Follow the money: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/25/michael-flynn-turkey-russia-237550 Plus you seem to forget the whole favorable discussion of sanctions in contradiction to back then president Obama or that whole RT stint http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/politics/michael-flynn-payments-rt-russia-tv/ Middle of the road politician that got most of her fame from her ties to Bill rather than ability. Dead center on fiscal issues and left on social issues. Would've been an average presidency, but they can't all be winners.
I guess I was wrong. I always thought something about her just didn't seem right. But then, I'm not a reader, I just go on gut feeling.
So yes or no do you think someone within the Trump admin will be caught colluding with the Russians? Would you be willing to bet on it?
Flynn is/was Trump admin ...I'm not sure he knew that whatever he did had the legal ramifications it had...which is kind of a pattern w/Trump; he's surrounded himself with stupid. Manafort hasn't registered as foreign agent because he may drag Sessions w/him. We'll see how Kushner pans out. And as much as I'd bet on a sure thing, I'd bet on corruption more so each and every time, and with the Sessions wild card, I don't expect any to be "caught" colluding.
Fair point, but that's not how the rule of law works. Evidence is necessary to convict or indict someone of a crime. So far it's just media whoring, anonymous tips and unverifiable "he said she said" commentary. It's well past the point of being old.
And that is where I think Comey got off track. It was like he was responding to the media and worried about what they would say if he didn't speak.
My point is that if they're issuing subpoenas, it's because those agencies have sufficient proof. I find the idea that nascent cases should disclose their "proof" to the public pretty laughable.
That they issue subpoenas doesn't mean they have proof. It's that they want testimony as to whether proof exists or not, and to gather any possible evidence there may be.