Subject: Re: Julian Assange on The Memo
On 2/3/2018 4:32 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 14:46:00 -0800, Dutch<email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2/3/2018 11:53 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2018 16:55:11 +0000 (UTC), firstname.lastname@example.org (Bradley K.
>>> Sherman) wrote:
>>>> Bill Vanek<email@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> | ...
>>>>>> | This appears to be the second time (the first in the Oval
>>>>>> | Office with Russian officials) that Trump has handed the
>>>>>> | Russians classified material. If Trump is not a Russian
>>>>>> | agent, he surely is acting as effectively as one.
>>>>> I see you've become just another dishonest piece of shit, then. "Let's
>>>>> see what honest American conservatives are saying", huh? How about
>>>>> "let's see what one claimed conservative is saying? Would that be a
>>>>> bit more accurate? There might even be others, but I believe they are
>>>>> badly outnumbered by people who understand the seriousness of this
>>>> I agree. Treason by POTUS is a very, very serious matter.
>>> How about by the FBI? Nothing at all? Because they're on your side?
>>> What's it like to be a lemming?
>> That's too fucking rich. YOU'RE the lemming.
>> The FBI did nothing wrong. What would you have them do when they receive
>> credible intelligence showing that a presidential candidate and his
>> staff are potentially compromised by a hostile foreign government? Then
>> they read the names and one of the individuals involved (Page) has been
>> under investigation before for colluding with Russian spies, and others
>> (Manafort, Gates) have dodgy ties to Russian entities and operatives.
>> And yet another (Papadopolous) has been reported by a separate credible
>> source for similar involvement. Then the more they investigate the more
>> suspicious evidence surfaces.
>> When they see that the company that contracted for some of the
>> information leads back to the DNC should they just ignore it all? Why
>> would they do that?
>> Admit it, this is nothing but a smokescreen, it doesn't begin to pass
>> the sniff test.
> No need for me to ever watch CNN, then. It's all right here,
> regurgitated by you.
What part of the above do you dispute and on what basis? If the
president and his family and cronies aren't guilty of anything then do
they all act so guilty? The question is rhetorical, the answer is obvious.