|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 14 2019 08:53 On_Slaught wrote:
Sure, I'll agree the Nunes memo is not worth discussing at this point (save myself from having to spend an hour responding to that article - tho people should read the myriad articles on why the memo was shit, including Schiffs counter memo). I was going to address those 5 things on Friday, but nownis better I suppose.
So it all comes down to the fact that you dont think the Steele memo should have been in the warrant at all in light of those 5 things you listed. Fair enough. I'll give my response later when I'm back from the gym (tho ofc anyone else can feel free to jump in).
Just to clarify, my basic thesis is that people are likely going to get in trouble for including information from the Steele dossier in the FISA application when they had not yet verified that information pursuant to the Woods procedures. The five points in my prior post support that basic thesis by variously showing that the Steele dossier was never verified and that the information in it is unreliable.
|
On March 14 2019 09:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2019 08:53 On_Slaught wrote:
Sure, I'll agree the Nunes memo is not worth discussing at this point (save myself from having to spend an hour responding to that article - tho people should read the myriad articles on why the memo was shit, including Schiffs counter memo). I was going to address those 5 things on Friday, but nownis better I suppose.
So it all comes down to the fact that you dont think the Steele memo should have been in the warrant at all in light of those 5 things you listed. Fair enough. I'll give my response later when I'm back from the gym (tho ofc anyone else can feel free to jump in). Just to clarify, my basic thesis is that people are likely going to get in trouble for including information from the Steele dossier in the FISA application when they had not yet verified that information pursuant to the Woods procedures. The five points in my prior post support that basic thesis by variously showing that the Steele dossier was never verified and that the information in it is unreliable.
That's would be great if that was true, but instead the last page has shown you trying to prove that the "Nunes memo has been vindicated. The released FISA application supported everything that Nunes said." (Your words not mine!) See if you had merely written that some people are likely going to get in trouble, then you would most likely had been just been ignored as there is nothing to discuss, but sadly that was not what you had written.
|
On March 14 2019 09:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2019 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2019 08:53 On_Slaught wrote:
Sure, I'll agree the Nunes memo is not worth discussing at this point (save myself from having to spend an hour responding to that article - tho people should read the myriad articles on why the memo was shit, including Schiffs counter memo). I was going to address those 5 things on Friday, but nownis better I suppose.
So it all comes down to the fact that you dont think the Steele memo should have been in the warrant at all in light of those 5 things you listed. Fair enough. I'll give my response later when I'm back from the gym (tho ofc anyone else can feel free to jump in). Just to clarify, my basic thesis is that people are likely going to get in trouble for including information from the Steele dossier in the FISA application when they had not yet verified that information pursuant to the Woods procedures. The five points in my prior post support that basic thesis by variously showing that the Steele dossier was never verified and that the information in it is unreliable. That's would be great if that was true, but instead the last page has shown you trying to prove that the "Nunes memo has been vindicated. The released FISA application supported everything that Nunes said." (Your words not mine!) See if you had merely written that some people are likely going to get in trouble, then you would most likely had been just been ignored as there is nothing to discuss, but sadly that was not what you had written.
You aren’t doing a good job of following the argument. And besides, it should be obvious from my posting why I said that Nunes has been vindicated and why I stand by my statement.
|
I want to add Strassel's excellent piece in the WSJ to xDaunt's Byron York piece to help understand the right's perspective and the facts supporting it on the FBI/DOJ scandal. The recent push has been to move beyond Mueller and into Trump's taxes and alleged FEC violations. I think the major hope from the left and allies is that people forget how aggressively and vocally invested media and political figures were into Manafort/Page/Papadopoulos/Dossier allegations. She titles her piece "Shiffting to Phase 2 of Collusion, conspiracy theorists look for something new, anticipating a Mueller letdown.
There’s been no more reliable regurgitator of fantastical Trump-Russia collusion theories than Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff. So when the House Intelligence Committee chairman sits down to describe a “new phase” of the Trump investigation, pay attention. These are the fever swamps into which we will descend after Robert Mueller’s probe.
The collusionists need a “new phase” as signs grow that the special counsel won’t help realize their reveries of a Donald Trump takedown. They had said Mr. Mueller would provide all the answers. Now that it seems they won’t like his answers, Democrats and media insist that any report will likely prove “anticlimactic” and “inconclusive.” “This is merely the end of Chapter 1,” said Renato Mariotti, a CNN legal “analyst.”
Mr. Schiff turned this week to a dependable scribe—the Washington Post’s David Ignatius—to lay out the next chapter of the penny dreadful. Mr. Ignatius was the original conduit for the leak about former national security adviser Mike Flynn’s conversations with a Russian ambassador, and the far-fetched claims that Mr. Flynn had violated the Logan Act of 1799. Mr. Schiff has now dictated to Mr. Ignatius a whole new collusion theory. Forget Carter Page, Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos—whoever. The real Trump-Russia canoodling rests in “Trump’s finances.” The future president was “doing business with Russia” and “seeking Kremlin help.”
So, no apologies. No acknowledgment that Mr. Schiff & Co. for years have pushed fake stories that accused innocent men and women of being Russian agents. No relieved hope that the country might finally put this behind us. Just a smooth transition—using Russia as a hook—into Mr. Trump’s finances. Mueller who?
What’s mind-boggling is that reporters would continue to take Mr. Schiff seriously, given his extraordinary record of incorrect and misleading pronouncements. This is the man who, on March 22, 2017, helped launch full-blown hysteria when he said on “Meet the Press” that his committee already had the goods on Trump-Russia collusion.
“I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now,” Mr. Schiff declared then. Almost two years later, he’s provided no such evidence and stopped making the claim—undoubtedly because, as the Senate Intelligence Committee has said publicly, no such evidence has been found.
At an open House Intelligence Committee hearing on March 20, 2017, Mr. Schiff stated as fact numerous crazy accusations from the infamous Steele dossier—giving them early currency and credence. He claimed that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page secretly met with a Vladimir Putin crony and was offered the brokerage of a 19% share in a Russian company. That Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort tapped Mr. Page as a go-between. That the Russians offered the Trump campaign damaging documents on Hillary Clinton in return for a blind eye to Moscow’s Ukraine policy. Mr. Schiff has never acknowledged that all these allegations have been debunked or remain unproved.
There was Mr. Schiff’s role in plumping the discredited January BuzzFeed story claiming Mr. Mueller had evidence the president directed his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. The special counsel’s office issued a rare statement denying the report. There was Mr. Schiff’s theory that the mysterious phone calls Donald Trump Jr. placed before his 2016 meeting with Russians at Trump Tower were to Candidate Trump. Senate Intel shot that down. And don’t forget Mr. Schiff’s February 2018 memo claiming the Steele dossier “did not inform” the FBI probe, because the bureau didn’t obtain it until long after the probe’s start. Testimony from Justice Department officials shot that one down, too.
With a track record like this, who wouldn’t believe Mr. Schiff’s new claim, in the Ignatius interview, that the key to collusion rests in Trump finances—in particular something to do with Deutsche Bank? But hold on. Where did we first hear that Deutsche Bank theory? That’s right. See pages 64 and 117 of the wild House testimony of Glenn Simpson—head of Fusion GPS, the organization behind the Steele dossier. It’s right there, stuffed in between Mr. Simpson’s musings that Ivanka Trump might be involved with a “Russian Central Asian organized crime nexus,” that there is something nefarious happening on the “island of St. Martin in the Caribbean,” and that Roger Stone is part of a “Turkey-Russia” plot.
Mr. Schiff is taking his cue for Phase 2 of his investigation from the same Democrat-hired opposition-research group that launched the failed Phase 1.
At the start of all the Russia craziness, Mr. Schiff had a choice: maintain the bipartisan integrity of his committee by working with Republicans to find honest answers, or take on the role of resident conspiracy theorist. He chose his path. The rest of us should know better than to follow him.
WSJ
In a sane world, I think Schiff's participation would be rated as a more political version of Alex Jones. His committee has proof that Page brokered deals, and by the time you wonder about the evidence, he's already onto Manafort's involvement. It might've started with the chemicals turning the frogs gay, but you're already onto the moon landing before he's dealt with biology or chemistry. He's behind on offering proof or apologies for the first four ironclad findings when he presents the fifth one wrapped up in a bow.
We already have an inveterate fabulist in the White House. Schiff makes a second in House committee chairmanship. Why hold to defending the second, and expect people to be more vocal about the first? It's confusing. It's damaging to the hypothesis that this isn't all just partisanship rebranded from old Red Scares to new Red Scares.
When I look back to news stories published two years ago, I see headlines like "If true, this CNN report about Russia could destroy Trump’s presidency" to accompany Schiff's "there is evidence that is “not circumstantial” of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government." I wonder if in another two years, he will have a new bombshell and a new angle, and today's allegations are just left gathering dust in archives. Maybe with four years at a remove, he'll have the common courtesy to say "Never mind about all those old ones, I never really believed them much anyway."
|
Like I said, Nunes’s statements have aged quite well whereas Schiff looks like a fraud.
|
On March 14 2019 09:52 xDaunt wrote:
Like I said, Nunes’s statements have aged quite well whereas Schiff looks like a fraud.
What has Schiff said that is fraudulent?
|
On March 14 2019 10:31 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2019 09:52 xDaunt wrote:
Like I said, Nunes’s statements have aged quite well whereas Schiff looks like a fraud. What has Schiff said that is fraudulent?
Did you not read the WSJ article that Danglars posted?
|
Now, if you really want to push the story beyond mere FISA abuse, consider the following question: Why did no one from the Obama administration brief Trump on the fact that various members of his team were under investigation for Russia-related collusion/interference? We already know from Lisa Page's testimony that Obama knew about the investigation and wanted to be kept informed on its progress. And we also know that Brennan (CIA director at the time) was separately briefing people on Capitol Hill about the Steele Dossier in August 2016. Here's some testimony from Loretta Lynch (which is the first time that I've seen it leaked anywhere):
President Donald Trump’s campaign was never given a defensive briefing by the FBI, despite mounting concerns that Russians were allegedly trying to penetrate the campaign during the 2016 presidential election.
In testimony provided by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, along with others, it is the key finding that won’t bode well for the FBI and DOJ. It also raises significant questions regarding the treatment of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and whether she ever received ‘defensive briefings’ in detail from the bureau. Lynch’s testimony is still not public but has been reviewed by SaraACarter.com.
....
Lynch and Failure to Give Defensive Briefing
Let’s start with Lynch’s testimony, which has not yet been made public.
In her testimony, Lynch she admits that senior officials at the FBI and DOJ did not provide a briefing to then candidate-Trump. Those discussions, according to Lynch, also included former FBI Director James Comey. It appears they all discussed that the defensive briefing was an option but never followed through. None of those persons who testified about those discussions has a clear answer to why none was given.
“Were you aware that George Papadopoulos was under investigation by the FBI,” an investigator asked Lynch during last years closed door hearing.
“I was aware that his activities were of concern,” Lynch replied.
“Were you aware that he was associated with the Trump campaign,” the investigator followed up.
Lynch then says, “you know, I knew that but, again, I don’t have specifics and certainly at that – thinking back to that time, I don’t know if I knew his role at that time in the campaign.”
The investigator then presses Lynch, asking “did you know he had some sort of role?”
“As far as my recollection is, yes,” Lynch answers.
The investigator goes one step further: “So there are these investigations launched into two individuals, in your mind, somehow associated with the Trump campaign…Did you consider any other options other than an investigation?”
Lynch explains, “it’s when information is provided to someone usually as a result of the intelligence community learning information that may impact them, in the context in which I’m aware of it, in their official role, or in their official business.”
The investigator then asks was “defensive briefings given to candidates for the presidency?”
“Certain types of defense briefings are, is my understanding,” Lynch states.”It’s not something that I was personally involved in. They received – they do receive security briefings. I’m only aware of that from discussions with members of the intelligence community.”
The revelation:
“Did you ever discuss whether the Trump campaign should be defensively briefed on either Carter Page or George Papadopoulos,” asks the investigator, who reiterates if they were under scrutiny whey didn’t the FBI and DOJ make Trump aware.
“I was certainly aware that it was an option, but I don’t know what, if anything, ever happened to that option,” Lynch answers. “Without getting into specific discussions, it certainly is an option that one would consider, but I don’t know if those actions were ever taken.”
When asked if Lynch was involved in discussing defensive briefings with the Trump campaign about Carter and Papadopolous, she only replies “not to the level of giving direction.”
“Again, I’m just being careful because of the nature of the information,” she stresses. “Certainly, it’s always an option, but at a very early stage, you would have it as an option, and you would evaluate it as time goes on, and I don’t have any information about further resolution of that issue.”
Source.
So Lynch testified that there were discussions about briefing Trump, but she doesn't know the ultimate result of those discussions. And it seems like it wasn't her call to make as to whether to brief Trump, which begs the question of whose call it was. Now, I don't know what the standards are (if any) for when presidential candidates or other private persons should be briefed on foreign infiltration. Back when McCain was running for president and he was working with Manafort, the Bush administration gave defensive briefings to McCain. At the very least it seems obvious that the decent thing to do would have been for the Obama administration to brief Trump rather than sit on its hands and let this investigative catastrophe unfold. If nothing else, the inability for Lynch and other witnesses to articulate a reason why a defensive briefing wasn't given to Trump is certainly troubling in light of the apparent improprieties surrounding the use of the Steele dossier to secure FISA warrants.
|
I bet it would have been decent for Obama to remind him to be a decent husband to Melania too. I know you think this is some kind of mic-drop moment, but maybe it's not a story because it's just not a story.
|
|
|
On March 14 2019 12:05 NewSunshine wrote:
I bet it would have been decent for Obama to remind him to be a decent husband to Melania too. I know you think this is some kind of mic-drop moment, but maybe it's not a story because it's just not a story.
I thought it was pretty obvious from my post that I wasn’t dropping the mic on anything.
|
On March 14 2019 12:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2019 12:05 NewSunshine wrote:
I bet it would have been decent for Obama to remind him to be a decent husband to Melania too. I know you think this is some kind of mic-drop moment, but maybe it's not a story because it's just not a story. I thought it was pretty obvious from my post that I wasn’t dropping the mic on anything.
I think it's very much not-obvious when you do an Ancient Aliens style "Now consider: could it have been aliens who convinced the Obama administration to not wipe Trump's ass for him?"
If you were going for something else, you're free to elucidate yourself.
|
On March 14 2019 12:22 JimmiC wrote:
Maybe because they thought " if this many of his associates are dirty, and his immidiate family was meeting with Russia, he is either super dirty or a incredibly bad judge of character and informing him may hinder the investigation.
Maybe, but I’d expect Lynch, Comey, and others who testified about the defense briefing discussions to have offered that reason up when asked. They didn’t. And everyone agrees that Trump himself wasn’t under investigation for collusion or otherwise suspected of wrongdoing during that time.
|
All the Schiff hate seems a little premature given he hasn't been disproven by the Mueller report to date. Sure he has said some outlandish things that I would prefer he provide evidence for, but if that was disqualifying noone would be left in the Trump admin.
On March 14 2019 09:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2019 08:53 On_Slaught wrote:
Sure, I'll agree the Nunes memo is not worth discussing at this point (save myself from having to spend an hour responding to that article - tho people should read the myriad articles on why the memo was shit, including Schiffs counter memo). I was going to address those 5 things on Friday, but nownis better I suppose.
So it all comes down to the fact that you dont think the Steele memo should have been in the warrant at all in light of those 5 things you listed. Fair enough. I'll give my response later when I'm back from the gym (tho ofc anyone else can feel free to jump in). Just to clarify, my basic thesis is that people are likely going to get in trouble for including information from the Steele dossier in the FISA application when they had not yet verified that information pursuant to the Woods procedures. The five points in my prior post support that basic thesis by variously showing that the Steele dossier was never verified and that the information in it is unreliable.
On March 14 2019 07:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2019 07:15 On_Slaught wrote:On March 14 2019 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2019 06:36 On_Slaught wrote:On March 14 2019 05:14 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2019 05:10 Gorsameth wrote:
Nunes.
The guy from the Nunes Memo?
Sorry if I don't take anything he says seriously after that piece of "selective quoting". Like I said previously, Nunes has been proven correct by the information that has been released. Schiff, on the other hand, is looking like a fraud at best. Lol, what? The Nunes memo has been shown to be full of falsehoods and irrelevant crap, largely by Schiff himself. Nope. But hey, feel free to post something supporting this. Did you forget that Nunes wrote the thing never having read the warrant the memo is about? Maybe if he did he would know that the warrant acknowledged the Steele dossier was a political creation and that at best all it did was corroborate other independent evidence they already had against Page. In no way shape or form does that memo prove that there was corruption surrounding the 2016 warrant. It's so weak that even Republicans as a whole, for who love their conspiracy theories, have long since stopped talking about it.
Sheesh. This is first page Google stuff. Only in Kellyanne's alternate fact world could Nunes be considered a purveyor of facts. Let me direct you to what Byron York says in that article I just linked (and you ignored): The fourth paragraph:
1) The "dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties to Russia.
That is accurate. When the Nunes memo was released, there was controversy over its assertion that the dossier formed an "essential" part of the Page FISA application. But Senate Judiciary Committee staff, who reviewed the FISA application separately from the House, concluded that the dossier allegations made up the "bulk" of the application. Even a Washington Post article Sunday purporting to debunk the Nunes memo in light of the FISA application conceded that the dossier played "a prominent role" in the FISA application. Finally, the Nunes memo's assertion, noted below, that former FBI number-two Andrew McCabe agreed that "no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information," was not challenged by Democrats when the Nunes memo was made public.
The fifth paragraph:
a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.
That is accurate. Readers will search the FISA application in vain for any specific mention of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign funding of the dossier. For the most part, names were not used in the application, but Donald Trump was referred to as "Candidate #1," Hillary Clinton was referred to as "Candidate #2," and the Republican Party was referred to as "Political Party #1." Thus, the FISA application could easily have explained that the dossier research was paid for by "Candidate #2" and "Political Party #2," meaning the Democrats. And yet the FBI chose to describe the situation this way, in a footnote: "Source #1...was approached by an identified U.S. person, who indicated to Source #1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding Candidate #1's ties to Russia...The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #1's ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1's campaign."
Democrats argue that the FISA Court judges should have been able to figure out, from that obscure description, that the DNC and Clinton campaign paid for the dossier. That seems a pretty weak argument, but in any case, the Nunes memo's statement that the FISA application did not disclose or reference the role of the DNC and the Clinton campaign is undeniably true.
The sixth paragraph:
b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of -- and paid by -- the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.
That is accurate. This is all misleading or, more importantly, completely irrelevant. None of this proves there was corruption behind the warrants, which is his entire point. Sigh, now I feel obligated to respond to the article paragraph by paragraph. Regrettably, responding point by point is too large a task to do on my phone, and I wont have access to my computer until Friday night (TL blocked on work comp). I'll save this post and respond to it in detail later this week since we dont want people around here actually thinking Nunes cares about or is seeking the truth. I never said that the Nunes memo proves corruption with regards to the FISA application by itself. All that the memo purports to do is point out some important omissions from the FISA application. You have to look at other evidence to get to corruption and defrauding the FISA court, such as 1) testimony from McCabe and Baker that they probably would not have gotten the FISA warrant without the Steele dossier, 2) testimony from Bruce Ohr warning the FBI/DOJ that they needed to verify the Steele dossier, 3) testimony from Comey and others that the Steele dossier was never verified, 4) Steele's sworn interrogatory responses (same as testimony) in a UK case stating that he would not stand behind and verify the materials in the dossier (lol), and 5) the utter lack of any charges against anyone corroborating anything of importance in the Steele dossier. Even setting all of this aside, the FBI/DOJ were required to keep a Woods file documenting what they did to verify the dossier before using it. I'm sure that this file is going to come out eventually. Like I previously noted, Lindsey Graham requested its production last week. The paper trail will be conclusive.
To start, we know the investigation was already under way well before Steele came in. We know that the DoJ cited "multiple" independent sources concerned Pages relationship with Russia, plus what they learned from Papadopolous. He had just been to Russia in March 2016 for an unusual reason, and had been on the FBIs radar since 2013 for Russia related issues. Senior FBI lawyer Moyer testified that there was at least a 50% chance they would have gone for the FISA warrant even without Steele. All in all, there is every reason to believe they had enough evidence to meet the relatively low bar for a warrant even without Steele. Further, since he was tied to their Russia interference investigation, as that investigation picked up over 2016 so would the chances they go for the warrant eventually regardless of the dossier.
Despite all that, I certainly accept that its possible someone could get it trouble for not auditing the dossier enough before adding it. The whole "Woods Procedure". Few things tho:
- McCabe has said he is being mischaracterizing. He claims he was only saying it was material, not essential. I couldn't find anything about Baker saying it was essential, tho my searchfu may be weak.
- There appears to be some funky timeline issues I'm not clear on. The Dems memo claims that by the time Ohr briefed the FBI that they had already terminated Steele as a source and were independently verifying the dossier. I suppose this will be cleared up if cases go forward. Either way, its self evident that the source being biased is not a sufficient reason to completely disregard evidence (more of a weight thing).
- At least one part of the Steele dossier was corrboraterated by independent FBI info before the first warrant, adding to its credibility. I'm not aware of any part that had been disproved at the time but wasnt included.
- The warrant was vetted by the GC of the FBI (Baker) expressly for the Woods requirement before being submitted. I imagine he wouldnt approve it unless he had some plausible argument that they met the standard.
- The DOJ not only noted in the warrant that the dossier was possibly biased, they explained Steele's relationship with the FBI. Overall, they were transparent about how much weight to give his dossier.
-Steele hedging in the UK means little since 1. He is trying to cover his ass for a libel suit and 2. The first FISA warrant led to info corroborating at LEAST 3 points in Steeles dossier, making it easier to get subsequent warrants.
- Other people not being indicted could mean a number of things. Perhaps the FBI doesnt have multiple corroborating sources against them like they did with Page, or cases are still being built in the background.
All in all, I'll def follow this story assuming Barr actually does anything after getting Nunes/Grahams requests, which isnt guaranteed.
|
Beto just declared. Wish he had fucking waited.
|
For what should he have waited?
|
Speaking of new candidates, I'm really liking Andrew Yang. His ideas are very good, and he also seems to have a lot of crossover appeal, attracting both Bernie and Trump type voters. I really hope he gets noticed more.
|
On March 14 2019 20:15 Velr wrote:
For what should he have waited?
To gain more experience and to polish up just policies. I would say the same thing is AOC had declared. Sure, you're popular, but your groundwork needs fleshing out.
|
AOC couldn't declare anyway because of her age, its not like she made a decision to not do it.
|
On March 14 2019 19:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Beto just declared. Wish he had fucking waited.
He could’ve at least waited until St Patrick’s day this weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
