|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 20 2017 03:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 03:25 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2017 03:20 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 03:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The only evidence suggesting that Seth Rich was involved in anything with Wikileaks was the private investigator telling Fox that he thought there was a chance of it.
The next day, the private investigator said he said that because the Fox people told him there was a chance of it, and it seemed like a possibility.
So basically if you believe Fox has privileged information they for some reason aren't revealing, then I guess it makes sense to think there was any development in the Seth Rich case. The only evidence suggesting that Russia leaked the data essentially comes down to opportunity (they hacked) and motive (they dislike Clinton/preferred Trump). Seth Rich, as a programmer, was someone who likely had certain privileges in the DNC IT infrastructure, potentially giving him the opportunity to access the data. If he was indeed a Bernie supporter (I've seen this suggested in various places, but never really substantiated), then that'd be his potential motive. So in both cases, you can reason towards opportunity and motive quite easily. You don't need to go to Fox News or other fake news sources at all. You have to want it pretty hard, though. That is a lot of things to assume with no evidence to back it up. It also plays into this weird view of the DNC where they are capable of covering up a murder of their own staff, but totally incompetent about getting hacked and losing the election. Getting away with murder is pretty hard. Nah, as I said before, the murder could just as easily be a random unrelated factor in this. You don't investigate for murder just because someone can think of reasons why a death could possibly be murder.
He's a young male with no criminal history as far as I'm aware who died under suspicious circumstances and he worked for a political organization during a heated election season. Why would you not be skeptical around these circumstances? Do you guys just choose to be selectively skeptical when it matches your agenda? You don't need to go full conspiracy theorist and make grandiose claims, but there should be an attempt to recognize and get to the bottom of it.
|
On May 20 2017 03:37 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 03:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 20 2017 03:25 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2017 03:20 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 03:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The only evidence suggesting that Seth Rich was involved in anything with Wikileaks was the private investigator telling Fox that he thought there was a chance of it.
The next day, the private investigator said he said that because the Fox people told him there was a chance of it, and it seemed like a possibility.
So basically if you believe Fox has privileged information they for some reason aren't revealing, then I guess it makes sense to think there was any development in the Seth Rich case. The only evidence suggesting that Russia leaked the data essentially comes down to opportunity (they hacked) and motive (they dislike Clinton/preferred Trump). Seth Rich, as a programmer, was someone who likely had certain privileges in the DNC IT infrastructure, potentially giving him the opportunity to access the data. If he was indeed a Bernie supporter (I've seen this suggested in various places, but never really substantiated), then that'd be his potential motive. So in both cases, you can reason towards opportunity and motive quite easily. You don't need to go to Fox News or other fake news sources at all. You have to want it pretty hard, though. That is a lot of things to assume with no evidence to back it up. It also plays into this weird view of the DNC where they are capable of covering up a murder of their own staff, but totally incompetent about getting hacked and losing the election. Getting away with murder is pretty hard. Nah, as I said before, the murder could just as easily be a random unrelated factor in this. You don't investigate for murder just because someone can think of reasons why a death could possibly be murder. He's a young male with no criminal history as far as I'm aware who died under suspicious circumstances and he worked for a political organization during a heated election season. Why would you not be skeptical around these circumstances? Do you guys just choose to be selectively skeptical when it matches your agenda? You don't need to go full conspiracy theorist and make grandiose claims, but there should be an attempt to recognize and get to the bottom of it.
Does it matter that the guys that are Just-Asking-Questions (FOX, Breitbart, AM Radio, the investigator, Fox5dc) have been caught lying and retracted their bullshit questions/accusations? You can keep just asking questions, but know that the meat of the story and the accusations were debunked hours before Hannity tried to keep the lies going.
Updated | The FBI is not investigating the unsolved murder of former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, Newsweek has learned. The bureau’s lack of involvement refutes a Fox News report that an FBI analysis of Rich’s computer showed he had transferred more than 44,000 DNC emails to a person with ties to WikiLeaks. The report cited an unnamed “federal investigator.”
...
Citing that source, Fox News said that “an FBI forensic report of Rich’s computer—generated within 96 hours after Rich’s murder—showed that he made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen,” whom The New York Times described in an obituary as a mentor to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and as director of WikiLeaks. The source said that sometime before May 21, 2016, Rich had transferred 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments belonging to DNC leaders dating from January 2015 to late May 2016. MacFadyen, the apparent recipient, died of lung cancer last October.
...
But Newsweek has learned that the FBI is not involved in the Rich case, despite the claims that it is. And speaking with Newsweek, Wheeler, the private investigator, seemed to walk back his comments.
http://www.newsweek.com/seth-rich-dnc-staffer-wikileaks-leaked-emails-fbi-610383
|
On May 20 2017 03:37 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 03:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 20 2017 03:25 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2017 03:20 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 03:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The only evidence suggesting that Seth Rich was involved in anything with Wikileaks was the private investigator telling Fox that he thought there was a chance of it.
The next day, the private investigator said he said that because the Fox people told him there was a chance of it, and it seemed like a possibility.
So basically if you believe Fox has privileged information they for some reason aren't revealing, then I guess it makes sense to think there was any development in the Seth Rich case. The only evidence suggesting that Russia leaked the data essentially comes down to opportunity (they hacked) and motive (they dislike Clinton/preferred Trump). Seth Rich, as a programmer, was someone who likely had certain privileges in the DNC IT infrastructure, potentially giving him the opportunity to access the data. If he was indeed a Bernie supporter (I've seen this suggested in various places, but never really substantiated), then that'd be his potential motive. So in both cases, you can reason towards opportunity and motive quite easily. You don't need to go to Fox News or other fake news sources at all. You have to want it pretty hard, though. That is a lot of things to assume with no evidence to back it up. It also plays into this weird view of the DNC where they are capable of covering up a murder of their own staff, but totally incompetent about getting hacked and losing the election. Getting away with murder is pretty hard. Nah, as I said before, the murder could just as easily be a random unrelated factor in this. You don't investigate for murder just because someone can think of reasons why a death could possibly be murder. He's a young male with no criminal history as far as I'm aware who died under suspicious circumstances and he worked for a political organization during a heated election season. Why would you not be skeptical around these circumstances? Do you guys just choose to be selectively skeptical when it matches your agenda? You don't need to go full conspiracy theorist and make grandiose claims, but there should be an attempt to recognize and get to the bottom of it.
Because he worked in DC and the crime rate is high.
https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glance
It is also close to Baltimore, which is Baltimore. For reference, NYC had around 100 murders last year for the entire City.
|
On May 20 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 03:37 biology]major wrote:On May 20 2017 03:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 20 2017 03:25 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2017 03:20 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 03:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The only evidence suggesting that Seth Rich was involved in anything with Wikileaks was the private investigator telling Fox that he thought there was a chance of it.
The next day, the private investigator said he said that because the Fox people told him there was a chance of it, and it seemed like a possibility.
So basically if you believe Fox has privileged information they for some reason aren't revealing, then I guess it makes sense to think there was any development in the Seth Rich case. The only evidence suggesting that Russia leaked the data essentially comes down to opportunity (they hacked) and motive (they dislike Clinton/preferred Trump). Seth Rich, as a programmer, was someone who likely had certain privileges in the DNC IT infrastructure, potentially giving him the opportunity to access the data. If he was indeed a Bernie supporter (I've seen this suggested in various places, but never really substantiated), then that'd be his potential motive. So in both cases, you can reason towards opportunity and motive quite easily. You don't need to go to Fox News or other fake news sources at all. You have to want it pretty hard, though. That is a lot of things to assume with no evidence to back it up. It also plays into this weird view of the DNC where they are capable of covering up a murder of their own staff, but totally incompetent about getting hacked and losing the election. Getting away with murder is pretty hard. Nah, as I said before, the murder could just as easily be a random unrelated factor in this. You don't investigate for murder just because someone can think of reasons why a death could possibly be murder. He's a young male with no criminal history as far as I'm aware who died under suspicious circumstances and he worked for a political organization during a heated election season. Why would you not be skeptical around these circumstances? Do you guys just choose to be selectively skeptical when it matches your agenda? You don't need to go full conspiracy theorist and make grandiose claims, but there should be an attempt to recognize and get to the bottom of it. Because he worked in DC and the crime rate is high. https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glanceIt is also close to Baltimore, which is Baltimore. For reference, NYC had around 100 murders last year for the entire City.
Depends where exactly he was mudered to apply crime statistics. Not sure enough about this case, but I'm seeing selective skepticism. I'm also surprised the fbi aren't involved.
|
On May 20 2017 03:20 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 03:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The only evidence suggesting that Seth Rich was involved in anything with Wikileaks was the private investigator telling Fox that he thought there was a chance of it.
The next day, the private investigator said he said that because the Fox people told him there was a chance of it, and it seemed like a possibility.
So basically if you believe Fox has privileged information they for some reason aren't revealing, then I guess it makes sense to think there was any development in the Seth Rich case. The only evidence suggesting that Russia leaked the data essentially comes down to opportunity (they hacked) and motive (they dislike Clinton/preferred Trump). Seth Rich, as a programmer, was someone who likely had certain privileges in the DNC IT infrastructure, potentially giving him the opportunity to access the data. If he was indeed a Bernie supporter (I've seen this suggested in various places, but never really substantiated), then that'd be his potential motive. So in both cases, you can reason towards opportunity and motive quite easily. You don't need to go to Fox News or other fake news sources at all. That said, I think the most likely explanation is the Russians both hacked and leaked the data. I'd -want- the 'Seth Rich is the leaker' story to be true (for my agenda in both general hilarity and mocking the US), but I don't really think that's the case.
So I'm confused, are we now saying Guccifer was never real or something? Or maybe he was secretly Seth Rich in disguise? Because that's the main reason I don't think some random DNC staffer secret sent the emails to Wikileaks and instead think they were hacked. Unless he also sent them to Guccifer.
After all, Guccifer got more documents than just DNC docs-was Seth Rich doing that too? It seems implausible, considering Guccifer posted after his death.
|
On May 20 2017 03:47 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2017 03:37 biology]major wrote:On May 20 2017 03:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 20 2017 03:25 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2017 03:20 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 03:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The only evidence suggesting that Seth Rich was involved in anything with Wikileaks was the private investigator telling Fox that he thought there was a chance of it.
The next day, the private investigator said he said that because the Fox people told him there was a chance of it, and it seemed like a possibility.
So basically if you believe Fox has privileged information they for some reason aren't revealing, then I guess it makes sense to think there was any development in the Seth Rich case. The only evidence suggesting that Russia leaked the data essentially comes down to opportunity (they hacked) and motive (they dislike Clinton/preferred Trump). Seth Rich, as a programmer, was someone who likely had certain privileges in the DNC IT infrastructure, potentially giving him the opportunity to access the data. If he was indeed a Bernie supporter (I've seen this suggested in various places, but never really substantiated), then that'd be his potential motive. So in both cases, you can reason towards opportunity and motive quite easily. You don't need to go to Fox News or other fake news sources at all. You have to want it pretty hard, though. That is a lot of things to assume with no evidence to back it up. It also plays into this weird view of the DNC where they are capable of covering up a murder of their own staff, but totally incompetent about getting hacked and losing the election. Getting away with murder is pretty hard. Nah, as I said before, the murder could just as easily be a random unrelated factor in this. You don't investigate for murder just because someone can think of reasons why a death could possibly be murder. He's a young male with no criminal history as far as I'm aware who died under suspicious circumstances and he worked for a political organization during a heated election season. Why would you not be skeptical around these circumstances? Do you guys just choose to be selectively skeptical when it matches your agenda? You don't need to go full conspiracy theorist and make grandiose claims, but there should be an attempt to recognize and get to the bottom of it. Because he worked in DC and the crime rate is high. https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glanceIt is also close to Baltimore, which is Baltimore. For reference, NYC had around 100 murders last year for the entire City. Depends where exactly he was mudered to apply crime statistics. Not sure enough about this case, but I'm seeing selective skepticism. I'm also surprised the fbi aren't involved.
Considering the leaky nature of the FBI and there are a lot of Trump supporters in the FBI that also disliked Clinton, I’m not that surprised. I am surprised the FBI publicly called them out on it. If you want to believe that Rich was murdered by the DNC, that is on you. But it apparently didn’t rise to a full investigation by the FBI, which freely investigated Clinton.
|
Canada13400 Posts
On May 20 2017 03:37 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 03:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 20 2017 03:25 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2017 03:20 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 03:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The only evidence suggesting that Seth Rich was involved in anything with Wikileaks was the private investigator telling Fox that he thought there was a chance of it.
The next day, the private investigator said he said that because the Fox people told him there was a chance of it, and it seemed like a possibility.
So basically if you believe Fox has privileged information they for some reason aren't revealing, then I guess it makes sense to think there was any development in the Seth Rich case. The only evidence suggesting that Russia leaked the data essentially comes down to opportunity (they hacked) and motive (they dislike Clinton/preferred Trump). Seth Rich, as a programmer, was someone who likely had certain privileges in the DNC IT infrastructure, potentially giving him the opportunity to access the data. If he was indeed a Bernie supporter (I've seen this suggested in various places, but never really substantiated), then that'd be his potential motive. So in both cases, you can reason towards opportunity and motive quite easily. You don't need to go to Fox News or other fake news sources at all. You have to want it pretty hard, though. That is a lot of things to assume with no evidence to back it up. It also plays into this weird view of the DNC where they are capable of covering up a murder of their own staff, but totally incompetent about getting hacked and losing the election. Getting away with murder is pretty hard. Nah, as I said before, the murder could just as easily be a random unrelated factor in this. You don't investigate for murder just because someone can think of reasons why a death could possibly be murder. He's a young male with no criminal history as far as I'm aware who died under suspicious circumstances and he worked for a political organization during a heated election season. Why would you not be skeptical around these circumstances? Do you guys just choose to be selectively skeptical when it matches your agenda? You don't need to go full conspiracy theorist and make grandiose claims, but there should be an attempt to recognize and get to the bottom of it.
But whether he was murdered or not or why has ZERO to do with the leaked emails.
I mean lets be honest here.
Russia has geo-political interests in not having Clinton in charge of the US.
Russia has a national interest in destabilizing the US.
Russia has for years been involved in elections and political activities and uprisings in many places around the world.
Russia has for years been wanting to expand their sphere of influence.
Russia has for years seen the US as an enemy.
Russia has for years done things to try and weaken NATO and reduce its influence in the Baltic region.
Russia has also:
Been identified as tied to Donald Trump's finances (by his own son's admission)
Been the reason for Michael Flynn's resignation
Been active since the cold war in trying to influence American politics.
Engaged in multiple proxy wars with the US since the fall of the soviet union.
Effectively stopped being a democracy.
Begun to further erode human rights in their own country.
Let's also consider the following:
Many countries have pointed to Russia as having been involved. Not just American intelligence services.
Many countries have identified Russia as attempting similar tactics in their jurisdiction (France and Macron's email leaks -- or is there a Seth Rich equivalent in France?)
Many countries have been very cold to Russia because of their growing bravado in trying to push against western democracy.
Does it really make sense to believe that:
(1) The DNC hack was the result of a disgruntled tech worker; and
(2) That ALL of the above and more is some sort of crazy mass conspiracy pushed by the media for YEARS and;
(3) That Seth Rich just happened to provide the perfect cover for anti-Russian and anti-republican propaganda to be pushed by the left wing media and DNC cabal in a push for power; and
(4) That Seth Rich didn't leave any clues AT ALL to his involvement for people close to him to find in a worst case scenario; and
(5a) That killing him was a convenient way to hide his involvement allowing the Russia angle to be a cover for a leftist political power grab; OR
(5b) That his death was a happy accident for the leftist cabal to hide his involvement and let the Russia angle cover for a leftist political power grab.
Or does it make more sense that Russia wanted to destabilize western democracy and use it as an example to justify Putin's political position and power in his own country by pointing to a failure of democracy?
|
United States43598 Posts
On May 20 2017 03:47 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2017 03:37 biology]major wrote:On May 20 2017 03:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 20 2017 03:25 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2017 03:20 a_flayer wrote:On May 20 2017 03:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The only evidence suggesting that Seth Rich was involved in anything with Wikileaks was the private investigator telling Fox that he thought there was a chance of it.
The next day, the private investigator said he said that because the Fox people told him there was a chance of it, and it seemed like a possibility.
So basically if you believe Fox has privileged information they for some reason aren't revealing, then I guess it makes sense to think there was any development in the Seth Rich case. The only evidence suggesting that Russia leaked the data essentially comes down to opportunity (they hacked) and motive (they dislike Clinton/preferred Trump). Seth Rich, as a programmer, was someone who likely had certain privileges in the DNC IT infrastructure, potentially giving him the opportunity to access the data. If he was indeed a Bernie supporter (I've seen this suggested in various places, but never really substantiated), then that'd be his potential motive. So in both cases, you can reason towards opportunity and motive quite easily. You don't need to go to Fox News or other fake news sources at all. You have to want it pretty hard, though. That is a lot of things to assume with no evidence to back it up. It also plays into this weird view of the DNC where they are capable of covering up a murder of their own staff, but totally incompetent about getting hacked and losing the election. Getting away with murder is pretty hard. Nah, as I said before, the murder could just as easily be a random unrelated factor in this. You don't investigate for murder just because someone can think of reasons why a death could possibly be murder. He's a young male with no criminal history as far as I'm aware who died under suspicious circumstances and he worked for a political organization during a heated election season. Why would you not be skeptical around these circumstances? Do you guys just choose to be selectively skeptical when it matches your agenda? You don't need to go full conspiracy theorist and make grandiose claims, but there should be an attempt to recognize and get to the bottom of it. Because he worked in DC and the crime rate is high. https://mpdc.dc.gov/page/district-crime-data-glanceIt is also close to Baltimore, which is Baltimore. For reference, NYC had around 100 murders last year for the entire City. Depends where exactly he was mudered to apply crime statistics. Not sure enough about this case, but I'm seeing selective skepticism. I'm also surprised the fbi aren't involved.
If he was a leaker then there would be a motive and I'd want it investigated. But again, the conspiracy theorists are reading it backwards. They're assuming Clinton did it and creating the leaker element as the motive.
|
Canada13400 Posts
Also:
It is entirely possible wikileaks truly believes that they received the emails from a leaker.
If thats what they were told, and its what they believe, it doesn't mean they can't be wrong even if they think they are right.
|
WASHINGTON — President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”
The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that Mr. Trump dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives. Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.
The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
|
|
|
How do we verify this? Or prove this happened? Tapes/transcripts etc? This would be obstruction of justice plain and simple
|
|
|
On May 20 2017 03:15 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2017 03:00 Nevuk wrote:
Does anyone else find it insanely creepy that Pence refers to his wife as mother? If they have kids, not really. I mean "momma" would be a little more cutesy, the formality of "mother" is a little weird I guess. Alright, yeah, it's kind of weird. edit: GH still touting the "Russian hysteria" line? Really? Has Bernie's loss has turned you into a total Trump apologist?
yes, yes it has. I guess that's the down side of being too into politics. If you don't get your way you ragequit and become the guy who's selling his items and feeding the enemy team couriers to make a point about how much your own team deserves to lose.
(Haven't played SC in years so I had to go with Doter instead)
|
On May 20 2017 04:31 biology]major wrote:How do we verify this? Or prove this happened? Tapes/transcripts etc? This would be obstruction of justice plain and simple
It's too bad this was posted before Russia handed over their "unedited" transcripts to show there weren't leaks, because I'm pretty sure we would have gotten confirmation from them (not anymore though)
If it really is a White House memo/transcript circulated as the official version of the meeting (as indicated by the NYT story) it's straightforward for investigators to obtain, at least.
|
Man, it's kinda messed up to be telling another country one of our own sucks. It's like telling the world that your cousin is kooky - that's family business.
|
On May 20 2017 04:31 biology]major wrote:How do we verify this? Or prove this happened? Tapes/transcripts etc? This would be obstruction of justice plain and simple
Statement out by WH. Spicer does not deny truth of statement. Statement accused, Spicer confirms the "unnecessary pressure" and gist of statement, thus statement is implicitly confirmed until something else comes out. Give Trump a few hours, he will rage tweet the full confirmation.
|
On May 20 2017 04:25 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.
“I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.”
The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that Mr. Trump dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives. Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.
The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
The president of the USA calling the FBI director a nutjob to his scummy russian pals
All I can think of is this
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Trump is now openly bashing Comey to other nations. Nice, very classy.
|
Lol could you imagine how Mueller reads this situation? His old pal was fired, then was mocked for being a nut job by Trump to the Russians to "ease the pressure" off the Russia investigation. I know he's supposed to be searching for the truth, but Trump is pouring chum in shark infested waters without realizing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/cnc/images/c/c3/YR_Yuri%27s_subliminal_propaganda.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131229094240)
