Politics

[irishog77]

One. They used an incorrect database that labeled her as a Democrat. Lol.

Keep checking your twitter. They have made more than one. Lol

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Keep checking your twitter. They have made more than one. Lol

Care to provide a source for this? 😂

 

[jprue24]

Keep checking your twitter. They have made more than one. Lol

Care to provide a source for this? 😂

Just looked at the article....

"This story has been amended to clarify that Luna's roommate in Missouri was the only person interviewed by police after a break-in at their apartment; she was not the only person mentioned in the police report."

 

[drayer54]

Keep doubling down on your Wapo article, bud.

How many retractions/corrections are they up to so far?

Meanwhile, nothing poking holes at her link to the FBI and tech… just attack the lady.

 

[GoIrish41]

Remember when his opponent was NJ resident and carpet-bagger Dr. Oz, who has made a career selling snake oil on TV? Those who run against unacceptable candidates of the opposing party (even in Pennsyltucky) have an easier time winning, even if they aren’t perfect. That said, he was an extremely popular Lt. Gov. before he had a stroke and I would have voted for a corpse ahead of Oz. It’s helpful that he didn’t lie about being Jewish, kill a veteran’s dog and spend a lifetime as a pathological liar.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Remember when his opponent was MJ resident Dr. Oz, who has made a career selling snake oil on TV? Those who run against unacceptable candidates (even in Pennsyltucky) have an easier time winning, even if they aren’t perfect. Also, he was an extremely popular Lt. Gov. before he had a stroke. And he didn’t lie about being Jewish and kill a veteran’s dog.

Switching subjects and asking, "Yeah, but what about...?" is a poor answer when presented with overwhelming evidence that your side lied and put power over your own guy's health or what's good for the country. When you're honest and the facts support your position, such deflection, whataboutism, and spin are unnecessary.

 

[GoIrish41]

Switching subjects and asking, "Yeah, but what about...?" is a poor answer when presented with overwhelming evidence that your side lied and put power over your own guy's health or what's good for the country. When you're honest and the facts support your position, such deflection, whataboutism, and spin are unnecessary.

What should the PA Dems have done, conceded the Senate to the Republicans and a guy from Jersey?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/01/five-people-have-won-election-to-congress-despite-being-dead/

Mah, let’s go back and review what you said we should do when candidates make racist comments, attend while supremacist rallies, plan and attempt a coup, and blantantly lie on a loop to the public before I discuss what should have been done when a candidate had a health issue.

 

[Bishop2b5]

What should the PA Dems have done, conceded the Senate to the Republicans and a guy from Jersey?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/01/five-people-have-won-election-to-congress-despite-being-dead/

Mah, let’s go back and review what you said we should do when candidates make racist comments, attend while supremacist rallies, plan and attempt a coup, and blantantly lie on a loop to the public before I discuss what should have been done when a candidate had a health issue.

Be on the right side of issues, use facts, use rational thinking, don't cherry-pick your info, don't present silly, ridiculous, blatantly false arguments, and you won't have to spin, dodge, use strawman arguments, resort to whataboutisms, and change the subject all the time.

 

[GoIrish41]

Be on the right side of issues, use facts, use rational thinking, don't cherry-pick your info, don't present silly, ridiculous, blatantly false arguments, and you won't have to spin, dodge, use strawman arguments, resort to whataboutisms, and change the subject all the time.

What’s false about my argument? Why is George Santos in Congress? Shouldn’t that have been “dealt with” already? Nobody was talking about Fetterman. You changed the subject in that thread.

 

[Bishop2b5]

What’s false about my argument? Why is George Santos in Congress? Shouldn’t that have been “dealt with” already? Nobody was talking about Fetterman. You changed the subject.

Do you really not understand why you've caught so much flak lately for misinformed, dishonest, wacky nonsense? Go back and read the last page or two and what you've written and what you were replying to. I don't ask this to be mean or insulting, but what's happened to you in the past year? I'm serious. Health issues, personal issues, what? You were a very good, reasonable, civil person, and you've turned into someone radically different from that. Someone angry, dishonest, loony at times, and just bitter and bizarre.

 

[GoIrish41]

Do you really not understand why you've caught so much flak lately for misinformed, dishonest, wacky nonsense? Go back and read the last page or two and what you've written and what you were replying to. I don't ask this to be mean or insulting, but what's happened to you in the past year? I'm serious. Health issues, personal issues, what? You were a very good, reasonable, civil person, and you've turned into someone radically different from that. Someone angry, dishonest, loony at times, and just bitter and bizarre.

I’m just tired of seeing posts by dipshits who cannot apply the same logic to their own thoughts as they do to everyone else’s’. Is it any wonder why so many people have called you out lately? Is it because you are ignorant, racist, or just a blowhard? You used to be a good poster until you started defending coups and racist comments. While some may be worried about your health and mental stability, I just think you are a dick.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

 

[jprue24]

Remember, only the libs are snowflakes.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Do you really not understand why you've caught so much flak lately for misinformed, dishonest, wacky nonsense? Go back and read the last page or two and what you've written and what you were replying to. I don't ask this to be mean or insulting, but what's happened to you in the past year? I'm serious. Health issues, personal issues, what? You were a very good, reasonable, civil person, and you've turned into someone radically different from that. Someone angry, dishonest, loony at times, and just bitter and bizarre.

2016 election ruined him. Trump won, GoIrish41 quit IE for a year, came back as Keith Olbermann. Angry, bitter, detached from reality, and labels anyone who disagrees with him a racist or a dipshit.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Apprently still rent free

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Just looked at the article....

"This story has been amended to clarify that Luna's roommate in Missouri was the only person interviewed by police after a break-in at their apartment; she was not the only person mentioned in the police report."

I’m mean I guess it sounded to me that there were serious errors that undermines the article but I’m still haven’t seen it? She changed her name back in the 2010s to Luna from Myerhoff or whatever… true, she identified as white not Latino up until recently also true, she has not disputed the Jewish claims or her nazi grandfather. Photos have been provided showing him in the nazi uniform. Seems true. We will see I guess but I’d you look at her recent tweets about the article from like three days ago she said she was bringing the heat and Wapo would retract the entire article…. That hasn’t happened.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Meanwhile, nothing poking holes at her link to the FBI and tech… just attack the lady.

I know it’s hard to wrap around in peoples head but the FBI is certain that disinformation is a serious issue worthy of investigating and being aware of as many criminals, criminal organizations use it to their advantage and to communicate. It makes absolute sense to me for them to be able to securely discuss and transfer information and that is ok. Obviously the risk of abuse is there as it is with anything but the connection isn’t on its face wrong or immoral or antidemocratic. If the FBI needs access or information on criminal activity then the private company can help them out if they so choose. If you don’t want that then find a Social media outlet that is so anti fbi they won’t interact with them.

 

[drayer54]

I know it’s hard to wrap around in peoples head but the FBI is certain that disinformation is a serious issue worthy of investigating and being aware of as many criminals, criminal organizations use it to their advantage and to communicate. It makes absolute sense to me for them to be able to securely discuss and transfer information and that is ok. Obviously the risk of abuse is there as it is with anything but the connection isn’t on its face wrong or immoral or antidemocratic. If the FBI needs access or information on criminal activity then the private company can help them out if they so choose. If you don’t want that then find a Social media outlet that is so anti fbi they won’t interact with them.

If you’re fine with weaponizing the DOJ and see no harm, then no point discussing it.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

If you’re fine with weaponizing the DOJ and see no harm, then no point discussing it.

How is cooperation weaponizing the DOJ? Also seems like you are fully bought in to the GOP narrative they are trying to construct in real time with the evidence to be discovered fitting their already predetermined conclusion.

“The House’s new GOP majority is ignoring a key principle I learned during my five years working for Republicans on the House Oversight Committee: Manage expectations. Its “make accusations first, get the facts never” approach to oversight is doomed to over-promise, under-deliver and fall flat with the vast majority of voters.

House Republicans begin with a massive credibility deficit. A recent Navigator Research poll found that only 16% of Americans think the GOP’s obsessive investigations are important. And the Pew Research Center found that 65% of U.S. adults believe Republicans will be overly focused on investigating the Biden administration.

Independent voters convened for a Washington Post focus group viewed the Republican majority’s agenda as mostly about revenge against Democrats and showed little interest in its preoccupation with Hunter Biden, the president’s son. When asked about the absurd new House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, most Americans surveyed by ABC News and the Washington Post did not find it legitimate.

Knowing all that, you would think congressional Republicans would do their best to ensure that the first hearings would deliver the goods. No such luck.

Up first Wednesday, Kentucky Rep. James Comer’s Oversight Committee convened a hearing sensationally titled “Protecting Speech From Government Interference and Social Media Bias, Part 1: Twitter’s Role in Suppressing the Biden Laptop Story.

Unfortunately for Republicans, however, the former Twitter executives they handpicked to serve as witnesses undermined their central thesis, testifying that they were not directed by the FBI or any other official to suppress information about Hunter Biden. The only revelation of federal interference with free speech concerned the previous White House’s efforts to get Twitter to censor model Chrissy Teigen’s criticism of former President Trump.

Unable to get their own witnesses to validate their accusations, Republicans on the panel tried to ignore the testimony and make unsubstantiated claims about the Bidens. That blew up in their faces, too, when freshman Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) debunked one of Comer’s claims about the younger Biden in real time. As Bloomberg reported, “Comer offered no counterarguments to Goldman, tried to move the hearing along and then suggested a bathroom break.””👍

We will see. It will end up being a whole series of things people don’t care about and will just be a bunch of dirty laundry. They will use it as a pretext to impeach Biden which they probably will because they have enough votes to do so on anything they create to bring to a vote and it will die in the Senate. Sorry for the spoilers.

 

[drayer54]

How is cooperation weaponizing the DOJ? Also seems like you are fully bought in to the GOP narrative they are trying to construct in real time with the evidence to be discovered fitting their already predetermined conclusion.

“The House’s new GOP majority is ignoring a key principle I learned during my five years working for Republicans on the House Oversight Committee: Manage expectations. Its “make accusations first, get the facts never” approach to oversight is doomed to over-promise, under-deliver and fall flat with the vast majority of voters.

House Republicans begin with a massive credibility deficit. A recent Navigator Research poll found that only 16% of Americans think the GOP’s obsessive investigations are important. And the Pew Research Center found that 65% of U.S. adults believe Republicans will be overly focused on investigating the Biden administration.

Independent voters convened for a Washington Post focus group viewed the Republican majority’s agenda as mostly about revenge against Democrats and showed little interest in its preoccupation with Hunter Biden, the president’s son. When asked about the absurd new House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, most Americans surveyed by ABC News and the Washington Post did not find it legitimate.

Knowing all that, you would think congressional Republicans would do their best to ensure that the first hearings would deliver the goods. No such luck.

Up first Wednesday, Kentucky Rep. James Comer’s Oversight Committee convened a hearing sensationally titled “Protecting Speech From Government Interference and Social Media Bias, Part 1: Twitter’s Role in Suppressing the Biden Laptop Story.

Unfortunately for Republicans, however, the former Twitter executives they handpicked to serve as witnesses undermined their central thesis, testifying that they were not directed by the FBI or any other official to suppress information about Hunter Biden. The only revelation of federal interference with free speech concerned the previous White House’s efforts to get Twitter to censor model Chrissy Teigen’s criticism of former President Trump.

Unable to get their own witnesses to validate their accusations, Republicans on the panel tried to ignore the testimony and make unsubstantiated claims about the Bidens. That blew up in their faces, too, when freshman Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) debunked one of Comer’s claims about the younger Biden in real time. As Bloomberg reported, “Comer offered no counterarguments to Goldman, tried to move the hearing along and then suggested a bathroom break.””👍

We will see. It will end up being a whole series of things people don’t care about and will just be a bunch of dirty laundry. They will use it as a pretext to impeach Biden which they probably will because they have enough votes to do so on anything they create to bring to a vote and it will die in the Senate. Sorry for the spoilers.

Managing expectations is part of why Schiff and Swalwell aren't on intel. They spread lies to cover the gap they started with the Mueller report and the Russia lies. Also for banging a Chinese spy. The FBI is not transparent and lacks oversight on this. Dems will just throw mud all week and try to make this look like a partisan smear session, and not a real concern.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Managing expectations is part of why Schiff and Swalwell aren't on intel. They spread lies to cover the gap they started with the Mueller report and the Russia lies. Also for banging a Chinese spy. The FBI is not transparent and lacks oversight on this. Dems will just throw mud all week and try to make this look like a partisan smear session, and not a real concern.

Sorry bro but even the Senate Select committee s report showed that Trump and Russia’s partnership in 2016 occurred and was a serious national security threat and dangerous. Figure it out.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

— The Trump campaign's interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a "grave" counterintelligence threat, a Senate panel concluded Tuesday as it detailed how associates of Donald Trump had regular contact with Russians and expected to benefit from the Kremlin's help.

The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump's behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin's aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers.

The report is the culmination of a bipartisan probe that produced what the committee called "the most comprehensive description to date of Russia's activities and the threat they posed." The investigation spanned more than three years as the panel's leaders said they wanted to thoroughly document the unprecedented attack on U.S. elections.

The findings, including unflinching characterizations of furtive interactions between Trump associates and Russian operatives, echo to a large degree those of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and appear to repudiate the Republican president's claims that the FBI had no basis to investigate whether his campaign was conspiring with Russia. Trump has called the Russia investigations a "hoax."

While Mueller's was a criminal probe, the Senate investigation was a counterintelligence effort with the aim of ensuring that such interference wouldn't happen again. The report issued several recommendations on that front, including that the FBI should do more to protect presidential campaigns from foreign interference.

READ MORE: Read the full, redacted Mueller report

The report was released as two other Senate committees, the Judiciary and Homeland Security panels, conduct their own reviews of the Russia probe with an eye toward uncovering what they say was FBI misconduct in the early days of the investigation. A prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William Barr, who regards the Russia investigation with skepticism, disclosed his first criminal charge Friday against a former FBI lawyer who plans to plead guilty to altering a government email.

Among the more striking sections of the report is the committee's description of the professional relationship between former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the committee describes as a Russian intelligence officer.

"Taken as a whole, Manafort's high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik, represented a grave counterintelligence threat," the report says.

The report notes how Manafort shared internal Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik and says there is "some evidence" Kilimnik may have been connected to Russia's effort to hack and leak Democratic emails, though that information is redacted. The report also says "two pieces of information" raise the possibility of Manafort's potential connection to those operations, but what follows is again blacked out.

Both men were charged in Mueller's investigation, but neither was accused of any tie to the hacking.

A Manafort lawyer, Kevin Downing, said Tuesday that information sealed at the request of Mueller's team "completely refutes whatever the intelligence committee is trying to surmise." He added, "It just looks like complete conjecture."

Like Mueller, the committee reviewed a meeting Trump's oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., took in June 2016 with a Russian lawyer he believed to have connections with the Russian government with the goal of receiving information harmful to Clinton.

The Senate panel said it assessed that the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, has "significant connections to the Russian government, including the Russian intelligence services," as did another participant in the meeting, Rinat Akhmetshin. The panel said it uncovered connections that were "far more extensive and concerning than what had been publicly known," particularly regarding Veselnitskaya.

The report also found no reliable evidence for Trump's longstanding supposition that Ukraine had interfered in the election, but did trace some of the earliest public messaging of that theory to Kilimnik and said it was spread by Russian-government proxies who sought to discredit investigations into Russian interference.

The committee said that messaging campaign lasted to "at least January 2020" — after the House had impeached Trump for pressuring Ukrainian officials to investigate the family of Democrat Joe Biden, now Trump's general election opponent. During that effort, some Republicans, including Trump, argued Ukraine was meddling, not Russia. Trump was acquitted by the Senate.

The report purposely does not come to a final conclusion, as Mueller did and as the House intelligence committee's 2018 report did, about whether there is sufficient evidence that Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia to sway the election to him and away from Clinton, leaving its findings open to partisan interpretation.

Several Republicans on the panel submitted "additional views" to the report, saying it should state more explicitly that Trump's campaign did not coordinate with Russia. They say that while the report shows the Russian government "inappropriately meddled" in the election, "then-candidate Trump was not complicit."

The panel's acting GOP chairman, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, signed on to that statement but the chairman who led the investigation, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, did not. Burr stepped aside earlier this year as the FBI was examining his stock sales.

Burr, who submitted the report before he stepped aside, often faced criticism from his GOP colleagues for working with Democrats on the probe and for summoning sensitive witnesses, such as Trump Jr.

Another Republican committee member, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, also did not sign on to the GOP statement.

 

[drayer54]

Sorry bro but even the Senate Select committee s report showed that Trump and Russia’s partnership in 2016 occurred and was a serious national security threat and dangerous. Figure it out.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

I can thanks. Are the walls closing in or we going for year 6 of the campaign of lies?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I can thanks. Are the walls closing in or we going for year 6 of the campaign of lies?

At this point I’ve done all I can for you. Your willful ignorance is on you.

 

[drayer54]

At this point I’ve done all I can for you. Your willful ignorance is on you.

Lol thanks!

Unlike Cack, some Dems do learn.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Lol thanks!

Unlike Cack, some Dems do learn.

No problem bro!

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I don’t think the issue was taking people to sanctuary cities. It was the way that the they have been busses to places not ready to receive them or dropping them off at the VPs residence in the middle of winter.

Seems Hobbs is doing it like it should have been done by GOP are too shitty of people to do it humanely. Again trying to make peoples lives as hard as possible is their common agenda.

"We’re sending migrants to cities they actually need to go to and be connected with their sponsors, and we are doing it in a more cost effective way by looking at all travel options, not just buses," Berry said.

She did not provide details on how many migrants have traveled under the new contract.

 

[GoIrish41]

2016 election ruined him. Trump won, GoIrish41 quit IE for a year, came back as Keith Olbermann. Angry, bitter, detached from reality, and labels anyone who disagrees with him a racist or a dipshit.

Some are both. (psst …. I mean you!)

 

[jprue24]

I’m mean I guess it sounded to me that there were serious errors that undermines the article but I’m still haven’t seen it? She changed her name back in the 2010s to Luna from Myerhoff or whatever… true, she identified as white not Latino up until recently also true, she has not disputed the Jewish claims or her nazi grandfather. Photos have been provided showing him in the nazi uniform. Seems true. We will see I guess but I’d you look at her recent tweets about the article from like three days ago she said she was bringing the heat and Wapo would retract the entire article…. That hasn’t happened.

Just checked again...

Correction has not been added to.

Sorry bro but even the Senate Select committee s report showed that Trump and Russia’s partnership in 2016 occurred and was a serious national security threat and dangerous. Figure it out.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

— The Trump campaign's interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a "grave" counterintelligence threat, a Senate panel concluded Tuesday as it detailed how associates of Donald Trump had regular contact with Russians and expected to benefit from the Kremlin's help.

The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump's behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and says other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin's aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers.

The report is the culmination of a bipartisan probe that produced what the committee called "the most comprehensive description to date of Russia's activities and the threat they posed." The investigation spanned more than three years as the panel's leaders said they wanted to thoroughly document the unprecedented attack on U.S. elections.

The findings, including unflinching characterizations of furtive interactions between Trump associates and Russian operatives, echo to a large degree those of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and appear to repudiate the Republican president's claims that the FBI had no basis to investigate whether his campaign was conspiring with Russia. Trump has called the Russia investigations a "hoax."

While Mueller's was a criminal probe, the Senate investigation was a counterintelligence effort with the aim of ensuring that such interference wouldn't happen again. The report issued several recommendations on that front, including that the FBI should do more to protect presidential campaigns from foreign interference.

READ MORE: Read the full, redacted Mueller report

The report was released as two other Senate committees, the Judiciary and Homeland Security panels, conduct their own reviews of the Russia probe with an eye toward uncovering what they say was FBI misconduct in the early days of the investigation. A prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William Barr, who regards the Russia investigation with skepticism, disclosed his first criminal charge Friday against a former FBI lawyer who plans to plead guilty to altering a government email.

Among the more striking sections of the report is the committee's description of the professional relationship between former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the committee describes as a Russian intelligence officer.

"Taken as a whole, Manafort's high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik, represented a grave counterintelligence threat," the report says.

The report notes how Manafort shared internal Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik and says there is "some evidence" Kilimnik may have been connected to Russia's effort to hack and leak Democratic emails, though that information is redacted. The report also says "two pieces of information" raise the possibility of Manafort's potential connection to those operations, but what follows is again blacked out.

Both men were charged in Mueller's investigation, but neither was accused of any tie to the hacking.

A Manafort lawyer, Kevin Downing, said Tuesday that information sealed at the request of Mueller's team "completely refutes whatever the intelligence committee is trying to surmise." He added, "It just looks like complete conjecture."

Like Mueller, the committee reviewed a meeting Trump's oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., took in June 2016 with a Russian lawyer he believed to have connections with the Russian government with the goal of receiving information harmful to Clinton.

The Senate panel said it assessed that the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, has "significant connections to the Russian government, including the Russian intelligence services," as did another participant in the meeting, Rinat Akhmetshin. The panel said it uncovered connections that were "far more extensive and concerning than what had been publicly known," particularly regarding Veselnitskaya.

The report also found no reliable evidence for Trump's longstanding supposition that Ukraine had interfered in the election, but did trace some of the earliest public messaging of that theory to Kilimnik and said it was spread by Russian-government proxies who sought to discredit investigations into Russian interference.

The committee said that messaging campaign lasted to "at least January 2020" — after the House had impeached Trump for pressuring Ukrainian officials to investigate the family of Democrat Joe Biden, now Trump's general election opponent. During that effort, some Republicans, including Trump, argued Ukraine was meddling, not Russia. Trump was acquitted by the Senate.

The report purposely does not come to a final conclusion, as Mueller did and as the House intelligence committee's 2018 report did, about whether there is sufficient evidence that Trump's campaign coordinated with Russia to sway the election to him and away from Clinton, leaving its findings open to partisan interpretation.

Several Republicans on the panel submitted "additional views" to the report, saying it should state more explicitly that Trump's campaign did not coordinate with Russia. They say that while the report shows the Russian government "inappropriately meddled" in the election, "then-candidate Trump was not complicit."

The panel's acting GOP chairman, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, signed on to that statement but the chairman who led the investigation, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, did not. Burr stepped aside earlier this year as the FBI was examining his stock sales.

Burr, who submitted the report before he stepped aside, often faced criticism from his GOP colleagues for working with Democrats on the probe and for summoning sensitive witnesses, such as Trump Jr.

Another Republican committee member, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, also did not sign on to the GOP statement.

Looking for your opinion here.

Would you say the "some Republicans" believe in the Russia Hoax™?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Just checked again...

Correction has not been added to.


Looking for your opinion here.

Would you say the "some Republicans" believe in the Russia Hoax™?

The true believers or MAGA diehards can’t accept it. If some more less Magaty persons accept some things happened it wasn’t a big deal but that is how they justify all the horrible shit Trump did in office. I guess they have to sleep at night. That’s my opinion.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Some are both. (psst …. I mean you!)

Coming from you, that brings a chuckle. What a way to approach life. Good luck with that.