sheeeit

Lulz. Page said he was an advisor to the Kremlin in his marketing of himself for his own financial benefit and said it was on energy related matters. There are 1000s of other finance folks, and 1000s of attorneys and 100,000s of business guys that tout their relationship with russia and the Kremlin. Are they all spies? Should we surveil all of them?

Actually no. What Barr found was that, in this particular case, a particular defendant that plead guilty had exculpatory evidence in his favor that was withheld, illegally, from his defense team. That it is unclear that an actual lie took place, certainly not knowingly or intentional. That the supposed lie had no material effect on any ongoing investigation and that the case was scheduled to be closed because the FBI's own field office recommended "the FBI close its investigation of Flynn, as its exhaustive search through government databases “did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts."" If those same facts exist with Steele or the FBI then they should walk also.

It really depends on the 3 words that were omitted. The reason it was actually "earth shattering" is because the warrant would not have been approved as written if the FBI admitted that Page was a source for the CIA. The application process would get much, much more difficult and more people would have to be made aware of the request. There is a reason that the judges in FISA cases ask if the person in question was working with any other agency. It immediately sends up lots of flares and concerns when it does. The FBI did not want close scrutiny of the application so they just lied about it. Also, I do think indictments will result from Durham's probe but I doubt they get to director level or higher. We will see when the actual report comes out but there is another angle to it that most people have forgotten about. When the FBI used the dossier as part of their evidence against Page, they had to have, by statute, additional corroborating evidence. That is the standard for FISA. The FBI used the media story about the same allegations against Page and claimed that the media article served as independent corroboration. And as part of their filing they included that (paraphrasing) the source for the Dossier (Steele) had not spoken to any media, which then allowed them to use the other media story as corroboration. The problem though, is that the author of the corroborating story openly and publicly stated that Steele was his source. And in some of the recently released emails, Bruce Ohr told the FBI that Steele was talking to the media. So either Steele lied to the FBI or the FBI lied to the court, again, on their application. The guy that wrote the corroborating story said the FBI never contacted him and he was not protecting a source.

Loved the show! I think debates on great teams and players is fun but obviously there is just too much difference between eras to really compare. I think the 70 win Bulls team would handle the 73 win GS team fairly handily. That Bulls team was much more athletic than they get credit for. While Rodman and Pippen were not elite shooters/scorers they actually were elite finishers on the break. With the way GS played, the Bulls would have clamped them down on defense and would have crushed them in a fast paced game. However, I think GS might have the edge in the Durant years. Durant is just so good. Un-guardable, elite shooter as well as an elite finisher. As for Lebron, Kobe etc, I think they are both top 10 all time but not as good as MJ. Discounting the short season after baseball, MJ essentially went 8 years without losing the last game of the season. Truly mind boggling. 6 finals, 6 rings, 6 MVPs in Finals. And maybe the most amazing stat that will likely never be equaled- 4 times MJ was scoring leader, league mvp, finals mvp, and 1st team all defense. 4 times. The rest of the NBA combined-0. Paring that down further, winning a scoring title and being 1st team defense in the same season has happened 12 times. Once by Jerry West, twice by Kobe and 9 times by MJ.

While I love Manute, I dont think that counts as a tan. CSB. I was in Philly back in the day when Manute played for them. Maybe While I loved Manute, I don't think he qualifies as a white tan guy. CSB. Was on a job in Philly in the early 90s when Manute played for the Sixers. Workmate and I decided to drive to Atlantic City to check out the new Trump Taj Majal. It had just opened and was still under some construction (it was crazy how ugly and cheesy it was in the beginning- maybe still is?). Was at a craps table and in walks Manute with an entourage of family and friends. He had a game in Philly that night and he still had on his game uniform and sweats. He comes to our table and stands right beside me. It is shocking how tall he was. We get on a roll and start winning and so we chatted a bit. His english was very broken but he told me that he was living in a suite in the hotel for the entire season. After about an hour or so (he was up around $20,000) and it was about 1:00 am or so and he invites us to dinner. Of course we accept and we follow him (and his entourage) to the elevator and go up to his suite. Craziest scene I may have ever seen. Huge suite, people everywhere and from all ages and races. Clothes and trash and random shit strewn everywhere. There was an african woman (i assumed form where he grew up) completely topless and breast feeding a baby on one of the couches. Just a surreal scene. There was a buffet set up with everything you can imagine to eat- steak, chicken, seafood, potatoes, fruit, salads, african looking peas and rice stuff and a fully stocked bar. We ate and drank for a while and then waved good bye. He almost certainly had to have been broke when he stopped playing.

I am going to just assume you (and many, many others posting about this) are unaware of the actual facts instead of just being either willfully obtuse or just really stupid. Because everything you posted above is false. There is SO much disinformation regarding Flynn that it is hard to even get started. And I could not care less about flynn but it just pisses me off when people blatantly lie about stuff. It also pisses me off that I bet a lot of this information will be new to most of the people that post here. It is all public knowledge. When Flynn retired form the military he signed with an outfit called Leading Authorites LLC (LA). It is a business that partners high end speakers with groups that want them. Been around for 30 years or so. Some current members of LA that you might recognize include: James Clapper (Director of National Intelligence), Stan Mccrystal (Commander of US Troops in Afghanistan), Adm Mike Rogers (Director of NSA), John Allen (USMC 4 Star General) etc. LA takes requests from groups all over the world. They negotiate the fee and all of the details. Every single person that signs with LA is public and all of them advertise their fees and all of them get paid for their work. Flynn, through LA, accepted the gig with RT. Prior to the actual event Flynn not only told the DIA/DOD about the gig, but he actually attended DIA briefings where they coached him on potential tactics that the russians may use against him and then, after the event, the DIA debriefed Flynn on the interaction and actually admitted to learning new information. We have idiots on here and on TV claiming he was potentially a traitor for these meetings and that he was potentially "compromised" by Russia (a certain favorite of GW). Not only was he not a traitor or working in the dark, he actually helped the country's intelligence outfits gain new insight. Knowing this now- read the post i quoted and realize how unbelievably stupid it is and that it is currently being parroted by elected pols and the media. I already said I will assume the GWHaydukes of the world just do not know the facts but the media and other pols certainly do and are just blatantly lying. On the Turkey stuff, this is just unbelievably weak and stupid. Flynn set up a consulting group just like 1000s of ex military and ex politicians do. he was hired by a private business/person in Turkey. he was paid around $600K. Again, people keep saying things like "hiding" or "secretive" etc with Flynn's contact with the Turkish person. The Haydukes and media and anyone else that really wanted the truth could have looked a bit harder at the actual facts. When Flynn's company signed the contract with the Turkish individual they consulted lawyers about who to file with for compliance. They were told not to file with FARA because the induvidual that hired them was not a part of the turkish government and the money was not coming from a government account. Instead Flynn's group (going full brisket here) DID, IN FACT, file the contact with the fucking CONGRESS under the Lobbying Disclosures Act. That is a fucking public filing that anyone could see. Nothing at all hidden. No potential for "compromise". Nothing. Later, Flynn was advised by counsel that he should retroactively file with FARA because it was "possible" that the turkish government could benefit from his work. And he filed. But, the important thing is that Flynn had already filed the work with the government in accordance with lobbying laws. Nothing was hidden. On his lie to the FBI, this is, again, incredibly specious and reported completely without context. First, lying to the FBI is not a crime in itself. For it to be a crime there are 2 factors that have to be present 1) the lie has to be intentional and 2) the lie has to materially affect an ongoing investigation. Once Flynn was named incoming director of the nsa, he talked to (according to him and the FBI) his counterpart (ambassadors and other security people) from 30 different countries. 30. Just had every other incoming director of the nsa in every other admin including reagan, bushes, clinton and obama. Every single one of them. On the first day he is accused of lying, he had 15-18 calls with various foreign government officials and he was on vacation. When he was interviewed by the FBI, according to the actual fbi notes, flynn was aked about discussions regarding sanctions (specifically the expulsion of certain russians) with Kislyak. His answer, again according to the FBI notes, was (paraphrasing)" I may have, but I really do not remember, I dont think so" That is it. After the interview, and with full knowledge of the calls transcripts, the fbi interviewers concluded that Flynn was not intentionally lying, was not acting under any orders from anyone in the trump team and recommended the chapter be closed. Later, the fbi re-opened the case against flynn and claimed he lied to them in his previous interview. They also told the White House he lied and had, in fact talked about sanctions. However, the fbi provided exactly zero proof of this and, to this day, have provided no proof. The fbi went on to charge flynn and went after him for other unrelated items aggressively. They publicly admitted they wanted him to flip on Trump and would be willing to drop all of his charges initially if he cooperated and implicated trump. As we now know, flynn could not implicate trump because there was nothing to implicate him on. Also, the mueller team said Flynn did not implicate trump in anything and that he cooperated fully. As to pleading guilty, it happens all the time and all of you know it. Defending yourself in a federal suit can cost millions. And even if you win the eventual case, you dont get your legal fees back. The fbi offered probation if he cooperated and admitted to lying. He took the deal. Just like thousands of defendants do every day in courts all across the country. The amazing thing to me (and perhaps twicehorn can comment) is that the fbi can prosecute someone for lying and not have to provide the transcript of the call they claimed you lied in. How is that even possible? Apparently though, it is the law. So you have Flynn looking at financial ruin based on a call he did not remember and admitted he did not remember. Yet the fbi gets to claim he did without actually providing the proof. How do you even defend yourself? Now, all of the above is factual and not opinion or speculation. Everything else is pure speculation. Did Flynn actually ask Kislyak to tell Putin to temper a response to the santions? No one has provided any proof of that. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Flynn told Kislyak that the trump admin would ease the sanctions. None. All we have is what the fbi alleged and what flynn ultimately plead to. But, as mentioned above, that is not proof at all. I wish the transcript were released. If Flynn directly told Kislyak that the incoming admin would ease sanctions then he should go to jail. If Kislyak asked flynn about sanctions and flynn said they would talk about it again after the inauguration then the fbi folks should go to jail. This is my opinion now. This is from an NPR show featuring an intelligence official who has seen the transcript of the call ""I don't think [Flynn] knew he was doing anything wrong," the official said. "Flynn talked about sanctions, but no specific promises were made. Flynn was speaking more in general 'maybe we'll take a look at this going forward' terms." I think this is closest to the truth. The main reason I think this is because everyone who has accused flynn has never, ever, given any specific mention of what was said. This thing is over and Flynn goes to jail if he said anything material. Yes, technically, if Kislyak asked about sanctions and Flynn said "maybe we will talk about that later" then they talked about sanctions. But nothing material and nothing that Flynn should have had any reason to remember or be concerned with. Further, Comey himself, said the question of whether or nor Flynn lied in his interview was "a close call". If Flynn directly tried to influence admin policy, there is just no way Comey would be this coy.

Of all the people named so far, there is only 1 inarguable fact: Thunder Dan Majerle- Best tan in NBA history. No one close.

A couple of things on Isiah. First, he was a fantastic player. Very worthy of HOF, etc. The problem was when the Pistons were rolling, it was Isiah that was very vocal on the court about the hard fouls. He would get on his teammates if they did not foul someone hard enough and he voiced it, on purpose, so that the opponents heard him. That will get a ton of guys very pissed off. Secondly, the really bush league thing the Pistons did was to foul someone hard AFTER the whistle was blown. They talked about it as a team. You could hit a guy after a whistle was blown back then and not get another foul. Basically a free shot. That is really chickenshit, imo. And, to his credit, MJ went and shook hands with every Piston when they literally beat him up in 1990. They should have returned the class. On the Dream Team, no one knew how that was going to turn out before the team was assembled. There really was not much buy in from the players initially. MJ was the catalyst to getting everyone else. He knew he would be spending a ton of his off-season on the olympic stuff and he just did not want to spend it with Isiah. He really wasn't a dick about it, he just said he did not want to commit if Isiah was on the team. I really cant blame him.

The problem with this line of thinking is that they actually caught the killers and they admitted it. If they had been paid by gamblers/crime thugs to do the killing, don't you think they would have given those guys up for a better sentence? Plus, if it was a paid hit, no way they steal the car and so clumsily dispose of the body. It was just random, stupid criminals.

I should probably clarify my thoughts on Krause. I agree the representation of Krause is fair. But, again just my opinion, the players that were slamming and making fun of Krause absolutely knew that Krause was doing Reinsdorf's bidding. Krause had ZERO say in Pippen's renegotiation. But the players did not want to take on a billionaire owner. The whole Krause was a baseball scout stuff was pretty petty and unfair. He had been a basketball scout/manager previously for a bunch of years and was well qualified for the job (he does get credit for drafting Earl Monroe). He also did a good job, especially early on and, as mentioned, did win executive of the year twice, which was voted on by his peers. Now, he flamed out tremendously late with the Bulls and deserved to get fired. Also, now that Jordan is an owner, it is safe to say that he probably has a whole lot better appreciation for a good GM ( Kwame Brown, Adam Morrison and Diop come to mind). Drafting is such a crapshoot.

Loved it too. A few things. Gambling/Murder- His dad's murder had nothing at all to do with gambling/mafia etc. It was just random bad luck. The killers are in prison. They would have cut a deal if there was more to the story. Just a shame. Flu/Hangover- Silly rumor mongering. He had food poisoning. He was at the hotel with the crew all evening. No Vegas runs. Krause/Reinsdorf- Hard for me to blame Krause too much. Krause did not do anything that Reinsdorf didn't want or approve. The players were a bit passive aggressive going after Krause instead of Reinsdorf. Agreed that Krause was hard to like and had poor personal skills but he was who he was and Reinsdorf knew exactly what he was getting and it was exactly what he wanted. Pippen- Again, tough to blame the Bulls for not re-negotiating. They don't get to renegotiate contracts of players who go bust. Players' like to say it is just a business when they get all they can for themselves and then get their feelings hurt when the owners act like it is a business. Plus, the reality was that Pippen was a very, very good NBA player that was great as a number two. He was not a number one player. In '97 there were plenty of guys you would take over Pippen including: Ewing, Olajuwan, Malone, Shaq, Barkley etc. You could build a team around those guys but not Pippen. Krause actually realized this and was never going to give him a huge deal. It is certainly arguable that Pippen was under paid late in his contract with the Bulls but then you would have to concede that he was massively over paid after the Bulls. Phil Jackson- The genius of Phil was not his ability to handle Jordan but his ability to handle everyone else plus the triangle. The same exists for Poppovitch, Kerr, Riley etc. They had systems in place that gave the role players a routine. There was little thinking or ad-libbing. Very little standing around watching the super star. Jordan forced out the previous coaches because they were not holding the rest of the team to a high enough standard. Jordan did not really want to have to demand it from his teammates (although he certainly did) he wanted the coach to do it for him. Phil was actually really good about demanding excellence from the bit players. Of course Jordan was still incredibly hard on his teammates in practice. The only other guy that had that same practice mentality was Magic. Impossible to know if the championship run would have been able to continue or if they would have won when Jordan went to baseball. IMO, I think they win in '99 for sure and probably win one of the middle two years. One thing about Jordan, he was always very, very guarded in his public statements and image while playing. Never political. He cultivated an image to maximize his endorsements. His father's death took a huge toll on him, even though he sort of downplayed it in the media. Jordan's emotions after the '96 championship are amazing. His first retirement had nothing to do with gambling at all. He was tired, having marital issues, his dad was murdered, he was fantastically rich and just wasn't sure he could put in the effort he knew it would require to win it all. He wasn't willing to play just to cash a check and not be 100%. Greatest of all time when you combine ability, drive, work ethic, mental toughness and focus. You sacrifice a lot to succeed at that level.

It’s tasty.

I prefer on the rocks but for a group this frozen recipe is fantastic and very easy: 1 Can Minute Maid Limeade (The limeade you pick actually makes a difference. Don’t go with the cheap knock off version). Fill empty limeade can with tequila. Don’t go cheap but no need for high quality in a frozen. Half fill limeade can with a decent Triple Sec. 1 12oz beer Blend with ice. Smooth and delicious.

Lulz. Stupid is as stupid types. This response is precisely why this place is such a cesspool. Your entire reply makes absolutely no sense and just makes outlandish nonsensical claims that you made up in your own simple mind. I have called trump a stupid idiot probably 50 times on this site. I think thats enough. This is a thread about AOC. You obviously cant defend her so you just deflect as usual. I don't have any idea what a "rent seeking middle man industry is". I am not sure I even want to know but I admit to being curious. What is it that you think I do?

I don't disagree with this. But that was not her argument on unemployment. The argument you made above is perfectly valid. She was directly asked about the low unemployment rate and she directly argued that it was only low because some people were working 2 jobs. She argued that people working 2 jobs actually skewed the numbers and made the rate artificially lower somehow. Obviously working 2 jobs has no bearing at all on how the rate is calculated. I agree that tax incentives are debatable. It depends completely on the terms of the deal and the environment involved. But Amazon was only going to realize incentives (there were some smaller direct grants they would receive that were available to any company locating there and not unique to amazon) if they hit massive employment numbers and tax numbers. NYC was going to be positive billions of dollars on the deal with amazon. They, NYC, might just realize 15 billion in tax revenue versus 18 billion but the city would have been way ahead and it cost them nothing. A "smart" person and a cum laude econ major had to know this unless that person was pretty dense. Again, I am not arguing whether or not she was right about the amazon deal being good for nyc. I am arguing that she was arguing against the deal, passionately, using arguments that were not even remotely germane to the issue and showed an almost complete ignorance of the basic economics involved in the deal. I actually do think people like her are probably good for our politics. We need diverse opinions. She represents the wishes/views of her constituents. But it is just so intellectually lazy and ignorant when people try and argue that someone might think she is not that smart simply because she is a woman or brown or some other nonsense. I happen to not think she is very smart because she touts herself as a cum laude econ major and then when she opens her mouth she says things that are fundamentally stupid and show that she doesnt even know the basics of the major she graduated with. Not her opinions or subjective arguments. Just basic objective principles.

Um, you don't seem to get it. I am not criticizing her beliefs or her "arguments". I am criticizing how a cum laude econ major could go on TV multiple times bashing the unemployment figures by arguing things that have no bearing, whatsoever, on the unemployment rate. Working 2 jobs has exactly zero impact on the unemployment rate. Someone working 10 jobs still just gets counted as being employed. I am saying she is not smart because she doesn't even know how the unemployment rate is calculated. The number of hours worked also has exactly zero bearing on how the unemployment rate is calculated. She tried to downplay the employment numbers by arguing something that has no bearing on the unemployment rate. This is basic 2+2=4 stuff. And she did it multiple times. Similarly, she actually thought that NYC was going to write a check to Amazon for billions of dollars. It is just laughable and stupid. It is perfectly fine to argue whether state tax breaks and incentives are a good tool or not, but she did not even know how they work. And again, this is from a cum laude econ major. And she just confidently asserted these things without even knowing how stupid she sounded. Do you think that is a smart person? I am pretty sure you are an attorney so think of it like this, everyone ridicules that guy on here who said circumstantial evidence is not permissible, and rightfully so. A dumb thing to say for sure but i doubt the guy was a lawyer or went to law school. If you were interviewing a recent law school graduate and they claimed that circumstantial evidence was not permissible, you would rightly consider them stupid and not even consider hiring them. Especially if they professed their nonsense passionately. As if they really, really understood the issue and had developed a solid understanding of their position. You would just sigh and move on to the next interview.

i do enjoy coming back to this thread occasionally. She is not in my district and if her district likes her and wants to keep electing her then more power to them. But this constant drum beat of her being smart is really amusing to me. She constantly touts her econ degree and cum laude achievement. But let me ask you guys a hypothetical: Lets say you are interviewing candidates for an econ job and she comes in. You chat a bit and she seems reasonably well spoken and eager. In the course of the interview you ask her about the low unemployment rate we are seeing now and she responds with "well it is only low because people are working two jobs". You look up from her resume a bit startled and ask her to elaborate and she says "and it is skewed because people are working 50-60 hour weeks". Now both your eyebrows are arched and your head tilted a bit. You say ok, how do you feel about the Amazon announcement for NYC and she says "i am so against it, why dont we use those billions for teacher pay and infrastructure instead" At that point you would politely stand up and thank her for coming in. Then after she left you would put her resume in the trash and probably vent to your colleagues on the quality of graduates today. Now maybe if she was an art major or engineering major or english or something, those dumb comments above would be somewhat understandable. But she touts herself as a cum laude econ major. Just look up the classes required to to earn that degree. It is impossible that she was not taught about unemployment rates and tax incentives for businesses. Impossible. She is just not that smart. Doesn't mean she cant be a successful politician as lots of them are not very smart.

Finally got through it. Just OK for me. DeNiro has been in soooo many movies like this that I just see him and not the character. Never been a big Pacino fan (he tries too hard most of the time) but he was good and Pesci was very good. Way too slow throughout most of it. Pretty shocked at the number of oscar nominations but I cant figure that shit out very often anyways.

Wow. Feel better? I hope so.

Well I am not going to quibble over the definition of "lots". If you read the whistle blowers account he talks about having heard about the call and how bad it was from multiple people. It is one of the ways he "corroborated" his story. That this wasn't just one disgruntled Trump hater but multiple people who had either listened to the call or had direct knowledge of it and thought it was worth reporting. Right? Then you have the 2nd whistle blower who, allegedly, did have direct knowledge of the call and has also come forward. So there are, seemingly, many people that have heard the call or have direct knowledge of it that have a problem with it. Yes? Perhaps you are unhappy with the word unsympathetic. Fine. I used that term to mean that they would be extremely unlikely to "cover" for Trump. Lets agree that these were honest and good people that truly thought the call was dangerous and were willing to expose themselves to the absolute shit show they knew was likely going to come as a result. I am fine with that and think it is entirely possible or even likely. But the point still stands. These people did come forward. They are already out there and, at least 2 of them have lawyers. You really believe that they would sit still and let Trump lie about the phone call at this point? They felt strong enough to come forward but are now going to be silent? The call transcript has been out there for a while now. It is incomprehensible to me that if it was a watered down version of the call that the whistle blowers or the people they talked to would not have come forward to dispute it. It would bolster their case tremendously. As for Zaid, again my saying he is unsympathetic to Trump means he would never cover for him. Although his past tweets do indicate at least a bit of animosity towards Trump. Here is one: "Amazing that every day seems to get worse with how pathetically embarrassing this President is. Never grows. Never learns. And no one around him can exercise meaningful control or influence. Our country will have work to do once he's out of office." This doesn't make him biased or bad or even wrong. The point being that if Trump were brazenly lying about the call, Zaid would know and Zaid would not cover for him.

I am curious about your take here. From a purely legal standpoint (we can agree Trump is an idiot) but do you not see a distinction between asking for dirt on a direct political opponent versus asking for help in an existing/ongoing investigation of corruption that involves the son of a political opponent? Should all relatives of people running for office get some type of immunity from investigation? Keep in mind, there exists a treaty/understanding between the two countries already. Again, I am not saying it is not sleazy or potentially impeachable, I am saying I dont think it technically broke election law.

Well for starters the whistle blowers that started this whole thing?? The ones that have come forward and are working with Zaid and have already talked to the IG? The 2nd one being the one that Zaid said has "first hand" knowledge of the call? Obviously whoever it was that told the 1st whistle blower about the call? They would be good starters.

First, what you dorks can never seem to understand is that I dont care what happens to Trump. If he is guilty he should go down. My initial post was simply about how ridiculous it was for all of you and all of the dems calling this some unprecedented obstruction of justice and that our country was turning into some lawless banana republic because the WH was refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas. I merely pointed out that the WH under Obama did the exact same thing. I made no judgement on whether it was the right thing to do or not. Just that the hypocrisy from the left was amusing. And I thought the topic of whether or not executive privilege or congressional subpoena power held more weight was interesting (I still do). I have always said I think Bloomberg would be the best candidate. If Bloomberg gets into it, I would support him fully. In a dream scenario for me, Trump stirs up enough trouble to get Biden to drop out because Bloomberg has said he will not run if Biden is running. Bloomberg then agrees to run. And Trump gets impeached for the Biden stuff and Bloomberg gets elected. As for Mulvaney's comments, I do not think it is the slam dunk that you guys will think it is. I think there will be a distinction between a legal case and a political case. From a political prospective, I think the dems will pounce and proceed with impeachment. I think the Trump and co response will be that there was not really a quid pro quo. Their reasoning will likely be that the decision to withhold aid was for many reasons. Trump will say there was not any quid pro quo because, for one thing, the aid was, in fact, released before anything even happened. Zelensky will say he never felt pressured. Personally, I think that is a specious argument. I think Trump withheld aid so that Zelensky would continue investigations into the 2016 election stuff and Hunter' role in Ukraine. I do not think it will be enough to move the Senate but we will see. From a legal standpoint, I do not think Trump broke the law. If, and it is a big if, Trump had asked for or wanted some new, undisclosed investigation into the Hunter situation then I could see a case possibly being made. But even then, it would be a technicality. Hunter is not running for president. Even the most ardent of you would have to agree that his role looks incredibly suspicious with Burisma, especially taking into account his role with China. There is no law against investigating or prosecuting someone that happens to be related to someone running for president. Any investigation into Hunter is fair game. If Joe gets caught up in it then too bad for Joe. But he didnt ask for a new investigation. The investigation preceded Joe even announcing he was going to run. So you asked what I think. I think this will get Trump impeached in the house but not convicted in the Senate. I think he skates on the legal side. I pray Bloomberg runs.

I guess you missed my point. Of course Trump could be lying. The point is that there were lots of people that heard the call that are unsympathetic to Trump that would/could very easily catch him in the lie. The fact that none of those people have said he is lying about the call makes me believe that the transcript released is legit.

Um..there isnt a recording of the call. What is/was stored on the server is what was released.