Impeachment Hearings

[jj22]

So nothing about Senate Republicans openly admitting to working with Trump and the Administration hand in hand on the Senate trial?

[hollodero]

(12-20-2019, 01:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To suggest you didn't go full "because Trump" is being a little dishonest IMO. But whatever.

Yeah, well. This generally certainly has the potential to be a fair statement, let me put it this way. I didn't mean to deny that. In the specific instance, I still firmly refute it, but actually - whatever indeed.

(12-20-2019, 01:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course all I asked was what was my Dem friend's view on The Speaker holding onto the articles. The 3 that responded said they were OK (well one just posted memes that we must try to decipher) with it. I just found that view to be a tad bit hypocritical; especially how completely they've clothed themselves in the Constitution during these proceedings. Then Nancy comes out and says she going to hold on to these because those that wrote the Constitution didn't foresee what she sees.

Well, but this is your interpretation of what Nancy said and what was the gist of her argument. I didn't hear it that way, though I know what words you're referring to. You imply that she disregards the constitution because she thinks she's above the framers. I think she just uses her leeway and explains why, eg. by pointing to the unique nature of the situation. And stating that the framers could not possibly foresee every possible circumstance - which is, above all partisanry, just a fair point. That's how I heard those words. But I do not see any disregard for the constitution, not in her words and not in her deeds, and I don't think it's entirely fair to reduce her statement the way you do. I don't find that fair and objective.

And I find it especially unfair when you jump to accusing dems of giving two shits about the rule of law. This is what you did say, isn't it. You didn't just "ask".
And as for hypocritical, well that's the part that is about Trump. You don't seem all that outraged about his actual disregarding the constitution; instead you're occcupied with more or less forcibly constructing such an accusation against Pelosi.

(12-20-2019, 01:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm unsure what I've been hypocritical on. I supported the House's move to hold impeachment hearings and now that they've form articles of impeachment I feel they should turn them over to the Senate so they can do their job.  The fact that the Speaker isn't doing this is comical and no one is laughing harder than the Majority Leader and you know why? Because he knows he doesn't answer to her. It's just more of the circus nonpartisan strive for the truth. 

Yeah well, I just see it differently. I don't know her motivations. Might be a mind game with Trump, maybe she eyes the polls, or it might be a pressure point towards Mitch. Or she wants to wait for Bolton or other witnesses and the court decision in this cases. Or maybe there's news from the ongoing Lev Parnas investigation or some other developments. There are thousands of explanations, some more noble than others, for me and yours are not amongst those I find most plausible.

[Dill]

(12-20-2019, 02:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: And as for hypocritical, well that's the part that is about Trump. You don't seem all that outraged about his actual disregarding the constitution; instead you're occcupied with more or less forcibly constructing such an accusation against Pelosi.

In a nutshell, that's it.  Then "both sides" are partisan, both just as bad.  That is how you defend the GOP now.

[GMDino]

(12-20-2019, 12:23 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Exculpatory evidence was in the FBI's possession for two years.  What are they trying to hide?  That is the question that people should be asking, rather than trying to follow the false narrative that Trump it a foreign agent.

(12-20-2019, 10:14 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Sir, this is a Wendy's

Actually I thought he was just confusing the FBI with the DOJ "finding" emails and this story.

BREAKING: Trump admin tells federal judge it may have found more than 2,000 additional documents it should have disclosed earlier for the lawsuits over the now-blocked citizenship question. From @TheJusticeDept letter to U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman?https://t.co/Jkko7dbGXm pic.twitter.com/6fCZ0JEJKB

— Hansi Lo Wang • 8️⃣3️⃣ DAYS (@hansilowang) December 20, 2019

[GMDino]

Interesting take on why Pelosi is holding up the articles.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1208059479826280448.html

Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]
Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)](SUMMARY) The status of the articles of impeachment is this: Pelsoi and McConnell are fine with the status quo, and Trump is livid. If you understand negotiations, you understand this means Pelosi is winning. In the next tweet I'll tell you the one thing that could defeat Pelosi. 

[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]1/ The fact that media has waded into the negotiations because a) they want a Senate trial for ratings and b) the sort of analysts they favor are those whose inherent conservatism of logic favors tradition means that media *is one of the negotiators*.

And they're hurting Pelosi. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]2/ It is hard to watch media play a role in history they won't acknowledge. But every cable news segment I've seen has either featured an analyst who wrongly implies the focus has "already moved to the Senate" (hurting Pelosi) or an anchor who assumes McConnell will get his way. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]3/ The reality: the passing of articles of impeachment initiated a *negotiation process* in which Schumer and McConnell *would* have been the only players had McConnell not (a) admitted he's just a proxy for Trump (the defendant), and (b) wrongly presumed he had all the leverage. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]4/ Once McConnell overplayed his hand by not being willing to give an inch to Schumer and being slave to the president's desires, he *opened up the negotiation* to a third party:

Pelosi. From that moment on, this was a joint, House-Senate negotiations process with 3 key players. 
5/ The *only* legitimate analysis regarding "where the articles are at now" is to say that they're sitting in the center of a table at which four people are sitting: Pelosi, Schumer, McConnell, and Trump. And if you understand that, you understand who is winning the negotiations. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]6/ Here's the situation of each party at the table:

PELOSI: She's already won—inasmuch as she passed the articles. There's nothing more for her to gain except a) more time for investigation, b) more time for litigation, c) potentially a "real" Senate trial of the articles. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]7/PELOSI (cont.): Pelosi is running the table because she's the one with nothing to lose and the one who therefore wins in almost any scenario. The trial doesn't take place until 2021? She wins. A *real* trial in 2020? She wins. A long delay so more articles can come? She wins. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]8/PELOSI (cont.): A delay that pushes the issue closer to the election? She wins. A delay allowing for more investigation? She wins. A delay allowing for more litigation? She wins. America gets bored and temporarily forgets the articles? They'll eventually remember—so she wins. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]9/MCCONNELL: McConnell wants this over—which means he's losing, because that's out of his control and likely won't happen soon. He also needs to please the president—which he's not, so he's losing there too. He thinks he has a rhetorical advantage, but he doesn't: another loss. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]10/MCCONNELL: The Senate Majority Leader doesn't have a rhetorical advantage because America has already spoken via polling *and it wants a real trial*—which he doesn't (and which his master, Trump, actually doesn't either, unless he's forced into it to get *any* trial at all). 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]11/SCHUMER: Schumer wants a real trial—and to a lesser extent, doesn't want to look diminished relative to the House generally and Speaker Pelosi specifically. But he more than anyone at the table is a bit player who's central and a bystander at once, and may want it that way. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]12/TRUMP: Trump knows he'll win *either* a real trial *or* a fake one—though the former could be a much closer vote, as witnesses could *really* hurt him—but has been laboring for so long under the delusion he and McConnell are in control he's now flummoxed to find it's untrue. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]13/ So with the four chief negotiators situated in this way, Pelosi is winning because Trump is volatile and a child and compulsive and brash and over-confident and most importantly controls McConnell. So in time, McConnell will have to bend to the weakest "player" at the table. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]14/ Only one thing can change the dynamic, and right now it's the biggest threat to this playing out in a way that's consistent with how a negotiator would assess the situation: the media. The media could interfere in the process—while saying it's not—to save Trump and McConnell. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]15/ So, the fifth player:MEDIA: Media wants a trial for ratings. If it can't get it when it wants it, it'll throw a tantrum and identify a villain so it can run a process story with bite. The clearest villain to identify here—because she's making things unpredictable—is Pelosi. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]16/[/color]MEDIA: Media gets its way by misreporting stories and bringing in analysts who'll give an assist to misreporting. It doesn't necessarily do so maliciously; it does it because it has an institutional bias—at all levels—for moving a story toward where the media needs it to be. 



[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]17/ So what you'll see in media are erroneous statements about how this is "supposed" to play out, erroneous statements about who has the power here, erroneous statements about what Trump "wants" (which he consistently lies about) and conservative judgments about who's "winning." 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]18/ Sans media pressure, Pelosi *will* win this. Trump will force McConnell to give a little to Pelosi and Schumer on witnesses, and there'll be a trial with one or two live witnesses that Pelosi and Schumer will rightly deem a "win" and that will make the conviction vote closer. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]19/ *Or* Pelosi will win because Trump/McConnell give up on a trial for now—which leads to four scenarios that all benefit Pelosi: a real *or* fake trial closer to the election; a delay that permits more investigation and litigation; more articles from new evidence; a 2021 trial. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]20/ The *worst* that happens for Pelosi is that America forgets all about the trial and the media moves on, but that's actually fine—because *if* new damaging evidence emerges, Pelosi can always jump-start this issue in a thousand ways because the ball will still be in her court. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]21/ The only way Pelosi loses is if media intercedes to make her to deal away her power before Trump blows a gasket and forces McConnell to cut a deal (to get him his fake exoneration). Trump won't last long, so you'd think Pelosi's in good shape—but media won't last long either. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]22/ Media is so accustomed to getting its way *and* not recognizing how *it shaped the situation* to get its way—it always *feels* noble and aloof and objective even when its institutional biases shifted a story one way or another—that it doesn't appreciate what a behemoth it is. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]23/ Already a narrative is forming: "liberal lawyers pushed Pelosi to this"; "the focus has now shifted to the Senate"; "there will, of course, eventually be a trial and Trump will be acquitted"; "McConnell is very happy with what's happening"—all false narratives that aid Trump. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]24/ So my assessment as someone who negotiated cases daily for years and years is that with four players at the table, Pelosi would definitely have won and her strategy would have been airtight. With five players—media included—at the table, it's a contest of wills and who knows. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]25/ I think that one day a much, much larger percentage of Americans will see how media interjects itself into stories in ways that shift the news rather than report it—but for now the media will put its fingerprints all over this while (per usual) saying that it has not done so. 

[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]CONCLUSION/ With things as they are now—i.e. 5 players—Pelosi's odds of winning go down from 90% to 50%, meaning that there's a 50% chance Trump and McConnell get the articles in the Senate in (a) a timely fashion, and (b) with no concessions. And there's a 50% chance they don't. [/color]

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2019, 02:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, well. This generally certainly has the potential to be a fair statement, let me put it this way. I didn't mean to deny that. In the specific instance, I still firmly refute it, but actually - whatever indeed.



Well, but this is your interpretation of what Nancy said and what was the gist of her argument. I didn't hear it that way, though I know what words you're referring to. You imply that she disregards the constitution because she thinks she's above the framers. I think she just uses her leeway and explains why, eg. by pointing to the unique nature of the situation. And stating that the framers could not possibly foresee every possible circumstance - which is, above all partisanry, just a fair point. That's how I heard those words. But I do not see any disregard for the constitution, not in her words and not in her deeds, and I don't think it's entirely fair to reduce her statement the way you do. I don't find that fair and objective.

And I find it especially unfair when you jump to accusing dems of giving two shits about the rule of law. This is what you did say, isn't it. You didn't just "ask".
And as for hypocritical, well that's the part that is about Trump. You don't seem all that outraged about his actual disregarding the constitution; instead you're occcupied with more or less forcibly constructing such an accusation against Pelosi.



Yeah well, I just see it differently. I don't know her motivations. Might be a mind game with Trump, maybe she eyes the polls, or it might be a pressure point towards Mitch. Or she wants to wait for Bolton or other witnesses and the court decision in this cases. Or maybe there's news from the ongoing Lev Parnas investigation or some other developments. There are thousands of explanations, some more noble than others, for me and yours are not amongst those I find most plausible.

Once that one dude said Trump wanted the Ukraine investigation to be made public and he really didn't about the actual corruption I plainly stated he should be impeached and if indeed guilty removed from office.

I'm personally not outraged about either. I thought I have made that quite clear. I'm just enjoying the circus and the dancers nationally and locally.

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2019, 01:48 PM)jj22 Wrote: So nothing about Senate Republicans openly admitting to working with Trump and the Administration hand in hand on the Senate trial?

I'm pretty sure I addressed that when I mentioned that at least MCConnell owns his shit. it seems "wrong" but it all does, he's just not hiding behind BS.

[hollodero]

(12-20-2019, 03:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Once that one dude said Trump wanted the Ukraine investigation to be made public and he really didn't about the actual corruption I plainly stated he should be impeached and if indeed guilty removed from office.

I noticed. Here I was rather referring to Trump calling the impeachment process a partisan hoax and hence he does not acknowledge Congress' power of impeachment though. Not to Ukraine.

Also, may I ask what exactly you want to express by "...if indeed guilty"? Is your verdict dependant on the republican senator's verdict?

(12-20-2019, 03:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm personally not outraged about either. I thought I have made that quite clear.

You did, which makes your whole line of argueing just even more puzzling. Why you'd even call those out that are equally un-outraged in the first place.
Before you made that quite clear, you made quite clear that in your assertion of the situation, the democrats give two shits about the rule of law. I'm not sure as of now which of those two stances you both made quite clear is the correct one.

[Dill]

(12-20-2019, 02:12 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah well, I just see it differently. I don't know her motivations. Might be a mind game with Trump, maybe she eyes the polls, or it might be a pressure point towards Mitch. Or she wants to wait for Bolton or other witnesses and the court decision in this cases. Or maybe there's news from the ongoing Lev Parnas investigation or some other developments. There are thousands of explanations, some more noble than others, for me and yours are not amongst those I find most plausible.

Yes. "Plausible" is the right word here. 

House members impeaching a president have two important tasks--one is to establish commission of treason or bribery and/or "high crimes" (e.g. involving abuse of office and/or risk to national security). But the other is to educate the public on the Constitution and, to the degree necessary, the rule of law and other legal norms which may apply. Some aspects of impeachment will be akin to proceedings of an ordinary criminal trial, but others not. The press also needs to help with this.

Those seeking to prevent impeachment of a president, if unconcerned about his actual guilt and outright colluding with him to prevent removal, will be motivated to 1) impede presentation of evidence (unless the accused is innocent), and 2) to smoke up legal and constitutional application so far as possible, e.g., by constructing a whistle blower as an "accuser" whom the president has right to confront, or emphasizing aspects of criminal law which do not apply to impeachment proceedings in the House, like the right of the defense to call witnesses. They may do this knowing full well their arguments are legally specious, but aware the public will not know.

Because we have so little experience with impeachment and lack guiding precedent, both prosecutors and defenders have considerable leeway in determining details of the process. The considerable "play" in the law here thus forces each side to think more strategically, and react so to the others moves, than we would see in typical criminal cases. That also means the public needs to be more cautious when they hear claims the other side is not following precedent or deviating from rules or precedents which don't actually exist.

Now that Trump has been impeached, the best scenario for the GOP is to balance that with an quick acquittal; then continue claiming the impeachment was partisan, always only "about politics, 'hate' and reversing 2016," not what the president actually did (and continues to do), so the Senate's job was really only to right that wrong--not validate the proffered grounds of impeachment by actually cross-examining them in greater depth. (Turning up a stained dress would be the least of their worries with this president.) GOP messaging is on point to keep the base focused on "both sides partisanship" and "hypocrisy" rather than facts and law (hypocritical partisan Dems are violating the constitution and rule of law after accusing Trump; House vote was wholly on partisan lines; can't ask the Senate to do the House's job) .

Dems know that the Senate will not likely convict Trump. But they can make clear that the GOP, as a party, has abandoned its constitutional responsibility for oversight to actively collude with Trump; its members live in fear of his rage tweets and no longer act/vote as individuals. Dems can assume that Trump will continue to violate legal and constitutional norms in the coming year. Future scandals await which will be the equal or worse of the current ones. (That's why this month's polls don't mean much.) In November 2020, Dems will be the party that held him accountable, while the GOP elected, covered for and continued to enable him.  

So another "plausible" motive for Pelosi's decision to announce a delay in sending AoP to the Senate might be to spend Christmas and the first two weeks of Jan. foregrounding evidentiary requirements (witnesses and documents) needed to quell contentions of "hearsay" and "no quid pro quo' still credited in the bubble. Dems publicly call for "fact witnesses" and documents and the the GOP publicly refuses ("Not our job!"). The delay offers more time to frame Senate deliberations as a choice NOT to hear the available evidence. If Pelosi is right, then McConnell's spin--that the Senate will not do the case groundwork for the Dems--will be enough for the Trump base, but not for a majority of independents.

Pelosi's hope then would be that more and more voters see that prosecuting criminal behavior does not mark one as somehow equally partisan or "hypocritical" as those who defend it. Her long game is way better than Trump's, maybe better than McConnell's. (The downside, of course, is that more and more people could come to see presidential wrongdoing as "just normal" and efforts to hold him accountable as "just more partisanship." That's a plus for the GOP.)

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2019, 04:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: I noticed. Here I was rather referring to Trump calling the impeachment process a partisan hoax and hence he does not acknowledge Congress' power of impeachment though. Not to Ukraine.

Also, may I ask what exactly you want to express by "...if indeed guilty"? Is your verdict dependant on the republican senator's verdict?



You did, which makes your whole line of argueing just even more puzzling. Why you'd even call those out that are equally un-outraged in the first place.
Before you made that quite clear, you made quite clear that in your assertion of the situation, the democrats give two shits about the rule of law. I'm not sure as of now which of those two stances you both made quite clear is the correct one.

Yes (Well actually the Senate vote). What else would it be based on?

As to the rest: I'm just laughing at their "logic" for Pelosci sitting on this.

[Dill]

(12-20-2019, 03:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm personally not outraged about either. I thought I have made that quite clear. I'm just enjoying the circus and the dancers nationally and locally.

If so, you are enjoying it from inside the ring, do-se-doing with rest of them.

[BmorePat87]

(12-20-2019, 11:53 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems like exactly what you said.

Is this better: It's OK that the Speaker holds these articles until she's told how the Senate is going to perform their duties?

It's not exactly what I said considering the fact that you ignored that I said that there needs to be a legitimate Congressional reason and suggested that without one that it would be inappropriate. 

Considering how much effort you put into complaining about being misrepresented or telling people that you didn't say or mean something, I would think that you would strive to not so intentionally do that yourself. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2019, 04:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's not exactly what I said considering the fact that you ignored that I said that there needs to be a legitimate Congressional reason and suggested that without one that it would be inappropriate. 

Considering how much effort you put into complaining about being misrepresented or telling people that you didn't say or mean something, I would think that you would strive to not so intentionally do that yourself. 

My bad I read your point that holding it up for anything more than a little bit would be inappropriate. I read it as you were fine with her holding it up for a little bit.

[hollodero]

(12-20-2019, 04:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes (Well actually the Senate vote). What else would it be based on?

Facts and your personal opinion.

I don't know if you noticed, but no republican in Congress seems to agree with your view, not in the slightest. And possibly none in the senate will. Many made quite clear they do not intend to be jurors or impartial, some claimed they won't even consider evidence laid before them.

The question is, will you then call Trump an innocent man wrongfully accused. Or rather still think he should actually be removed on the pure merit of his deeds and take issue with a blatantly biased jury. Because that's what I'll do.

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2019, 04:45 PM)Dill Wrote: If so, you are enjoying it from inside the ring, do-se-doing with rest of them.

WTF is do-see-doing?

I do approve you assigning me ownership of the monkeys. I have been told I've owned a poster or 2 around here.

[Dill]

(12-20-2019, 02:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: 13 So with the four chief negotiators situated in this way, Pelosi is winning because Trump is volatile and a child and compulsive and brash and over-confident and most importantly controls McConnell. So in time, McConnell will have to bend to the weakest "player" at the table.
14 Only one thing can change the dynamic, and right now it's the biggest threat to this playing out in a way that's consistent with how a negotiator would assess the situation: the media. The media could interfere in the process—while saying it's not—to save Trump and McConnell.
15 So, the fifth player:MEDIA: Media wants a trial for ratings. If it can't get it when it wants it, it'll throw a tantrum and identify a villain so it can run a process story with bite. The clearest villain to identify here—because she's making things unpredictable—is Pelosi. 
MEDIA: Media gets its way by misreporting stories and bringing in analysts who'll give an assist to misreporting. It doesn't necessarily do so maliciously; it does it because it has an institutional bias—at all levels—for moving a story toward where the media needs it to be.

Thanks D. This is one of the best analyses of the current dynamic I have seen. McConnell did indeed give Pelosi a seat at the table, and the impulsive, incompetent Trump's control of McConnell makes him the weakest player, negates his considerable experience and acumen.

I don't agree with this prediction about the media though, as if the media were one thing and where the media "needs it to be" will be the same acroos the spectrum. The kind of unpredictability Pelosi introduces is not necessarily the kind that hurts ratings, in part because it increases the unpredictability of that other player, DJT.

[Dill]

(12-20-2019, 04:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: WTF is do-see-doing?

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=AwrE1xLwKv1dcSAAaRhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEya3ZjZ2xrBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjkwNTBfMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=do+se+do+dance&fr=tightropetb#id=1&vid=2c2eea4779e37b0fec04112459af9c32&action=view

(12-20-2019, 04:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I do approve you assigning me ownership of the monkeys. I have been told I've owned a poster or 2 around here.

LOL no you haven't.

[BmorePat87]

(12-20-2019, 04:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My bad I read your point that holding it up for anything more than a little bit would be inappropriate. I read it as you were fine with her holding it up for a little bit.

So you missed the second half that said there needs to be a legitimate reason first and then the examples I gave?

Of course you didn't. Grow up.

[*bfine32*]

(12-20-2019, 10:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So you missed the second half that said there needs to be a legitimate reason first and then the examples I gave?

Of course you didn't. Grow up.

No, I think I got it all. 

So in your opinion. The legitimate reasons are:

A. Waiting until a scheduled recess is over that she was fully aware of when they drafted the articles. I wonder why drafting the articles couldn't wait until after the break? (Don't answer that one)


B. The Senate tells her how they plan to conduct their business.
We'll just disagree on this one.

She's holding them for political circus and she's looking like the clown. Oh, and those defending her doing so. 

As i've said: I love that she's holding them. I love the reactions of the GOP that are mad she is and the explanations of the Dems that say she has a legitimate reason to hold them.  The entertainment value is priceless. 

[Belsnickel]

(12-20-2019, 12:23 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Exculpatory evidence was in the FBI's possession for two years. What are they trying to hide? That is the question that people should be asking, rather than trying to follow the false narrative that Trump it a foreign agent.

Yep. They had that evidence, and other evidence that countered it. The investigation was moved to the Office of the Special Counsel who likely also saw it and it was used in his decision to say there was not sufficient evidence to say there was collusion between the campaign team and Russia.