Hodad

She's probably not "drunk" but she's likely had a few glasses of wine. She's talking to the cast after a play. Probably wine with dinner before and a glass at intermission. Just speculation, but that's pretty common for a night at the theater. -- Most patrons don't have an impromptu public speaking engagement afterward.

Regardless of what the investigation was predicted on--debate as much as you like--it doesn't change the facts of what the investigation uncovered. It doesn't change the fact that the campaign was indeed colluding with Russian intelligence.

No, you seem to have a hard time grasping the definition of the word "investigation." Consistently, across threads. They were investigating crimes. Trump is the one who introduced "collusion" as a descriptor. They were not able to establish intent, because Manafort's extreme efforts to conceal his communication with Kilimnik were indeed successful. The foldering, the burner phones, the fastidious deletions; it worked. Manafort and Kilimnik are the only ones (or Russian intelligence) who can confirm the how and why they did what they did, and Manafort certainly wasn't going to confess voluntarily. They could have used the leverage of Manafort's many other crimes to get to those confessions, but the promise of a pardon buys a lot of silence. Manafort was indeed guilty of many crimes. And he certainly did give away sensitive campaign information--allegedly behind Trump's back and under his nose. Trump should have despised Manafort. Instead, he pardoned him. Wonder why?

Collusion is a fact, but it's not a crime unto itself. It's not chargeable. Manafort could have confirmed the criminal aspects, but was offered a pardon instead. Hmmmm...

None of your decidedly lame deflections actually change the fact that all of it happened. You can whine all you like about the minutae of why the investigation started, but what they found is what they found. Facts are facts.

Putting your head up someone else's ass instead hardly seems like a cure.

Fark, dude, the investigation uncovered a US presidential campaign supplying intelligence to a Russian intelligence service that was actively running ops against the American people, and you're worried that part of the inspiration for the investigation was opposition research. That's the part that bothers you? Lol. If you were American, you'd definitely be a traitor.

Jeebus. Directly from the Durham report: "Under the FBI's guidelines, the investigation could have been opened more appropriately as an assessment or preliminary investigation." The FBI uncovered exactly what they were afraid they would find. Durham's criticism is that they investigate too aggressively to uncover the collusion.

Actually, everything I said there is an established fact. And the facts are damning enough on their own. We will never be able to prove Manafort's intent or how Russian intelligence used the data he gave them--unless they confess it. But it takes a very, VERY labored act of imagination to believe those facts are coincidental to one another rather than exactly what they appear to be.

WTF? The Durham report: A. Makes no judgement whatsoever on collusion. B. Even acknowledges that the investigation was justified. The weasely best it can do is say that the FBI should have started with a preliminary investigation before a full investigation. 🤣

Sure, jackhole, data can be used for all kinds of things! It's just a magical coincidence that he clandestinely delivered the polling and strategy information to a "friend"--who just happened to deliver it to the same hostile foreign intelligence service that was waging a campaign interference operation to help Trump win. It's a small, silly old world sometimes. So many amaaaaaazing coincidences!

You are not tracking this conversation well. West claimed, nonsensically, that a republican-led Senate committee was trying to "cover their own asses from their vile attempt to overthrow a sitting president." Which, obviously the Republicans never tried to do. And I reminded him that not only did the Republicans not try to overthrow Trump, they voted against so evidence, not to convict him after he tried to extort Zelensky for campaign aid. Think that timeline for a minute and get back to us. Campaign collusion->First impeachment ->Senate intelligence report They didn't try to overthrow him, they saved him even when he was caught red handed. And the intelligence wasn't sold, it was shared--almost certainly with collaborators. Manafort also had Gates involved, if not others (not looking currently) but I find it pretty laughable to say that the campaign didn't know when Manafort was campaign chairman. How much more "campaign" does one get than "chairman"? And if we accept the premise that Trump didn't know, then Manafort betrayed him. -- How does Trump respond to the slightest slight, let alone betrayal? It's damn sure not a pardon. He saves those for those doing his bidding.

It was not "readily available." It was internal polling and campaign strategy. And if everyone else in the campaign knew about Kilimnik, you really think it's plausible that Manafort, with his extensive ties to and experience in Russia knew less than the staffers? You're telling the world you're THAT gullible? Jeebus. I'll ask again, in your mind, if he wasn't doing anything wrong, why did Mandatory understand such extreme, layered tradecraft to hide those activities? Get real.

This is mostly bizarre speculation and innuendo that makes no sense. It's alarming that you think this word-salad opinion is more believable that our US intelligence services and senate reports. Like you'll do anything to keep deluding yourself. What's your theory for why Manafort was holding secret meeting (like literally sneaking in and out), foldering emails and using encrypted/burner communications and deletion routines to share intelligence with a known Russian intelligence officer? Is that how you have a casual chat with a pal? 🤪 Jeebus. Manafort literally admitted to sharing the information (because he was caught doing it) but he claimed to not know what everyone else knew about his "buddy." And, of course, Gates was like "Oh, yeah, we all knew." At any rate, whether or not you can manufacture the enormous suspension of disbelief to swallow Manafort's attempt to play this off as casual or accidental contact, it's a documented fact that he WAS doing these things. That's not even a question. And given that he was doing these things, it's not just reasonable for the FBI to investigate, it would be treasonous negligence to NOT investigate. That's not political. It's a matter of national security. But hey, Putin got his puppet in office and that's paying great dividends, so you folks are all happy.

Is that what you call it when you nod off and leak into your Depends?

No, the REPUBLICAN-led Senate Intelligence report was not trying to "cover" anything. The Republicans voted not to hold Trump accountable for his abuses of power. They had nothing political to gain from acknowledging that the Trump campaign was working with Russian intelligence while Russian intelligence attempted to influence the election. The report is damning, but if anything, they soft-sold it. The history books will not say this was a "witch hunt." The history books will record: Manafort campaign strategy-->Kilimnik--> Soviet intelligence.

I'm sure you think that. Probably hard to read the senate report with your head up your ass. No doubt you've missed many things over the years. I hope someone comes up with a cure for your condition.

Bullshit. That is a completely true narrative. The Trump campaign was, beyond any question or dispute, in frequent contact with Russian intelligence. Our intelligence services, naturally and responsibly, were justified to keep tabs on it. And you are lying in obvious and stupid ways: 1. Biden appointed 235 judges in total. Not "hundreds on the way out the door." Trump appointed 234, in term 1, btw. 2. Biden hit 200 appointees by May of 2024-- and only a small handful after he lost the election. 3. "Activist judges" is an absurdly broad brush to paint with for a fool who knows nothing about even a single one of those judges. -- And they're not Aileen Cannon, FFS. 4. How many of these injunctions are from Biden appointees, let alone post-election appointments? I'm going to answer that myself in two parts A. You have no earthly idea. 5. There's no relationship or "pattern of behavior" between injunctions filed in response to Trump's demo job and the investigation of (now proven factual) dealings with foreign intelligence. Apples and watermelons.

I feel about as sorry for him as I do a dog fighting trainer who gets bit. If you work to enable a person who is --are best-- recklessly indifferent to the law, don't whine when your legal protections are disrespected by that person.

Anybody--anybody--who is back channeling with Russian intelligence isn't a "political adversary" but rather a security risk. The paperwork should have been done better, but the pretense that it was politically motivated is nonsense. And, again, it is entirely irrelevant to executive action and injunction. You took a left turn into a corn field.

That's a complete non sequitur (nothing whatsoever to do with executive actions and injunctions) and there was never FISA warrant for Trump.

Josh Hawley is a ball-licking crap sack with no spine or conscience whatsoever. But setting that aside, just do the math. No president has EVER attempted faster or more widespread legally questionable (when not outright illegal) actions. What is happening now is wildly unprecedented. Of course those things are going to result in an equally large spike in injunctions. Action and reaction scale together. It's not a sudden outbreak of judges gone wild. It's just courts doing business as usual, dealing with a massive uptick in cases commensurate with Trump's actions.

You very obviously have no idea how America works. Not the faintest clue. The entire farking purpose of a constitutional system (rather than a pure democracy or autocracy) is to create laws more durable than the whims of one election. That the whole point of this "nation of laws" business. The POTUS can set whatever goals they want, but they have to follow the law to pursue them. This is what the laws and courts are for, to prevent the tyranny of a tyrant or the tyranny of the majority.

Thanks, Father Coughlin. Great advice.

And in case anyone needs reminding, we've seen this exact playbook before.