From: Alan Baker <>
Subject: Re: So???
Full headers:
From: Alan Baker <>
Subject: Re: So???
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:32:58 -0800
Message-ID: <ovuv5a$5k6$>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 19:32:59 +0000 (UTC)
logging-data="5766"; mail-complaints-to=""; x-trace=7gv1VP82s8WGWD3hsCAY3o8yMIkw1tdiP9AoerHvnGGuetbhoS0yPCi2oOb7ZIb+nv3qQAj01PCuSOvkUKtzEL5NX4DNmJ86N840plUnzQOSk1elljpRrOl/PI99kvrwERid2/bXhb63JnQhieGXLNhI5Jv6w3wp
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <>
Print Article
Forward Article
On 2017-12-02 11:08 AM, -hh wrote:
> Greg wrote:
>> I believe then and now that there will be no indictment related to collusion.
> "...related to collusion"?   I don't have time to cross-check this right now:
> did Greg's original statement specifically narrow to collusion, or is this a
> subtle goal post move attempt?  Similarly, if it was there prior, did it specify
> only collusion with no less than certified Russian State actors, or was it
> just any old kind of collusion (Russian or otherwise)?
> -hh

Of course it's a goalpost move.

Greg's a weasel who doesn't feel he actually needs to be accountable for 
the things he says.

No wonder he loves Trump: it validates him.