington.
Mr. Steele’s 35 pages of memos were first circulated in late June. In mid-July Fusion passed around another memo that made the most sensational charges. “Further Indications of Extensive Conspiracy Between Trump’s Campaign and the Kremlin” was the headline.
John Brennan, Obama loyalist and CIA director, drove FBI to investigate Trump associatesTo this day, nearly a year after Mr. Brennan alerted the FBI, there has been no public official confirmation that Trump people coordinated with the Russians on hacking. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and Senate Intelligence Committee member, said earlier this month she has seen no evidence of collusion.
