That Mantra of No Evidence of Collusion….has been repeatedly drilled into the minds of Trumpeters & the Fox/echo crowd, but if the breaking news from last night can be confirmed, it can put that nonsense to bed! Word is Trump knew of the infamous Trump Tower meeting beforehand! Sure, Trump’s legal team is attacking Cohen’s credibility. It may be all they have left as a feeble defense. If corroborated, this evidence plays right into the legal narrative of both conspiracy & obstruction. As to verification, reportedly there were others in the room besides Cohen when Don Jr. asked permission of his father for the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians. Should those in the room testify to the same account as has just been attributed to Cohen, this would be a game changer! The potential smoking gun! The constant excuse we keep hearing from Trump world that there’s no evidence of collusion would become a distant memory: cohen-claims-trump-knew-in-
We’re not even sure who leaked the report about Cohen knew that Trump knew about the meeting. But it’s safe to assume Cohen is flipping. Cohen & Trump will no longer exchange Christmas cards. It’s reported “they’re dead to each other.” But the reams of evidence coming from Cohen could be the grease that coats the slide to a presidency that cannot be saved. Other evidence Trump knew of the meeting involves Jr’s calls to a blocked number which is suspected to be daddy’s. Keep in mind the expressed intent from the Trump family for that Trump Tower meeting was to get the dirt on Hillary by a foreign adversary. For any neophytes out there, that would indeed be a very serious crime. And catch the song of agonizing regret at the end of part 3.
Anyone who’s paying attention can easily detect all the lying: trump-knew-about-trump-tower-
More Peril from Cohen Tape
Other big news is the implications from the Cohen tapes. The potential campaign finance violations involving numerous women could surpass the hot water John Edwards got into over a decade ago, which permanently squashed his presidential aspirations. Word is at least 100 Cohen tapes have been seized, so who knows what they’ll discover & all the implications: government-
More News from just One Week!
The other stories from this past week weren’t as much of a bombshell, but there sure were lots of them. They keep adding up. Had other presidents been caught up in this many scandals, they’d have been gone already. Let’s see, if I can recall them all this week, here’s a list:
*Cohen & Trump heard on tape discussing hush money to a Playboy Playmate
*Trump’s tweets are a target for Mueller building an obstruction case (trump-tweets-obstruction-
*FISA application documents refute the Steele dossier launched the Russian investigation
*Sen. Richard Burr said the FISA warrants involving Carter Page were based on legitimate reasons
*Rudy wants no questioning about potential obstruction if Trump testifies
*Emoluments Clause case against Trump allowed to proceed
*Security clearances threatened to be removed from former intelligence officials
*It’s been discovered Russia is positioned to attack our power grids (us-utilities-under-attack)
*It’s been discovered Russia is attempting to hack into the accounts of Dem candidates to again disrupt our election
*A surly Secretary of State had no answers for Congress on what Trump & Putin may have agreed to in their secret meeting
*Putin turns down DC invite, but invites Trump to Moscow
*CNN reporter blocked from White House event for doing her job
*Maniacs in House Freedom Caucus had plans to impeach Rosenstein until they backed off based on the stupidity of their idea
*Manafort trial delayed, but kicks in next week
*Trump keeps waffling back & forth over Russia did or didn’t meddle in our presidential election, dropping the ball in stopping them for this year’s midterms
Many of these topics are explored further here in part 1 & also part 2. No evidence of collusion they keep saying? See more signs of the Trump campaign’s potential collaboration with shady Russians inside russian-meddling-
And why does Trump inevitably return to questioning the irrefutable evidence that Russia meddled in the 2016 election? We can dispense with the explanation, conveyed anonymously by senior administration officials, that “his brain can’t process that collusion and cyberattacks are two different things.” We can also forget about the widely held theory that he views the various Russia investigations as a threat to the legitimacy of his election, and therefore a devastating blow to his sense of self-worth.
Or, at least, neither offers a sufficient explanation for why Trump consistently parrots Russian talking points on NATO, the American media, U.S. troop deployments, Ukraine and the legitimacy of the postwar liberal order. What does any of that have to do with his tender ego? Do we really think Trump has an informed position on, say, Montenegro’s history of aggression? Could Trump find Montenegro on a map? Nor is it credible to point to actions his administration has taken that are “tough on Russia.” Trump has questioned proposals to supply the Ukrainian government with anti-tank missiles and sniped at Congress for wanting to impose fresh sanctions on Moscow.
What about my argument that Trump was constitutionally incapable of keeping a secret? That, too, is no longer operative. Since I first wrote, we’ve learned that Trump—a skinflint who once had his own charity pay a $7 fee to register his son for the Boy Scouts—was willing to shell out $130,000 of his own money to hush up a fling with a porn actress, Stormy Daniels. And he still hasn’t copped to sleeping with her, despite the discovery of their nondisclosure agreement and contemporaneous evidence that the affair really happened. None of this leaked out until well after the election, proving that Trump is indeed capable of keeping his yap shut when he wants. Not convinced? How about the fact that Brett Kavanaugh’s name didn’t leak out as Trump’s latest Supreme Court pick until minutes before the announcement?
Politically speaking, Trump’s devotion to his pro-Putin line doesn’t make sense. Yes, the GOP base is impressionable, and perhaps Republican voters would accept it if Trump came out and said, “You bet, Russia helped get me elected, and wasn’t that a good thing? We couldn’t let Crooked Hillary win!” But nobody would say his odd solicitousness toward the Kremlin leader is a political winner, and it certainly causes an unnecessary amount of friction with Republicans in Congress. He’s kept it up at great political cost to himself, and that suggests either that he is possessed by an anomalous level of conviction on this one issue, despite his extraordinary malleability on everything else—or that he’s beholden to Putin in some way. You don’t have to buy Jonathan Chait’s sleeper agent theory of Trump to believe that something is deeply weird about all this. Nor do you need to be convinced that Putin is hanging onto a recording of something untoward that may have taken place in a certain Moscow hotel room. You don’t even have to buy the theory that Trump’s business is overly dependent on illicit flows of Russia money, giving Putin leverage. As Julia Ioffe posits, the kompromat could well be the mere fact of the Russian election meddling itself.
As for my argument that Trump’s collection of misfit toys was too incompetent, and too riven by infighting, to collaborate with Russia, this one might still be true. There were certainly sporadic, repeated attempts by some on or around the campaign to collaborate, but we don’t know if, or how, those flirtations were consummated. But certainly, the intent was there, as Donald Trump, Jr. has said publicly. They were all too happy to accept Russian help, even if they weren’t sure they would be enough to win in the end. We might never get clear evidence that Trump made a secret deal with the Kremlin. It would be great to see his tax returns, and perhaps Mueller has evidence of private collusion that we have yet to see. These details matter. But in a larger sense, everything we need to know about Trump’s strange relationship with Russia is already out in the open. As The Donald himself might say, there’s something going on.
If Trump is indeed a tool of Putin, what might we expect him to do next? Well, I wouldn’t be sleeping too soundly in Kiev, Podgorica or Riga right now. If the Kremlin tests America’s wobbling commitment to NATO, watch how Trump responds. And pay attention, too, to what the White House says about Russia’s absurd demand that the U.S. hand over former ambassador to Moscow Mike McFaul—Wednesday’s spectacle of Sarah Huckabee Sanders refusing to immediately rule out the idea flies in the face of decades of American diplomacy. Trump may have grudgingly admitted that Russia did the deed, but nobody should be surprised if he starts shedding doubt on it all over again. Maybe, just maybe, he can’t admit that Moscow tried to put him in the Oval Office because he’s under strict instructions not to.
Oh Lordy There Are Tapes
More articles on Cohen’s tapes are here. See the legal jeopardy that pertains to Trump inside michael-cohens-tape-
Once Again, There’s No Evidence of Collusion?
I’ve posted most of the article from donald-trumps-campaign-of-
With every development in the ongoing investigation by Robert Mueller and the FBI into the Russian attack on our elections, we learn all kinds of new and damning information about what Russia did and who was allegedly involved. Since the beginning, one of the names that continues to pop up, as in a Whac-a-Mole game (if the moles were all wearing red Gilligan hats) is of course Carter Page. In case you’re just joining us, Page was a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign who has been accused by investigators of being a Russian agent aiding in the Kremlin’s cyber-war against American democracy. When we learned that Page was the subject of FBI surveillance, Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s pre-Paul Manafort campaign chairman, described Page as nothing more than a “low-level volunteer” with “no formal role in the campaign.” But as we’ve learned throughout the past 18 months or so, and certainly from what we discovered from the content of the redacted FISA application released to the press over the weekend, Page was allegedly targeted and recruited by the Russian government to help “undermine and influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election in violation of criminal law.” The Department of Justice defined Page as a foreign policy adviser to Trump, who is also known as “Candidate #1,” according to the document. The application also notes that Trump identified Page as an adviser in March 2016 and that Page had cultivated relationships with Russian intelligence officers extending back several years.
Cutting to the chase, it’s abundantly clear that Page’s activities constitute what’s colloquially been referred to as “collusion,” even though Trump continues to scream his mantra: “NO COLLUSION.” In a legal sense, Trump adviser Page conspired with Russia to attack America using cyber-warfare aimed at tipping the electoral scales to Trump’s favor. Tragically, it appears to have worked. Among the myriad problems for Trump and his cult of Red Hat followers is reconciling the intense levels of cognitive dissonance. No wonder the MAGA crowd has lost its collective mind. They’re being yanked in all kinds of different directions, practically by the hour. Trump’s blurts on Twitter and elsewhere are very often in direct conflict with the word of his staff and other administration officials like Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, whose view of Russia and the attack appears in stark contrast to Trump’s views. But the cognitive dissonance can be almost exclusively traced to Trump himself. On one hand, Trump’s loyalists are being told that Russian President Vladimir Putin is no big deal and that he doesn’t need to be personally chastised by Trump for launching the attack. By the way, we now know that the intelligence community briefed Trump on Jan. 6, 2017, informing the then-president-elect than Putin had personally ordered the attack. On the other hand, Trump walked back his own Helsinki remarks, telling his cabinet and gathered reporters that the attack was, in fact, orchestrated by the Russian government.
On one hand, officials like Coats and FBI Director Chris Wray, each of whom was hand-picked by Trump, told us that Russia’s attack will continue this year as well. On the other hand, Trump told reporters last week that, no, there is no ongoing Russian attack on our democracy. Meanwhile, Trump continues to scream about the “rigged witch hunt,” suggesting — or simply stating — that the whole scandal is a hoax cooked up by Democrats to undermine him. Furthering this kooky, fact-free theory of his, and in stark contrast to his own Cabinet-room confirmation that it was Russia, Trump also repeatedly screeched about the Democratic National Committee’s email server before, during and after the Helsinki fiasco. Trump, here, appears to be suggesting or forwarding an ingenious conspiracy in which the DNC hacked its own server and then covered it up, meaning that Russia and Putin had nothing to do with that major prong of the attack. At this point, Trump’s supporters, both online and on Fox News, don’t know which end is up. Making matters even more confusing for the Red Hats, Trump can’t seem to decide whether Page was a low-level volunteer or a representative of the entire campaign. All at once, we’re supposed to believe that Page was a big nothing and also a big deal. Again, Lewandowski said Page had “no formal role in the campaign” and yet Trump spent much of Sunday tweeting about how the FBI “spied on” his campaign.
So was Carter Page a nobody? Or was he the equivalent of “the Trump Campaign for President,” as Trump himself wrote on Sunday? For those of us still tethered to reality, and based on the evidence presented to the (Republican) panel of FISA judges, we know that Page’s activities constitute enough linkage between the campaign and Russian intelligence operatives to strongly suggest collusion between the Trump team and Russia. Toss into the mix the Trump Tower meeting in June of 2016; the countless undisclosed meetings between Russian officials and Trump campaign advisers; the Seychelles meeting arranged by Erik Prince shortly before Trump’s inauguration; Paul Manafort’s offer of campaign access to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and so on, and it begins to seem obvious that a criminal conspiracy occurred.
Still think there’s no evidence of collusion? More speculation of collusion is offered up in this conclusion to did-putin-share-stolen-
Now we need to ask a new question: Was data also at the heart of the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia? Nearly a year ago, I speculated that the Trump campaign might have shared data with the Russian Internet Research Agency, the team that created fake personas and put up fake Facebook pages with the goal of spreading false stories about Hillary Clinton. The Russians certainly seemed to know what they were doing. On the one hand, the Russian team targeted people who they thought might be moved to support Trump by anti-immigration slogans and messages; on the other hand, they targeted black voters with messages designed to discourage them from voting at all. The latest indictment produced by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation, together with President Trump’s strange performance in Helsinki, suggests a different hypothesis: that Russia shared data with the Trump campaign, and not vice versa. The indictment explains that the Russian hackers who broke into the servers of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee not only stole the now- infamous emails but also stole data. “The Conspirators,” reads the indictment, “searched for and identified computers within the DCCC and DNC networks that stored information related to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” They then “gathered data by creating backups, or ‘snapshots,’ of the DNC’s cloud-based systems” and “moved the snapshots to cloud-based accounts they had registered with the same service thereby stealing the data from the DNC.”
The Russian hackers, in other words, are the modern equivalents of the Watergate burglars in 1972. The only difference is the technology. The Watergate burglars broke into the Democratic campaign offices to tap phones and steal documents; the Russian hackers used malware and “cloud-based accounts” to achieve the same goal. Did they share this information with the Trump campaign? If so, the timing is interesting. In October, a few weeks after the hackers broke into the DNC servers, New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman observed a major shift in the way the Trump campaign was spending its advertising budget. Access to Democratic Party data would, of course, have been useful in redirecting that spending. At about the same time, Trump also began using a curious set of conspiratorial slogans and messages, all lifted directly from Russian state television and websites. From Barack Obama “founded ISIS” to Hillary Clinton will start “World War III,” Trump repeated them at his rallies and on his Twitter feed. It was as if he had some reason to believe they would work.
It’s important to stop and acknowledge that the evidence we have does not establish this kind of connection between Russian hackers and the Trump campaign; the Mueller probe needs to continue unimpeded to help determine what happened and what did not. But shared data could explain why Russian state media, the Russian Internet Research Agency and the Trump campaign were all doing the same kinds of things at the same time. Shared data could also explain why Trump appeared to feel so indebted to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, why he wanted to speak to him with no aides present, why he is so reluctant to acknowledge Russian interference. It could even explain why he talks so obsessively and inaccurately about the size of his great electoral victory: because he himself believes that the Russians helped him win. He fears that this would make his presidency illegitimate. Which it would.
Russian Agent?
Whatever Trump agreed to (capitulated to) in that private meeting with Putin in Helsinki, we should all fear he’s fulfilling his end of the bargain for soliciting Putin’s help in winning the American presidential election, while furthering Russia’s interests rather than America’s. This article posted from former-gop-governor-pens-
Former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (R) is calling on her fellow Republicans to demand President Trump’s resignation. In a Los Angeles Times op-ed, Whitman called Trump’s behavior “indefensible” and said he should rename his “America First” platform “Russia First.” “My Republican colleagues … have to end their willful ignorance of the damage Trump is doing both domestically and internationally,” she wrote. “We must put aside the GOP label, as hard as that may be, and demonstrate the leadership our country needs by calling on the president to step down.”
Whitman, who also served as former President George W. Bush’s EPA administrator, has been highly critical of Trump’s actions at his press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump’s comments at that press conference have drawn significant backlash from Democrats and Republicans. He refused to confront Putin over Russian interference in the 2016 election and cast doubt on his own intelligence agencies’ conclusions in remarks that Whitman called “deeply disturbing.” Trump later walked back some of his comments, claiming he “misspoke” when he said that he did not see any reason why it “would be” Russia who interfered. “If the president did genuinely misspeak on Monday, it demonstrates his inability to articulate accurately U.S. foreign policy at the highest level, for the highest stakes,” Whitman wrote. “As the leader of the free world — as ridiculous as that title sounds when applied to Trump — his words matter.”
“If he cannot take his place at a podium next to an adversarial foreign leader and stand up for America’s interests and principles, he should not be president,” she added. Whitman laid out several actions for her fellow Republicans to take, including implementing tougher sanctions against Russia, ensuring the protection of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election, which Trump has repeatedly called a “witch hunt,” and standing up to the president. “Those members of the party in Congress who have stood up to the president should be commended,” she wrote. “More must follow, with more than private talk and tepid tweets.”
It’s Good To Have Jennifer Rubin Back
Here’s her take on the Cohen tapes & 5 important questions surrounding them in michael-cohens-secret-tape-
The voters at large have figured out that Russia is not a friend that deserves the benefit of the doubt. According to the most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, “65 percent of voters believe the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election (up 12 points from a year ago); 41 percent say the interference affected the election’s outcome (up 8 points from a year ago); and 30 percent think Democrat Hillary Clinton would have won without the interference (up 6 points from last year).” Trump, however, continues to stick with Putin’s line that the investigation into Russian manipulation of our election is all a “hoax.” Perhaps the Russia investigation will solve the mystery of exactly what Putin has on Trump — or whether Trump’s solicitude is settlement of a debt (figuratively, if not literally) for bailing him out when he couldn’t get U.S. banks to lend him money in the 2000s. It hardly matters what precisely is the source of leverage — or even if Trump personally and privately colluded with Russians in the campaign. (He did so publicly in calling for Russia to release emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee; his son, son-in-law and campaign chief Paul Manafort did so by meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer for the purpose of getting “dirt” on Clinton.) Rather, the crucial problem is what to do about a president beholden to a hostile power.
This “dangerous delusion,” as Kasparov describes it, results not only from naivete but also from Republicans’ self-interest. They fear the GOP base; they cannot bring themselves to admit that they have enabled a pro-Russian operator. They surely don’t want a full accounting of Russian infiltration of the National Rifle Association. In their refusal to admit error and risk the wrath of the increasingly irrational GOP base, these lawmakers turn their foolish bet — that they would mitigate Trump’s unfitness to serve in order to obtain policy goals — into a conscious decision to put partisanship over country at a time that Russia continues to wage a cyberwar against our democracy. (As #NeverTrump conservative Charles Sykes puts it, “Many Republicans have rationalized their support for Trump by pointing to tax cuts, rollbacks in regulation and Trump’s appointments of conservative judges. But last week reminded us how many of their values they have been willing to surrender.”) It’s not only politicians who have fallen into this trap. Upwards of 80 percent of GOP voters support Trump, and a throng of conservative media apologists insist daily that it has all been worth it (to get tax cuts or judges or whatever). Now, however, the issue is not whether it was “worth it” to have a racist president, or an irrational one, or one who wasn’t Hillary Clinton, but whether it was worth it to elect a president who takes the side of a hardened enemy of the United States. No decent, self-respecting American patriot should answer in the affirmative. Alas, far too many in the GOP still do.
Max Boot Could Be Rubin’s Equal For Logical WaPo Op-Eds
We can see that from his clear insights on signs pointing toward collusion inside the-evidence-doesnt-
President Trump is willing, under duress, to briefly and begrudgingly admit that Russian “meddling” took place in 2016 before reverting to calling it a “big hoax.” But he always maintains that the plot against America had no impact; he describes it as a “Democrat excuse for losing the ’16 Election.” Faithfully echoing the president, other Republicans, such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), say it’s “clear” that the Russian interference “didn’t have a material effect on our elections.” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders even claims that the U.S. intelligence community reached that conclusion. Not quite. Here is the intelligence community’s assessment, partially declassified in January 2017: “We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.” When then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo claimed last fall that “the intelligence community’s assessment is that the Russian meddling that took place did not affect the outcome of the election,” his own agency rebuked him. While the intelligence agencies are silent on the impact of Russia’s attack, outside experts who have examined the Kremlin campaign — which included stealing and sharing Democratic Party emails, spreading propaganda online and hacking state voter rolls — have concluded that it did affect an extremely close election decided by fewer than 80,000 votes in three states. Clint Watts, a former FBI agent, writes in his recent book, “Messing with the Enemy,” that “Russia absolutely influenced the U.S. presidential election,” especially in Michigan and Wisconsin, where Trump’s winning margin was less than 1 percent in each state.
We still don’t know the full extent of the Russian interference, but we know its propaganda reached 126 million people via Facebook alone. A BuzzFeed analysis found that fake news stories on Facebook generated more social engagement in the last three months of the campaign than did legitimate articles: The “20 top-performing false election stories from hoax sites and hyperpartisan blogs generated 8,711,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook.” Almost all of this “fake news” was either started or spread by Russian bots, including claims that the pope had endorsed Trump and that Hillary Clinton had sold weapons to the Islamic State. Elsewhere on social media, tens of thousands of Russian bots spread pro-Trump messages on Twitter, which has already notified about 1.4 million users that they interacted with Russian accounts. The Russian disinformation, propagating hashtags such as #Hillary4Prison and #MAGA, reflected what the Trump campaign was saying. The Russian bots even claimed after every presidential debate that Trump had won, whereas objective viewers gave each one to Clinton. Russia also hacked voting systems in at least 39 states, and while there is no evidence that vote tallies were changed, Russians may have used the stolen data to target their social media or shared the results with the Trump campaign. The Senate Intelligence Committee found that “in a small number of states” the Russians may have been able to “alter or delete voter registration data,” potentially disenfranchising Clinton voters.
Now, by contrast, Trump and his apologists pretend that the Russian intervention — including the WikiLeaks revelations — was no big deal. That beggars belief. Even if the Russians had failed, they still attacked our democracy. Yet they didn’t fail: Trump won. Russian disinformation wasn’t the only factor in the outcome and was probably less important in the end than FBI Director James B. Comey’s announcement 11 days before the election that he was reopening the Clinton email investigation. But Watts concludes: “Without the Russian influence effort, I believe Trump would not have even been within striking distance of Clinton on Election Day.” That is the inconvenient truth the Putin Republicans won’t admit.
FISA Proven Legit
Some of the crazy nudniks in Congress & the echo keep questioning the legitimacy of the FISA warrant during the campaign, but they’re grasping at straws. Nunes seems to have lost his mind in submission to Trump, as revealed in fisa-release-gop-lying & also fisa-documents-dispel-witch-
The Trump/Nunes narrative rests heavily on the idea that the FBI probe into the Trump campaign was illegitimate, because it was triggered by the “Steele Dossier.” The Nunes memo in January charged that to spy on the Trump campaign, the FBI failed to disclose that former British spy Christopher Steele’s research had originally been funded for political purposes (which Trump and his allies maintain shows the probe had tainted origins). In his rebuttal memo at the time, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California — Nunes’s counterpart — disputed this, noting that the FBI’s application for the warrant did, in fact, disclose that Steele was hired by “politically motivated persons” to “discredit” the Trump campaign. The newly released documents — in particular, the FBI’s FISA applications — show that Nunes was engaged in disingenuous parsing designed to deceive and that Schiff was telling the truth. The application contained a whole page detailing the FBI’s conclusion that Steele had been hired to do “research” to “discredit” the Trump campaign, and that the FBI deemed Steele credible anyway, having relied on his information in the past. As Savage puts it, the new release offers a “page-length explanation” that confirms what Democrats contended “at the time” about the research’s “politically motivated origins.”
In sum, the new documents show the FBI suspected that a top Trump official (Page) was collaborating with Russia to sabotage the 2016 election, perhaps along with others. As Julian Sanchez notes, there are extensive redactions following the Steele section that strongly suggest the FBI offered other information beyond the Steele Dossier to bolster those suspicions (which Democrats also claimed to be the case). Though those redactions mean this cannot be conclusively proved right now, the documents show that the FBI’s request for a wiretap and subsequent follow-up applications were greenlighted by judges appointed by GOP presidents, based on the info the FBI offered.
Spin that can make us dizzy
When I read the first sentence of Trump’s tweet as seen in donald-trumps-latest-tweet-
He Knew Something
Where there’s smoke there’s fire, as Trump in a very top-down run campaign would have certainly known about what was happening, & the likelihood of corroboration between the campaign & Russians involving numerous players & methods are staggering. No evidence of collusion? Ha!!! Lots of people are involved in this scandal: trump-russia-
Recent Comments