Jim Moscheck said:
Richard Davis said:
Russ Carroll said:
Richard Davis said:
Russ Carroll said:
Richard Davis said:
Russ Carroll said:
So here is our first peek at motive in the Russian entanglements with the Trump administration. Nuclear power plants in the Middle East that Flynn's company was working on with Russia. He was still at the inaugural when he sent a text to his former partner saying "Russian sanctions [that would have stopped their project] are history . Let's party!!!!"
This is only the beginning, but we now have at least one clear motive for our pro-Russian administration.
MUCH more to come. I'm sure Trumps tentacles go very deep into Russia.
In what way?
Don't ask me, ask Bob Mueller. I'm just convinced Trump is a rat and has deep and dirty financial ties to Russia. As I've told you, I'm happy to sit back and let Mueller do his work. The rats are running for their lives at the moment.
LOL!! That is perfect. Don't ask you, but you KNOW for SURE he's got tentacles in Russia. You sure do fit the bill since you've changed to DINO. I just have to laugh.
His behavior has convinced me 100%. But on the outside chance there is absolutely nothing to Trump treating Russia better than any other country on the planet other than idiocy, then I will have been proud to trash such a infection that he is in our government. Arrogant, self-serving, narcissistic, lying, incompetent, , churlish, sexual predator that he is.
Keep going, I can't even breathe I'm laughing so hard!
And secondly, why are you bringing up Bill Clinton?
Rich, please tell me how Flynn could be so sure he could get the sanctions removed without help from the top? You are really ignoring a lot of what we now know. I think this administration is kaput, but like Russ Iâ€™m patient that the facts will come out.
Also, what proof do you have that every person Mueller hired was a HRC supporter. He found out about one this summer that was making texts in support of her and he was promptly fired. Yep, I guess that means they all are.
First of all, YOU don't know anything. I know as much as you know. and that means I don't KNOW anything. I'm going by what was reported, and what has been reported is that Flynn has "made a deal" to get the charge of lying to the FBI. And I can assure you that the FBI ain't talkin' about that, and isn't telling the reporters that because that would be utterly unethical for them to say anything like that. That is unknown, even though every news outlet has copied the first report and then regurgitated it. We don't know at all that Comey MADE A DEAL. That is all speculation. I am listening to and reading reports that say that Flynn is just tired, worn out, broke, and was threatened to have his son brought into all this and he wanted it over, so he pled guilty to "lying" to the FBI. This report came from the mouth of one of his friends, and was reported by Sarah Carter, who IS in fact a real reporter these days.
Unlike CNN, she actually has names, and uses them, they aren't "anonymous" people that CNN does not name. Well in court one has the right to face their accuser, so names have to be given up.
Not CNN though and not the WaPo. They simply use "anonymous" as their "source" of credible information, just as the WaPo reported that their "anonymous" source said that Trump told Jared Kushner what to say to the FBI. Hmm.... another anonymous source, that they can just pull out of thin air whenever they need to make a case against someone. This isn't news any longer it is a bunch of leftists who are peeing in their pants to become the next Bob Woodward and the next pulitzer prize winners.
I hate to break these facts to you, but the "News" reporters don't "report" anything any longer, they go by conjecture and what they "think" is happening and they report it as news.
You might remember that there were reports that virtually every leftist news organization jumped onto which stated that Comey was going to come into the Congress and refute Trump's allegations that he asked Comey if he was under investigation.
You may not recall, but that was a BIG Deal at the time and CNN made it out to be something significant. They had "sources" that claimed that Comey was going to come in and just destroy Trump and show that he was trying to 'intimidate' Comey. This false story was built up and built upon by the other pathetic leftist news outlets that regurgitated their story and the story became "Comey is going to testify that Trump tried to Obstruct Justice by intimidating Comey"
Well what happened was that Comey came into Congress and testified to precisely the opposite, that Trump never ASKED him anything, but that Comey himself "Offered it Up".
Now I know that you don't want to hear those FACTS, however those are the facts. CNN didn't do any due diligence and ran with THEIR conjecture about things.
That isn't NEWS Jim, that's called opinion journalism and its POOR opinion journalism when what the NEWS outlets reported turned out to be false.
CNN then of course came out and backtracked. This was their attempt at righting the wrong they had reported. It was another example of jumping the gun by the news outlets and CNN has become the King of that yellow journalism. That's what all this used to be called. Now it is referred to as mainstream media. I call it leftist, biased media.
Now another thing is that I'm pretty positive that you had no clue that all of this had occurred because you watch CNN and MSNBC, and so you don't really get FACTS, you get what they THINK is going on.
They operate using conjucture, supposition, and innuendo.
Did you know that Brian Ross was suspended from ABC news for a month for his lies about Trump and Flynn. He made things up. He didn't check things out.
It actually was so bad that he no longer allowed by ABC to report on Trump. They don't want any more egg on their face.
What say you about that Jim?
Anything at all, or is this how NEWS in this country is supposed to operate?
This isn't News it is Pravda in America
As for your questions, about how many Democrats are operating in the Mueller investigation. I go by their reported and verified (by places like Judicial watch) Donations to either Republican campaigns or Democrat campaigns.
See, I have NUMBERS Jim, actual cash numbers that are kept track of, by the Federal Election commission filings.
Mueller's right hand guy Andrew Weissman donated to Obama in 2008 SIX separate times. He donated $4800 total. Do you want me to provide proof for those numbers? I will.
Jeannie Rhee donated $5400 to Hilary Clinton's campaign. She's on Mueller's crew. Do you want me to provide proof? I certainly can.
Now we get to James Quarles. He's on Mueller's team. He has donated to Democrat PACs for at least 30 years, as reported by the FEC. Starting with Michael Dukakis, then to Al Gore, then John Kerry, then Obama, then Clinton. He donated to their Presidential PACs.
Then we have the guy who Mueller had NO choice but to fire from his team. He was sending literally thousands of Antt-Trump emails to one of his cohorts at Justice who hated Trump as much as he did. His name is Peter Strzok. Are you familiar with this story?
If not, let me clue you in. He was as Anti-Trump as it gets and he was as PRO-Hilary as they come. He was actually ON the team that is investigating Donald Trump. He was so biased that he went in and changed the words that Comey initially used in his report about Hilary Clinton, whereby Comey said Clinton was grossly negligent, this guy Strzok changed those words to extremely careless. Why did he do this you ask? Well, the espionage statute that Hilary Clinton violated uses the words "gross negligence" and so in order to try to help Hilary IMO, he changed the words so they wouldn't be the same words that the criminal statute uses, that would be put forth against Hilary. He was a big time Hilary donor and supporter and he sent tons of emails that were Anti-Trump all over the place. Why the HELL was this guy on the investigative team Jim? Why didn't Mueller VETT him, and tell him from the beginning NO WAY JOSE, you aren't part of this investigation. Does it get more biased than a guy who hates Trump investigating Trump.
Perhaps you don't care because you hate the guy he's investigating however people like me who feel that justice should be blind, are appalled at this revelation. I'm sure it doesn't bother you one bit does it?
And yes, this is another LONG posting but you guys on the left don't seem to read anything factual so it's left to guys like me to try and inform of what is REALLY going on in this gov't rather than the smoke being blown up your collective asses by false news outlets like CNN, ABC, NBC, and MSNBC. That sometimes takes a lot of words and writings. I'm happy though to try and inform you and your buddies with REAL news and facts, something you don't get from your sources of news.
As to your other question about Flynn. How did he know he could get sanctions removed except with "help from the top". I don't know, why don't you ask Flynn. I never heard him utter that did you? If so can you tell me where you heard that he said "I can get help from the top to remove your sanctions"?? Sounds like more supposition and innuendo on the part of the left. Unless they have sources, real credible sources that say he was urging Trump to remove sanctions, it is all conjecture. My guess is that you got that information from MSNBC. Sounds like a Joe Scumborough soundbite to me.
Now my last question. Did I answer everything you asked of me?