They support Mexican criminals to win elections.

It tells you everything youll ever need to know about their party.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Jan 9 2018 06:21pm

Can't speak to the content, so attack the messenger.

That said, I'm a little over half way through this, and you can definitely tell the difference in questioning between the majority and the minority staff/counsel. Pat Davis (Chuck Grassley's chief counsel, and the one doing most of the questioning when the majority is on the clock) is so far focusing on stuff that doesn't specifically relate to Fusion's relationship with Steele/Orbis, and in the process, managed to cement the fact that Natalya Veselnitskaya was NOT in New York on June 9, 2016 for business related to Prevezon.

I lived in Cali for 20 years, I was there when Feinstein made her way up thru the ranks. Not impressed.
She's also one of the one's in on the passing of the law that you don't have to tell your partner you have the HIV virus.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jan 9 2018 06:24pm

Straw man. Has nothing to do with the transcript of that Simpson interview (which Feinstein wasn't even in, nor were the other Senators on the JC...it was their own legal counsel/advisors doing the questioning).

you guys deflect things so well you ought to try out for goalie on your local hockey team

I know.

However, until further news about that transcript comes out...like whether the answers to the questions are factual or not...or whether the investigation is complete, I'll reserve judgement.


/e That document is from August 2017. I thought there had been further "discoveries" since then?

/ee I guess I'm just wondering why a document from Aug 2017 didn't get released until Jan 2018. Seems like good odds, that there is some ulterior motive here.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jan 9 2018 07:04pm

That's when the interview took place with the SJC counsels. The content of that interview has not been made public until today.

Chuck Grassley initially said he'd be open to releasing that transcript to the public only days after it happened, be had since reneged on that. http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/24/trump-dossier-testimony-could-be-published-by-senate-judiciary/

To your second edit: You should ask Chuck Grassley about any ulterior motives, since he's Chairman of the SJC.

This post was edited by Surfpunk on Jan 9 2018 07:07pm

you'd think republicans scrambling to prevent the transcripts from coming out would give you an idea of who you can trust but you're so far gone that you start doubting the contents of the transcripts they never wanted you to read

I dunno. I think I'll put my money on... ulterior motive by the democrats, namely Feinstein.

Like...

The November 2018 elections.
The fact that Trump's approval rating is actually going UP.
The fact that Trump's ideas/plans w/e are actually working.

in many ways ghot reminds me of an elderly fellow defending a nigerian prince who hasn't sent him money yet from family members claiming he's a fraudster