Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Peter King made a condemning statement. The words Peter King said are out there for all to see and come to their own conclusions. Even you.
How we respond indicates our own intelligence or ignorance. The viewing audience gets to decide.
Why would Peter King, a rep sitting on the committee lie about what he has witnessed as evidence.
You can spin what he said all you wish...... All I can do is take him for what he said, in the context of his role in the investigation.
The two investigations are not one in the same, as you seem to think.
Well let's see Peter Kings exact quote since you place so much credibility in his statement, why so evasive. You have been asked several times.
Peter King made a condemning statement. The words Peter King said are out there for all to see and come to their own conclusions. Even you.
How we respond indicates our own intelligence or ignorance. The viewing audience gets to decide.
Why would Peter King, a rep sitting on the committee lie about what he has witnessed as evidence.
You can spin what he said all you wish...... All I can do is take him for what he said, in the context of his role in the investigation.
The two investigations are not one in the same, as you seem to think.
Where does Representative King say that the day-to-day recordings were of Trump or Trump associates?
Well let's see Peter Kings exact quote since you place so much credibility in his statement, why so evasive. You have been asked several times.
"were detailed, and almost resembled a private investigator’s file"
"This is information about their everyday lives"
"Like in a divorce case. Where lawyers are hired, investigators are hired, just to find out what the other person is doing. From morning until night"
no it didn't. if you're not going to even bother to read stuff, why take the time to comment on it?
No, I did read it.
Tell us all - what does chemical weapons in Syria have to do with potential criminal charges against Susan Rice for not breaking any law when she requested that security reports regarding possible Russian/American collusion in influencing a U.S. presidential election.
"were detailed, and almost resembled a private investigator’s file"
"This is information about their everyday lives"
"Like in a divorce case. Where lawyers are hired, investigators are hired, just to find out what the other person is doing. From morning until night"
Tell us all - what does chemical weapons in Syria have to do with potential criminal charges against Susan Rice for not breaking any law when she requested that security reports regarding possible Russian/American collusion in influencing a U.S. presidential election.
She isn't the FBI nor the CIA.
She is a staffer. It isn't her business to know that. She isn't an investigator.
She gets reports from the FBI and the CIA, through the DOJ, after they have investigated.
I did read it...it talked about chemical weapons in Syria...
why are you changing your story now? here's what you claimed previously:
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
the article you posted had to do with Susan Rice relying upon the Russian government's word that Syria no longer had Sarin gas or the ability to manufacture it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
