It does amuse me that certain people are perfectly happy to assume Susan Rice is guilty of something despite not bothering to even check the basis for their assumptions, and also happy to handwave away the mountain of actual evidence connecting Trump, his campaign and his administration to the Russians. Consistency is for losers.
Sweet, when there is any actual evidence of anything other than the very first mentioned evildoer, we can investigate that. Trump’s tweets were a blatant accusation, with zero evidence to back it up, even a month later.
For now, we have an administration with one resignation or a Cabinet member, an Attorney General who has recused himself, and a House Intelligence Committee Chairman who has removed himself from the investigation after disclosing classified information. It’s no longer idle speculation simply for the sake of partisanship.
Then you’re in favor of official investigations??? Yes?
The distinction is that I’m in favor of non-frivolous investigations. You likely delighted in the $30 million Benghazi probe (wasn’t it the sixth one?) whereas I saw it as a colossal waste of time and money.
Dems and Repubs who have seen the “Nunes evidence” say there is no evidence supporting Nunes’s campaign.
Still accomplished their goal of derailing the investigation. Unless it comes back around to bite him hard in the ass, I’m sure he couldn’t care less.
Love the quote from that pompous Nazi fuckwit conman Sebastian Gorka
And no evidence that Rice did anything wrong. Unmasking requests: standard, and part of her job. No evidence of leaks on her part. None.
Hardly derailed. Diverted briefly, maybe. Nobody’s going to let it just go away.
Do you get paid by the question mark?
Since the assertion that Rice lied in her answer was based on not actually knowing what the question was, the “investigation” will be “What was the question?”.
The investigation into Trump’s connections to Russia is likely to be a little more involved.
I’m in favor of investigations for which there is some hint of wrongdoing. There is a mountain of evidence that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russians to influence the US election - investigate that.
For Susan Rice’s unmasking of names, until we have some hint that there was wrongdoing, then no, I’m not in favor of opening an investigation. I’m sure more details of that will be revealed to the investigators who are working on the Trump/Russia case.
Rice isn’t the only one who’s name has surfaced during the speculation as to whether the Obama administration/Democrats were/were not spying on political opponents.
The FBI is investigating the Russian connection. They should also be investigating any political parties attempt at domestic spying on political opponents.
I don’t know how they do it wherever you are but we don’t do investigations based on speculation here in America.
No evidence has surfaced that suggests the Obama administration/Democrats were spying on political opponents.
Remember, Trump has a history of making evidence-free claims about Obama and never backing them up. This is probably just another one of those.
What about the mystery surrounding Richard Simmons disappearance from the limelight? They should be looking into that as well.
Why? Should the FBI investigate the question of whether you (doorhinge) fraudulently voted in multiple precincts last election?
If not, then why should they investigate one and not the other.
Yes we do, if the targets are Democrats.
And they should also be investigating the link between Trump and a spree of real-estate related deaths in Atlantic City ca. 1998.
What? Trump gets to make shit up out of whole cloth, why shouldn’t I?
What I find most bizarre about this whole situation is how many levels of unneeded lies and misdirections there are. I originally expected it to turn out to be pretty simple for Trump to prove to the satisfaction of his non-opponents (agency under Obama listening to some of his people’s communications) and then the Nunes revelations seemed like it might be a really big deal, then it turns out to be a bunch of lies that no one really profits from. I thought the ‘compulsive liar’ rhetoric was overblown when I first heard it, but this scandal really seems to have a lot of lying for lying’s sake instead of lying for personal or party gain.