LM,

Kislyak wasn't head of the FSB. He's the ambassador. (Little wonder you misunderstand so much when you understand so little.) Tillerson etc aren't denying they met him, because, it seems, everyone in DC met him at some point - From BHO to Hillary, Pelosi and all the way down. Although some on the DNC side have denied it, forgetting that the WWW never forgets, and have been exposed as, ahem, forgetful.

I'm not saying that there's proof at this point. Only that your insinuations that, since there isn't proof its evidence that The Donald made it up from whole clothe, are wayward. There are processes to go through. Trump started the ball rolling. The Congress will push it down the hill - and its all downhill for Barry and Hill.

So we'll just have to wait to see the outcome. But I'm betting that DT knows plenty, else he wouldn't have sent the tweets. But those who have a low opinion of Trump will think otherwise, as you do.

Of course, if things go bad for the Dems, you'll find some way to forget your current misunderstandings. But fear not, I'll be here to remind you.

Hi MHaze,

No, I didn't say he was, just head man of the FSB at the Russian Embassy in the US. So Sessions swearing to tell the whole truth, but 'forgetting' to mention private meetings with Kislyak in his own office, i.e. telling an 'incomplete truth', is right in the Trump mould.

But put that together with this:

"..... your insinuations that, since there isn't proof[,] its[it's] evidence that The Donald made it up from whole clothe[cloth], are wayward."

So no matter how a Trump appointee lies, it's just a matter of 'incomplete truth' ? And when Trump makes an accusation, without any proof, any observation to that effect, is wayward ? Does Trump or any of his myrmidons have any notion of what constitutes the truth ?

God, what a circus. But seriously, what are the legal(and financial) implications of accusing an ex-President of massively breaking the law ? Sure, Trump might have done it just off the top of his head, like some sort of thought-bubble, but such thought-bubbles have enormous consequences. Trump can say later, "Well, he might have," as if that's simply a minor point of discussion, but (I know this is a completely futile wish) wouldn't it be more sensible for him to keep his trap shut until he got some evidence ?

He's accusing a President of putting the muscle on numerous government agencies, and perhaps a special court, to break the law and influence a forthcoming election. How ? Down that chain, who would obey ? Why ? Why should perhaps hundreds of people incriminate themselves to satisfy Obama ? Or were they all willing participants in a massive conspiracy ?

That's the trouble with a conspiracy theory: it might start small but ends up involving - and somehow swearing to secrecy - great numbers of people in order to make the whole plot work.

Oh well, Obama (and many others) is probably about to say: 'See you in court.'

Joe

Not sure I understand things right, but from what I heard somewhere when I was half dozing off, Trump wasn't specifically targeted.
Obama's people inside the intelligence community only had to create the context of 'colluding with Russians' to create a context to listen in to those calls.

So they were spying on Trump in a way that they could say "We weren't spying on Trump"...

Hi AC,

Yes, various US intelligence agencies have probably been quite legitimately gathering intelligence on anybody who is having dealings with any Russian firms, banks or government agencies. I certainly hope so.

So if Trump has got caught up in some of their investigations, so be it. One way he could dampen down any accusation of being in Putin's pocket is to release his tax returns, which would itemise all of his investments, including those in Russia or through Russian banks, and dividends (or losses) from those investments. No Russian investment - less likely to be any collusion between Trump and any Russian oligarch.

For the record, here at Trump's tweets last weekend:

"Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"

"Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"

"I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"

"How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"

On the other hand, suppose Trump IS in the pocket of Putin: can we call Trump something like - "The Siberian Candidate" ?

SAD !

Joe

Hey Loudmouth,
Lots of people don't like Alex Jones and Infowars.
They think he's loud, an alarmist and frequently associated with conspiracy theories; which isn't exactly untrue, though I'd mostly defend him and say his track record probably isn't any worse than other news agencies.
I certainly have my criticisms; his company slogan is "A war for your mind" and sometimes that's all I think it is.
He doesn't go into detail and present information as well as what I'd like, often ranting and butting in during interviews.
But despite the criticisms, I must say he's doing really well bringing independent news recently.
He's been getting on some really good people; insiders that have some really good insight into what is really going on with Trump, on a daily basis.
I wouldn't even say Alex is altogether responsible for the improved content anymore than say that people who support the constitution and republic are instead using Alex Jones' show to wage war against the Deep State and to save America.

Why am I telling you this?
Because when you often say things to the effect of 'Pull up your chairs, Trumps Presidency is going to be entertaining', I sometimes think that your news sources are depriving you of half of the show.
Maybe even the best parts too.

The other thing I want to say is that you might end up being on the wrong side of this; on the wrong side of history.

This CIA thing today 'DeepStateGate' is another huge victory against them, and I get the feeling Trumps chances of succeeding are improving.
Though it's only just getting started....

Regarding the tweets, he's just not allowing the corporate media to have it over him by going around them and addressing his supporters himself.

Trump's tactics have been quite successful, they're saying the 'Wiretapping' and 'Wikileaks' was a deliberate strategy, not accidental.

Instead of being concerned about Trump's disparaging of Obama, you might be more concerned about Obama and Co. going down for espionage.

Here's a two good interviews from today:
Roger Stone and then Steve Pieczenik
http://youtu.be/rGsK5zXyjiE?t=31m50s

Loudmouth: The problem with no proof is that there is no proof.

Hmmm... Just because there is no proof doesn't mean that something didn't happen. Look at our Justice System. If Evidence is not obtained legally it's not admissible (Eg; the Greyhound affair video). Even if the evidence is glaringly there, it's not allowed to be used to convict.

misanthrope: I cant trust them who do I believe about important things in this country?

It's a Quandary Ay. Believe none of what you here & only half of what you see."

Loudmouth: Tillerson, Sessions and Flynn seem to have had with the Russians, via their contacts with FSB head-man Kislyak,

But, just what did they discuss. Sports? No-one has said.

doog: aBC. Does far more good than harm..

Ha! ha! ha! ha!... Picking one's self off the floor.

Loudmouth: telling an 'incomplete truth', is right in the Trump mould.

One only has to watch the ABC on Parliamentary Commissions. There are Official Truths & Unofficial Truths & it's how the Question is framed as to which one you get the response to. They all do it. Nothing to learn here, moving on.

AC: I sometimes think that your news sources are depriving you of half of the show.

"& only half of what you see."