President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Hank Scorpio

InTheTrees wrote: »

There's also nigel farage's odd appearance with julian assange right before the wikileaks anti-clinton info dump.

That's false.

JRant

InTheTrees wrote: »

And Kushner, there's reason to investigate why he was so eager to set up secret communications with the russians isnt there? And Paul Manafort as well. There's also nigel farage's odd appearance with julian assange right before the wikileaks anti-clinton info dump.

Yes, that's why I said the back channeling needs to be investigated and Flynn. Manafirt is a tricky one but I'm sure he'll have questions to answer.

The Farage stuff is a red herring and has no place in this investigation. He's a private citizen and can meet whoever he wants.

rossie1977

Wow

https://www.twitter.com/thehill/status/874410242943135744

mcmoustache

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

You may have missed what was said in the hearings. The New York times article that started the above accusation about Trump associates being in contact with Russian intelligence officials was false according to Comey. There is no tangible evidence of any collusion.

Was there only one article by the new york times and were they the only people ones making that claim? Because Comey saying that an article was mostly false is only saying that an article was mostly false. How's your logic doing?

We already have plenty of evidence, from the horse's mouth, so to speak, of Trump associates having shady contacts with Russia. Ones that they lied about or "forgot" about. A new york times article being described as mostly false by a witness who you selectively believe doesn't wash away everything else.

mcmoustache

InTheTrees wrote: »

There's also nigel farage's odd appearance with julian assange right before the wikileaks anti-clinton info dump.

I wasn't aware of that. I thought he met him in march. Have you got a link?

Hank Scorpio

mcmoustache wrote: »

Was there only one article by the new york times and were they the only people ones making that claim? Because Comey saying that an article was mostly false is only saying that an article was mostly false. How's your logic doing?

We already have plenty of evidence, from the horse's mouth, so to speak, of Trump associates having shady contacts with Russia. Ones that they lied about or "forgot" about. A new york times article being described as mostly false by a witness who you selectively believe doesn't wash away everything else.

Not being selective at all, more in a general sense. Comey said after being asked about the collusion stories, and I'm quoting, "There's been many many stories, purportedly based on classified information, about lots of stuff but especially about Russia, that are just, dead wrong."

The article about collusion in the NYT's is just one of those.

SeamusFX

JRant wrote: »

I'm not sure that's right seamus. There was a lot of chattering leading up to the election about Trump and the Russians. Even his tax releases, which he hasn't provided, were claimed to show he was in bed them.

Yes, anyone that knew anything about Trump before, knew he had business ties with Russia, he has been bragging about it the last 20 years. Not to mention his visit to Russia and his talk about Putin being a great guy, but the Russians spying, the connections to wikileaks and the Trump administration being involved didn't really come to light until after the election. There may have been some speculation, such as the John Podesta tweet a few days before the election. Yes, there was speculation that Trump had business connections in Russia and that's why many wanted to see his taxes, but the mainstream media, that the Conservatives love to talk about, didn't pick up the story of the Trump campaign's involvement with Russia until after the election. The ironic thing is, lifetime Republican James Comey, knew about this Russian story 6 month before the election, but he didn't leak that, while he was burning HRC over her email server.

CMOTDibbler

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Not being selective at all, more in a general sense. Comey said after being asked about the collusion stories, and I'm quoting, "There's been many many stories, purportedly based on classified information, about lots of stuff but especially about Russia, that are just, dead wrong."

The article about collusion in the NYT's is just one of those.

Are you?

I don't recall Comey making that broad a statement about the press. About the NYT yes, but I just don't recall that. Even the phraseology doesn't sound like him.

aloyisious

Sometimes I wonder at whom the message is aimed and who's doing the aiming. This on the google F/B page below the sign-in section. Big bad Russia targetting US Military rank and file......

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwid2IWEoLrUAhUlIMAKHQMpAQgQqUMIQDAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Frussian-hackers-posing-attractive-women-facebook-are-friending-us-troops-gather-intel-2017-6&usg=AFQjCNHL5WwjGSum4dxxWwOmV0CQfilO1g

SeamusFX

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Bull.

https://twitter.com/johnpodesta/status/793237359508721669?lang=en

Sorry Hank, that was only a Tweet, a week before the election, certainly not something the conservatives would have been reading then. How would a Republican see that tweet when there were a million fake tweets, posts and articles against HRC, such as Pizzagate? Show a link to a real Mainstream Media article that linked the Trump administration to the Russian hackers before 8-Nov-2016?

Igotadose

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Are you?

I don't recall Comey making that broad a statement about the press. About the NYT yes, but I just don't recall that. Even the phraseology doesn't sound like him.

Comey said 'stories.' Not 'the Press.' It's pretty broad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/08/us/politics/senate-hearing-transcript.html?mcubz=1&_r=0

In response to a question from Senator Lankford.

spacecoyote

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Not being selective at all, more in a general sense. Comey said after being asked about the collusion stories, and I'm quoting, "There's been many many stories, purportedly based on classified information, about lots of stuff but especially about Russia, that are just, dead wrong."

The article about collusion in the NYT's is just one of those.

He may have said that, but you're making a bit of a leap there.

So he said (paraphrasing here)..."a lot of the stories are dead wrong", not "a lot of the stories are dead wrong, especially that NYT one"

Leroy42

There may well turn out to be nothing in any of these Russian stories, but the actions of Trump and his team are certainly not helping to reduce the whiff of something.

Flynn lied to VP about his Russian connections
Sessions lied under oath about meetings with Russians. After being caught out he has tried to argue that it was senatorial business even though it was during the campaign and no other committee members were present.
Trump maintains he has no connnections with Russia. No business deals, no phone calls.
Trumps sons continue to tell all and sundry how much business they do with Russia
Despite widespread acceptance of attempted interference with the recent elections, Trump has done nothing to try to get to the bottom of it. he has not raised it with the Russians, he hasn't threatened to sanction them. Compare this with his distrust of Nato.
The Wh concocted an elaborate story around the firing of Comey, until Trump said he did it do derail the Russia investigations.
Kushner is alleged to have attempted to set up Russian controlled back channel communications.
Trump has a very odd infatuation for Russia and a clear admiration for Putin.
Trump has never once said anything negative about Russia or Putin. He has called out Germany, Nato, Mexico, Canada, Australia (and others)
Trump openly called for Russia to hack into DNC servers
Paul Manafort, his campaign manager, had clear and high level connections with Putin and Russia
Carter Paige was an advisor for Trump and has been less than clear over what he was there for.
Rex Tillerson has connections with Russia.

And the above is only the stuff in the public domain that has been verified. One can assume that there is more stuff that is being withheld based on the regularity of the publishing of new information

Any of these on there own is nothing, but all together? Given the above, it would be irresponsible for any IA not to investigate.

If you read that about HC, or any citizen, would you not have serious questions about the situation? Can you imagine if Obama had that many ties to Russia, do you really think the GOP would have simply said it was nothing?

Trump supporters like to take each part in total isolation, but taken together a clear pattern seems to emerge. That doesn't mean it is true, but to simply laugh it off and say, "there is no evidence" is wishful thinking.

The final point, Trump could get rid of nearly all of this by being open. Publish his tax returns to cut off that theory.
Publish the Comey tapes, that would cut off the Comey story.

But instead he wants to play games "I'll release them at some stage, shortly".
I'll 100% testify. Ok, so today then? You are the president, you have called all the senators in before so why not do it again.

So all those that complain that this is a witch-hunt etc, it may well be, but Trump has the power to deal with this immediately. Instead he has delayed, deflected, lied and his PR sec has avoided actually dealing with it.

He only has himself to blame for allowing this story to roll onwards. Paper never refuses ink, and with nothing coming from Trump the papers need to sell stories. For a man that knows exactly how the PR game works, claiming this is unfair is a tad hard to believe.

So instead of blaming the DNC, or the MSM, Trump supporters should be asking why Trump and his team has been so totally useless in dealing with this and allowing it to impair their agenda

demfad

Reports now that Trump is seriously considering firing (ordering the acting AG to fire) Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.

https://thinkprogress.org/prominent-trump-supporters-are-pushing-for-firing-of-special-counsel-robert-mueller-3b6bde47ebcf

Comey revealed during his testimony that although Donald Trump was not yet under investigation when Comey was fired many of his close associates and confidents were. When asked if he believed collusion existed he said he couldnt take about that as it was part of an ongoing investigation (which is a Glomar confirmation). Crucially he also communicated that Trump WAS under investigation for obstruction of Justice.

What seems to have spooked Trump and his backers is his hiring of deputy solicitor general Michael Dreeben to be part of his "rapidly expanding team".

'News of that hire and others prompted former acting US solicitor general Neal Katyal to tell CNN, “You don’t bring Michael Dreeben onto something ordinary… He’s the top criminal law practitioner in the United States.” '

JRant

Leroy42 wrote: »

There may well turn out to be nothing in any of these Russian stories, but the actions of Trump and his team are certainly not helping to reduce the whiff of something.

Flynn lied to VP about his Russian connections
Sessions lied under oath about meetings with Russians. After being caught out he has tried to argue that it was senatorial business even though it was during the campaign and no other committee members were present.
Trump maintains he has no connnections with Russia. No business deals, no phone calls.
Trumps sons continue to tell all and sundry how much business they do with Russia
Despite widespread acceptance of attempted interference with the recent elections, Trump has done nothing to try to get to the bottom of it. he has not raised it with the Russians, he hasn't threatened to sanction them. Compare this with his distrust of Nato.
The Wh concocted an elaborate story around the firing of Comey, until Trump said he did it do derail the Russia investigations.
Kushner is alleged to have attempted to set up Russian controlled back channel communications.
Trump has a very odd infatuation for Russia and a clear admiration for Putin.
Trump has never once said anything negative about Russia or Putin. He has called out Germany, Nato, Mexico, Canada, Australia (and others)
Trump openly called for Russia to hack into DNC servers
Paul Manafort, his campaign manager, had clear and high level connections with Putin and Russia
Carter Paige was an advisor for Trump and has been less than clear over what he was there for.
Rex Tillerson has connections with Russia.

And the above is only the stuff in the public domain that has been verified. One can assume that there is more stuff that is being withheld based on the regularity of the publishing of new information

Any of these on there own is nothing, but all together? Given the above, it would be irresponsible for any IA not to investigate.

If you read that about HC, or any citizen, would you not have serious questions about the situation? Can you imagine if Obama had that many ties to Russia, do you really think the GOP would have simply said it was nothing?

Trump supporters like to take each part in total isolation, but taken together a clear pattern seems to emerge. That doesn't mean it is true, but to simply laugh it off and say, "there is no evidence" is wishful thinking.

The final point, Trump could get rid of nearly all of this by being open. Publish his tax returns to cut off that theory.
Publish the Comey tapes, that would cut off the Comey story.

But instead he wants to play games "I'll release them at some stage, shortly".
I'll 100% testify. Ok, so today then? You are the president, you have called all the senators in before so why not do it again.

So all those that complain that this is a witch-hunt etc, it may well be, but Trump has the power to deal with this immediately. Instead he has delayed, deflected, lied and his PR sec has avoided actually dealing with it.

He only has himself to blame for allowing this story to roll onwards. Paper never refuses ink, and with nothing coming from Trump the papers need to sell stories. For a man that knows exactly how the PR game works, claiming this is unfair is a tad hard to believe.

So instead of blaming the DNC, or the MSM, Trump supporters should be asking why Trump and his team has been so totally useless in dealing with this and allowing it to impair their agenda

I would agree with nearly all of that. Reakdown Leeroy. It is important to remember that at present there is no evidence though. Until hard facts are found then these are just allegations and shouldn't be treated as fact. It may seem like a trivial thing to point out but it is a foundation of the American system.

To your last point, it's been pretty obvious that Trump has been fairly useless at most things so far so should come as no surprise that this situation is the same.

Thepoet85

This is the key point for me. A lot of people here are arguing back and forth regarding him being under investigation for being involved in collusion with the Russians.

For me, the main thing he should be investigated for is obstruction of justice, which is clear as day that needs to be looked into, and hopefully is.

demfad

JRant wrote: »

I would agree with nearly all of that. Reakdown Leeroy. It is important to remember that at present there is no evidence though.

That is false. There is a metric tonne of evidence. No proof as that would require a court of law. But there is plenty of evidence, much of it listed in the post you replied to. Much of it is also verified by top US officials under oath: Yates, Comey, Brennan, Watts etc.
Much of it verified by the actual firing and recusal of top admin officials.
Much of it verified by leaks which have not been denied by the Trump admin.
Much of it verified by tweets, much of it verified by deleted tweets.

There is a view seeping in from the confusion surrounding the blurring of information with disinformation and fake news that somehow pure facts are something that is unknowable, can change depending on viewpoint. This is the genesis of alternative facts where lies can compete with the truth.

We must not allow this false perception to gain any legitimacy.

SeamusFX

aloyisious wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder at whom the message is aimed and who's doing the aiming. This on the google F/B page below the sign-in section. Big bad Russia targetting US Military rank and file......

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwid2IWEoLrUAhUlIMAKHQMpAQgQqUMIQDAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Frussian-hackers-posing-attractive-women-facebook-are-friending-us-troops-gather-intel-2017-6&usg=AFQjCNHL5WwjGSum4dxxWwOmV0CQfilO1g

Aloyisious, what are you wondering about? This is a Real story and it has been cited by several legitimate media organisations. This is a very serious issue, but Trump hasn't and won't do anything to stop or prevent this, as he seems to think Russia is his friend! Sadly, this is one Russian generated story that won't find its way to Fox News.

Christy42

Thepoet85 wrote: »

This is the key point for me. A lot of people here are arguing back and forth regarding him being under investigation for being involved in collusion with the Russians.

For me, the main thing he should be investigated for is obstruction of justice, which is clear as day that needs to be looked into, and hopefully is.

Agreed. It is the most open and shut case and gives time with someone else in charge for the Russian issues to be investigated fully as they look like they will take years.

An alternate tactic would be to get Trump under oath for the obstruction of justice and ask him if his inauguration crowd was bigger than Obama's. He won't be able to help lying.

Since the complete craziness of firing Mueller has been made clear after his (presumably now ex) friend went public with those thoughts I can't see that happening but that would settle as obstruction of justice as well. Firing one investigator is dodgy, two...

Of course maybe the guy was sent forth to sound out if the firing would be politically viable but I doubt it.

mcmoustache

demfad wrote: »

There is a view seeping in from the confusion surrounding the blurring of information with disinformation and fake news that somehow pure facts are something that is unknowable, can change depending on viewpoint. This is the genesis of alternative facts where lies can compete with the truth.

We must not allow this false perception to gain any legitimacy.

This is important. Facts are facts and we have those. For whatever reason, Trumpers continuously lie about stuff that's so easily debunked that it's laughable. Lies are OK and seemingly encouraged in this administration. It's beyond spin, it's full on lying and it's even trickled down to his supporters in here.

Coincidentally, the loony left RAND corporation have a paper on this. It's probably been linked in here before but it's worth being reminded of it. The paper's called The Russian “Firehose of Falsehood” Propaganda Model.

We characterize the contemporary Russian model for propaganda
as “the firehose of falsehood” because of two of its distinctive
features: high numbers of channels and messages and a shameless
willingness to disseminate partial truths or outright fictions. In
the words of one observer, “[N]ew Russian propaganda entertains,
confuses and overwhelms the audience.”

Contemporary Russian propaganda has at least two other
distinctive features. It is also rapid, continuous, and repetitive, and
it lacks commitment to consistency.

For anyone thinking that all the obvious lies, shifting stories, contradictions and general bullshít from Trumpers makes no sense, this might rationalise it somewhat. Personally, I don't think that the Trumpers are this organised. I think all the bullshít has a simpler explanation - Trump's just a very dishonest individual and he has surrounded himself with people who love him who, by definition are OK with all that dishonesty and are themselves dishonest.

JRant

demfad wrote: »

That is false. There is a metric tonne of evidence. No proof as that would require a court of law. But there is plenty of evidence, much of it listed in the post you replied to. Much of it is also verified by top US officials under oath: Yates, Comey, Brennan, Watts etc.
Much of it verified by the actual firing and recusal of top admin officials.
Much of it verified by leaks which have not been denied by the Trump admin.
Much of it verified by tweets, much of it verified by deleted tweets.

There is a view seeping in from the confusion surrounding the blurring of information with disinformation and fake news that somehow pure facts are something that is unknowable, can change depending on viewpoint. This is the genesis of alternative facts where lies can compete with the truth.

We must not allow this false perception to gain any legitimacy.

Maybe I wasn't clear, there is no evidence of a direct link between Trump associates and Russian interference with the election. That is the specific charge being laid against Trump.

There is plenty of evidence that some associates met with Russian counterparts, this is rightly being investigated. As yet we don't know the reasoning behind these meetings. Many have argued they were nefarious in nature, others that they were harmless. I don't know and until the investigation is complete and the report published then none of us can know one way or the other.

Anyway as I have said previously, Trump has opened himself up to being investigated by the special prosecutor after being played like a cheap violin by Comey.

Water John

The list put up by Leroy is, a classic, duck, walks quacks, looks, story.
The Russian interference (accepted), and possible collusion must be thoroughly investigated. We now have a highly regarded, special prosecutor, on the case.
Any hint, of interference/removal as per yesterday, should not be tolerated, in any way, by Congress, the media and the public.

The second issue, is Obstruction of Justice. This is the lesser of threat to American democracy, but nevertheless, is serious.

SeamusFX

JRant wrote: »

Maybe I wasn't clear, there is no evidence of a direct link between Trump associates and Russian interference with the election. That is the specific charge being laid against Trump.

There is plenty of evidence that some associates met with Russian counterparts, this is rightly being investigated. As yet we don't know the reasoning behind these meetings. Many have argued they were nefarious in nature, others that they were harmless. I don't know and until the investigation is complete and the report published then none of us can know one way or the other.

Anyway as I have said previously, Trump has opened himself up to being investigated by the special prosecutor after being played like a cheap violin by Comey.

You sound like a true Trump supporter defending Trump like that. First off we don't exactly know what evidence there is, Comey said he couldn't talk about it in public, so there's something, I doubt Comey made it up. Don't forget, unlike Trump, Comey has the image and reputation of a Boy Scout, plus he was a lifelong Republican, despite his recent falling out with Trump.

The only violin playing going on is, Trump playing his foolhardy supporters, leading them to believe he's this great saviour, rather the cheap charlatan he really is.

CMOTDibbler

SeamusFX wrote: »

You sound like a true Trump supporter defending Trump like that. First off we don't exactly know what evidence there is, Comey said he couldn't talk about it in public, so there's something, I doubt Comey made it up. Don't forget, unlike Trump, Comey has the image and reputation of a Boy Scout, plus he was a lifelong Republican, despite his recent falling out with Trump.

The only violin playing going on is, Trump playing his foolhardy supporters, leading them to believe he's this great saviour, rather the cheap charlatan he really is.

There's no need to get personal. H'e largely right, there's a lot of smoke, but no fire yet.

We can draw conclusions based on what we know for a fact, but stuff we don't know could go either way. I'm happy to wait until there are more actual facts in the public domain.

aloyisious

SeamusFX wrote: »

Aloyisious, what are you wondering about? This is a Real story and it has been cited by several legitimate media organisations. This is a very serious issue, but Trump hasn't and won't do anything to stop or prevent this, as he seems to think Russia is his friend! Sadly, this is one Russian generated story that won't find its way to Fox News.

There's no doubting that the Russians have been up to no good in the US. It's the part about a Russian soldier calling in an airstrike on his position because it was being over-run by Isis that I have doubts about. There was a story floating about on F/B two days ago about a non-russian soldier doing the same in Afghanistan when his position was being over-run. It's a heroic story much beloved of propagandists.

Meantime I am waiting to see/hear what the AG relates to the committee on what he knows [allegedly and otherwise]. If he testifies that JC was telling porkies or exaggerating the truth and his deputy knows different, then I hope the DAG has the moral courage to step forward and tell the truth. With Sessions reclused from the russian investigation, the DAG must be supervising the FBI investigation and aware of what's in the files etc. If Sessions is getting any sort of briefing at all on the investigation to enable himself to avoid any tricky questions at the committee, then that might be revealed during questioning, if it's thorough..... I'd be damned surprised if Sessions is NOT getting regular feedback on the status of the investigation given how many leaks there have been.

JRant

SeamusFX wrote: »

You sound like a true Trump supporter defending Trump like that. First off we don't exactly know what evidence there is, Comey said he couldn't talk about it in public, so there's something, I doubt Comey made it up. Don't forget, unlike Trump, Comey has the image and reputation of a Boy Scout, plus he was a lifelong Republican, despite his recent falling out with Trump.

The only violin playing going on is, Trump playing his foolhardy supporters, leading them to believe he's this great saviour, rather the cheap charlatan he really is.

Good one, is that your go to position when someone doesn't fully agree with you? Christ, I've said he was an oaf and useless yet you construe that as me being a Trump supporter.

Seriously though, read what you just wrote and tell me how that differs with what I said. We don't know if there is any evidence because the investigation is still ongoing. When we have the facts then we can say there either was collusion with Russian inference of the election or not.

Trying reading what I'm actually saying instead of creating a false narrative in your own head and claiming I'm a Trump supporter when even a cursory glance at my posts would tell you the exact opposite.

mcmoustache

JRant wrote: »

Maybe I wasn't clear, there is no evidence of a direct link between Trump associates and Russian interference with the election. That is the specific charge being laid against Trump.

There is plenty of evidence that some associates met with Russian counterparts, this is rightly being investigated. As yet we don't know the reasoning behind these meetings. Many have argued they were nefarious in nature, others that they were harmless. I don't know and until the investigation is complete and the report published then none of us can know one way or the other.

Anyway as I have said previously, Trump has opened himself up to being investigated by the special prosecutor after being played like a cheap violin by Comey.

The bit in bold is correct but it needs a small qualification - there has been no evidence presented to the public that shows the collusion that you describe. There's a good reason for this. Mainly that there is an ongoing investigation into exactly that and if such evidence exists, we simply won't see it.

On the other hand, there is evidence of Roger Stone colluding with Guccifer 2.0 regarding the DNC hack which ended up on wikileaks. This is only a loose connection, however and is a long way from what's needed. For example, I haven't seen any evidence connecting Guccifer 2.0 to Russia. He (or they) fits the profile of one of those patriotic artists that Putin was on about and I wouldn't expect to see any direct links to the Russian state. That's sort of the point though. Russia's cyber-warfare requires some form of plausible (or implausible) deniability.

Christy42

JRant wrote: »

Maybe I wasn't clear, there is no evidence of a direct link between Trump associates and Russian interference with the election. That is the specific charge being laid against Trump.

There is plenty of evidence that some associates met with Russian counterparts, this is rightly being investigated. As yet we don't know the reasoning behind these meetings. Many have argued they were nefarious in nature, others that they were harmless. I don't know and until the investigation is complete and the report published then none of us can know one way or the other.

Anyway as I have said previously, Trump has opened himself up to being investigated by the special prosecutor after being played like a cheap violin by Comey.

True. However if the meetings are innocent and there is no link to Trump the follow up question is how do we stop all the lying about it and why did Trump defend Russia to the Hilt over the now proven interference. I mean I agree a direct link has yet to be shown which is why I would prefer the more forceful attacks to go along potentially more fruitful lines while the direct link to Russia investigation ticks along.

An issue Trump has is there are so many charges against him from various incompetence based ones to illegal stuff and plenty in between on topics from Russia to conflicts of interest and nepptism. To a certain extent this has shielded from any individual charge, on the other it looks like to completely freeze out his presidency as he simply can't get anything done. (Anyone remember infastructure week?).

Really Interested

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

There's no need to get personal. H'e largely right, there's a lot of smoke, but no fire yet.

We can draw conclusions based on what we know for a fact, but stuff we don't know could go either way. I'm happy to wait until there are more actual facts in the public domain.

I agree with you fully, while people can say a lot about Trump and others there is lots of claims but no public evidence to a judicial standard. My only issue is some of the people saying no evidence are the same people who claim that Clinto did x y or z, using the same standard of evidence such claims should be treated the same way they treat them in relation to trump.

mcmoustache

SeamusFX wrote: »

You sound like a true Trump supporter defending Trump like that.

I don't think that's true at all. His post was fairly level-headed and didn't look anything like a Trumper post. He didn't call anything "FAKE NEWS" and he didn't post anything dishonest. No mention of libruls or anything.

I'm not in full agreement with him that there's no direct evidence showing collusion but his position is perfectly reasonable.