On 2017-12-07 6:53 AM, MNMikeW wrote: > Carbon wrote: > >>>> It means exactly what I intended it to mean. >>>> >>>> "Never about Russia" is implausible. >>> >>> LOL! It looks more like it everyday. Muellers phony fishing >>> expedition seems to be coming up empty, he had to switch baits. >> >> >> It's never too late for you propaganda victims to learn some history, >> specifically Ken Starr's Special Counsel investigation of Bill >> Clinton's alleged involvement in Vince Foster's death and financial >> crimes in Whitewater. You do remember that, correct? It wasn't that >> long ago. Anyway, Starr couldn't find meaningful evidence about >> either of those, but he did learn that ol' Bill did enjoy a nice >> blowjob on a summer evening. Lying about that was what actually got >> Clinton in trouble. >> >> Does any of this ring a bell? I guess the point should be special >> prosecutors have wide authority to follow investigations wherever >> they lead. Jumping back to the present, Mueller has learned that >> while no legitimate US banks would touch Trump after his multiple >> billions in loan defaults, Russian banks were happy to give him >> money. And so was Deutche Bank, which has already been found guilty >> of laundering billions of dollars in dirty money tied to Russian >> organized crime and Putin-connected oligarchs (if those are >> different). >> >> At the risk of stating the obvious, the fact that Trump can only get >> funding for his projects from Russian and Russian-aligned banks is a >> lot more connected to the original purpose of the investigation than >> getting caught lying about getting blowjobs from an intern in the >> Rose Garden. >> > Care to tell us when these loans happened? Why would that matter to you, Mikey? You're utterly unswayed by the timeline in the Uranium One case that completely refutes your claims of corruption, aren't you?