On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:41:11 AM UTC-4,
robert...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 1:08:27 AM UTC-4,
luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > From his father's viewpoint, it would be a crime NOT to meet with someone who
> > was offering juicy tidbits, particularly when it had to do with illegal
> > activities she might have been involved with as US Secretary of State
>
>
> Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney's chief strategist, tweeted this:
>
> "When Gore campaign was sent Bush debate brief book, they called FBI. If foreign interests offer you info on former SOS, you call the FBI."
>
>
> Richard Painter, a Bush lawyer, agreed:
>
> "When a Russian agent calls to offer dirt on a political opponent, a loyal American will call the FBI."
>
>
> The National Review, the conservative journal founded by William F. Buckley, offered this editorial:
>
> "To repeat, it now looks as if the senior campaign team of a major-party presidential candidate intended to meet with an official representative of a hostile foreign power to facilitate that foreign power’s attempt to influence an American election.
No it doesn't.
>...Russian collusion claims are no longer the exclusive province of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists. No American — Democrat or Republican — should defend the expressed intent of this meeting.
Is this an attack on their patriotism or a legal claim? If legal, collusion is not a term that shows up on legal books as far as I know. Do you and TNR know differently?
>
> "Going further, at long last we can now put to bed the notion that the Russia investigation is little more than frivolous partisan harassment, and it casts in an entirely different light the president’s fury and frustration at its continued progress. As recently as last week, it appeared that the 'collusion narrative' had lost steam, and that the so-called 'Russia scandal' had morphed into an attack on Donald Trump’s handling of the investigation, rather than the investigation itself. If you had told me last week that there existed an e-mail chain where a Trump contact explicitly tried to set up a meeting between a purported Russian official and the Trump senior team to facilitate official Russian efforts to beat Clinton, I’d have thought you’d been spending too much time in the deranged corners of Twitter.
Who is writing this idiocy anyway?
>
> "As of now, we should have zero confidence that we know all or even most material facts. We should have zero confidence that Trump’s frustration is entirely due to his feeling like an innocent man caught in the crosshairs of crazed conspiracy theorists. It now appears that his son, son-in-law, and campaign chair met with a lawyer who they were told was part of an official Russian government effort to impact the presidential election. The Russian investigation isn’t a witch hunt anymore, if it ever was. It’s a national necessity."
Fox news...yes that Fox news...has an excellent article I read about the cast of Russian characters involved. It's far more interesting than anything the NY Times has reported, which at the moment consists of gossip about the Hunger Games-like atmosphere inside the Executive Mansion.