you know what?

- let's just ignore that democratic AND republican lawmakers, who both voted overwhelmingly in favour of the stricter sanction, felt the need to include section 216 to make sure that trump will NOT ease them on his own; i wonder why they distrust him so much that they felt this unprecedented step was necessary.
- let's just ignore the fact that the sanctions specifically mention russia's meddling with the election. something many cultists still deny ever happened.
- let's furthermore ignore that a veto (something that buffoon actually considered!) would basically be political suicide, just shy of a direct admission to collusion.

no, "if trump signs this (despite being reportedly unhappy and according to his press secretary 'committed to the existing sanctions'), it proves that he can't possibly have colluded with russia" - shill 'logic'...

Paul ryan prepping to throw trump under the bus if trump retaliates against Mueller

Trump's media strategy of firing a senior official every week seems to be an effective way to control the narrative.

There haven't been any russiaburger stories in the past week so what narrative is there to control?
Unless you're suggesting that cynical elements within the media would consciously time the release of such stories to maximize negative impact. Why I'd never.

There's a couple stories at the top of reddit politics which I'm sure fake news CNN would've liked to focus on tonight.

Bill Browder testifying that he has absolutely no personal knowledge of the Trump Jr meeting but wants to pass off his speculation as firsthand knowledge?
It would be like Jesse Jackson testifying at OJ's trial

ah, unpopularity record just beaten today

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

nate silver is part of russiagate now

haha

url
france literally deleted a candidate

trump.jpg
mission accomplished

Got this info,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dictated-sons-misleading-statement-on-meeting-with-russian-lawyer/2017/07/31/04c94f96-73ae-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html

I'm not sure about implications

From the linked article...




So, yes he was talking to a Russian who had damaging information about Hillary.
But now, after D Trump won the election...

Instead of the US govt. following up on the: "damaging information about Hillary"...they go after D Trump, who's son didn't really do anything wrong.
I would think that any information about one of the presidential candidates....wrong doing ....would be something the US govt. would WANT to look into, rather than try to kill the messenger.

I still remember the night Trump won, and Hillary and Obama had stated that they wouldn't fight it, and that they would support the new president. Seems like that was a lie ....too.