Yates and Clapper Testimony Begins

The Democratic senators had better be careful in describing how lying to the FBI and the justice department is a punishable criminal act. They are laying the groundwork for Hillary's prosecution.

a reply to: SBMcG

I could do without the partisan posturing on both sides. The Russians have been meddling in our elections since before I was born and it's time we do something about it. I'm not a war monger, but if this doesn't constitute a legitimate act of war I don't know what is.

I don't know what can be done about this, but something significant does need to be done. The Russians are doing this for one reason -- to create CHAOS in our election process.

That being said, there is no evidence that Bill Clinton's wife would have won the election absent anything the Russians did. Trump had the "pu**y grab" leak on October 7. That obviously hurt him with millions of voters -- particularly Evangelicals. How do we know his win wouldn't have been even more lopsided than it was if that hadn't come out?

Well said.

Wow #SallyYates is a huge circlejerk. Do these people use their brain at all? Twitter drains your intelligence i tell you.

These dems keep saying that Trump people were colluding with Russians, as if it is fact, even though Clapper clearly said there was no proof of this.

a reply to: carewemust

Or to keep harping about a special prosecutor...

Pence possibly needing to be a witness means we need a special prosecutor, well what about the attorney general meeting on a tarmac with the spouse of the direct subject of a criminal investigation?

If they keep pushing this nonsense I wouldn't be surprised if Trump turns the DOJ loose on Hillary and her cronies...

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Twitter drains your intelligence i tell you.

That must be why Trump uses Twitter for everything.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
Wow #SallyYates is a huge circlejerk. Do these people use their brain at all? Twitter drains your intelligence i tell you.

That's why she was just a temp, and not a good one at that.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: carewemust

Or to keep harping about a special prosecutor...

Pence possibly needing to be a witness means we need a special prosecutor, well what about the attorney general meeting on a tarmac with the spouse of the direct subject of a criminal investigation?

If they keep pushing this nonsense I wouldn't be surprised if Trump turns the DOJ loose on Hillary and her cronies...

What if that was Trumps plan all along. They will no longer be able to say no after they appointed a special prosecutor themselves.

That board is gonna be memed to hell and back.

Basically the jist of all of this is that they have no evidence for any russian collusion with Trump but they have evidence for russian election interference. Why the f#ck are they so reluctant to provide said evidence? Am i the only one who thinks this is just a stupid distraction that will in the end amount to nothing.

Sing a song of sixpence,
A pocket full of rye.
Four and twenty blackbirds,
Baked in a pie.

When the pie was opened
The birds began to sing;
Wasn't that a dainty dish,
To set before the king.

Or maybe J.D. Salinger's " The Catcher in the Rye " would be far more appropriate.

Just be patient, cuz you ain't seen nothing yet.

Buck

a reply to: Perfectenemy

They need to do so in a classified setting because the information is still classified. Which is why they are going to set another hearing.

a reply to: AnonyMason



I have read many articles about Mr. Trump's business dealings all over the world. If you operate globally as a businessman with multiple ventures, it would be expected that you would have had dealings in most civilized industrial countries, including Russia.

Truthfully, the Clinton's "business/foundation" dealings all over the world are more concerning. The signing off on the divesting of 20% of our uranium resources to Russian affiliates while Hillary was SOS disturbs me much much more.

Curious that some certain posters have been absent from this thread.

What a huge disappointment. I thought Yates would slam them with evidence and facts but all she did was to tell stories and that she just didn't like the travel ban because muh feelings. L.O.L.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

Unless you think US Code whatever number it was, overrides the Constitution, she is correct, the EO is illegal.

It's over.

Did we learn anything new? I didn't.

Maybe some groundwork was laid for future actions. I don't know.

So what do we know based on this hearing? We know that there is no evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia, and that the only people who can answer the question as to who unmasked Flynn and other American names, and who leaked it to the Washington Post are a deeeeep seeecret and the media are evidently the only ones that "know" and they're not telling.

No wonder America has lost faith in government officials.

a reply to: RickinVa

Its starting hit a little closer to home, especially after the Monsanto ruling and the court ordered release of their paid troll army. Talk about Gurkha time !

Buck

a reply to: Kali74

The EO was not illegal because it did not ban all people of a religion, as many muslim countries were not banned, and it did not ban only people of a certain religion from the countries that were banned.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Kali74

The EO was not illegal because it did not ban all people of a religion, as many muslim countries were not banned, and it did not ban only people of a certain religion from the countries that were banned.

Yates and the leftist judges who backed her up all relied upon Trump's statements during the campaign. He did use the term "Muslim Ban" (fine with me, BTW) several times.

But as you correctly pointed out, in the order itself, the term "Muslim" was not used and most "Muslim" nations were not included in the ban.

Yates made a political call here.