Steve Bannon.

[Dill]

(04-09-2017, 02:43 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Not, it is not.  And you're using fake news to justify fake opinions. (and I hate that term, but it's short-hand for "full of shit").  We'll just ignore how you dodged all the other pertinent questions in my original post.

Either there is evidence to support collusion, or there has been an abuse of govt surveillance power.  Increasingly, there does not appear to be a middle ground.

International corporations deal with many nations.  That's not evidence of anything.  It's actually typical of the "anti-science" crowd to make a faux stand on complete bullshit.

As I have argued elsewhere, it is better to use the term "fake news" to refer to fake news, rather than simply news we don't like. Fake news as a descriptive term originated as a description of sites which were not news sites presenting stories which were utterly fabricated, like the Pizzeria fronting for child sex trafficking.  "Liberal" media are holding this line. Trump, Fox and friends are not.

And I reject your either/or. If it is revealed that Susan Rice noticed a pattern of communication and asked that certain names be unmasked, likely with no idea who they were beforehand, I do not see how she is not doing her job.  She was on OBama's NSC.

It is quite possible that there is neither collusion nor abuse of power. But at the moment, if there is smoke and then more smoke, then I as a citizen want some answers. What were all these Trump functionaries talking to Russians about at a time when the Russians were attacking our election process? 

I am surprised you dismiss all this as "international corporations dealing with many nations."  How many of the Clinton organization met with the Russian Ambassador during the last election cycle? Why is the fact that Carter Paige was regarded as a Russian asset just "bullshit"?  The unstable Flynn was taking money from an undeclared interest in Turkey, and lied to Pence about his conversation with the Russian Ambassador about lifting sanctions. "International corporations" generally do not correctly predict that high level DNC functionaries are "going down."

It is not clear really what you are doubting, or at least which grounds you are doubting. Do you say the Russians never interfered with the US election? Do you say they made no effort to sway the election in favor of Trump? Do you answer both questions in the affirmative, but still say all these connections between Trumpsters and Russia are random, typical communications?

Nothing to see there, but guilt all over Rice . . . somehow?