Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:I mean

WASHINGTON — A conservative operative trumpeting his close ties to the National Rifle Association and Russia told a Trump campaign adviser last year that he could arrange a back-channel meeting between Donald J. Trump and Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, according to an email sent to the Trump campaign.

A May 2016 email to the campaign adviser, Rick Dearborn, bore the subject line “Kremlin Connection.” In it, the N.R.A. member said he wanted the advice of Mr. Dearborn and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, then a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Trump and Mr. Dearborn’s longtime boss, about how to proceed in connecting the two leaders.

The emailed outreach from the conservative operative to Mr. Dearborn came around the same time that Russians were trying to make other connections to the Trump campaign. Another contact came through an American advocate for Christian and veterans causes, and together, the outreach shows how, as Mr. Trump closed in on the nomination, Russians were using three foundational pillars of the Republican Party — guns, veterans and Christian conservatives — to try to make contact with his unorthodox campaign

Strat wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I mean

He has the best laywers. he knows the best people.

I mean, the lawyer basically incriminated his own client too. What a time to be alive.

McParadigm wrote:

Strat wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I mean

He has the best laywers. he knows the best people.

I mean, the lawyer basically incriminated his own client too. What a time to be alive.

It's far more likely Donald sent the tweet, and this was the best rushed cover they could come up with. Sad!

McParadigm wrote:I mean

Rangi Guy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I mean

Yeah, but.....

wease wrote:

Rangi Guy wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I mean

Yeah, but.....

Wait, didn’t he already admit to asking Comey to kinda let the Flynn investing go cause he was a good guy and all?

McParadigm wrote: The thing is, that tweet is a confirmation from either the eventually-accused or his lawyer that on the day after he fired Flynn, when he asked the FBI Director to see if he could find a way to "letting this go," meaning end the bureau's investigation, he did so while knowing that Flynn had lied to the FBI.

I mean, there's half a case just right there in a single tweet.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote: The thing is, that tweet is a confirmation from either the eventually-accused or his lawyer that on the day after he fired Flynn, when he asked the FBI Director to see if he could find a way to "letting this go," meaning end the bureau's investigation, he did so while knowing that Flynn had lied to the FBI.

I mean, there's half a case just right there in a single tweet.

God help us if a tweet rises to the level of evidence that can convict someone.

Self wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote: The thing is, that tweet is a confirmation from either the eventually-accused or his lawyer that on the day after he fired Flynn, when he asked the FBI Director to see if he could find a way to "letting this go," meaning end the bureau's investigation, he did so while knowing that Flynn had lied to the FBI.

I mean, there's half a case just right there in a single tweet.

God help us if a tweet rises to the level of evidence that can convict someone.

Why? We've already seen it happen with Facebook posts. If people are dumb enough to tweet out evidence of crime, then it's evidence of a crime. No?

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's personal attorney, John Dowd, claims the President cannot be guilty of obstructing justice, according to an interview with Axios.

"(The) President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under (the Constitution's Article II) and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd told Axios.

Self wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote: The thing is, that tweet is a confirmation from either the eventually-accused or his lawyer that on the day after he fired Flynn, when he asked the FBI Director to see if he could find a way to "letting this go," meaning end the bureau's investigation, he did so while knowing that Flynn had lied to the FBI.

I mean, there's half a case just right there in a single tweet.

God help us if a tweet rises to the level of evidence that can convict someone.

Why? We've already seen it happen with Facebook posts. If people are dumb enough to tweet out evidence of crime, then it's evidence of a crime. No?