The email scandal was an ACTUAL witch hunt.
The FBI director found evidence of wrongdoing. Obviously not a witch hunt, unless you’re a rabid partisan.
Why are you hung up on calls? There are plenty of other ways to communicate.
Because that is the means of communications which up to now has been discussed. What other means of communications that the CIA would NOT have intercepted that would be relevant to the issue of Russian interference in an election?
There are meetings that could go back years.
Those would not be relevant to Russian interference in an election.
There are emails.
Possibly, but I find it difficult to fathom why you would think that a CIA that was intercepting phone calls wasn’t intercepting electronic transmissions.
There are phone calls. There may be people we don’t even know about yet. There may be computers, devices to gather and explore. There are going interviews. There are documents. There are going to be business documents. There are going to be banking documents.
There may be little green men in big eyes and antennas as well.
You act like they have collected everything they ever are going to collect.
I’ve said nothing of the sort. What I’ve said was that their verbal communications are all known, and have no evidence of wrongdoing. That is known.
False?? Delusional. Here is 20 times the Trump team denied any Russia contacts.
You clearly don’t undrestand the concept of “categorical.” A “categorical denial” is a complete and total rejection that anyone in the campaign talked to anyone in Russia at any time. A person who does not have knowledge of the activities of others in the campaign cannot issue a categorical denial.
Spliting hairs. he didn’t say “something”. He specifically mentioned Podesta after exchanging tweets
For mercy’s sake, I SAID THAT HE MENTIONED PODESTA. If you’re not going to fucking bother to read what I write, why am I bothering to write at all?
Actually you don’t. Until the investigation is fully investigated you have no idea.
The investigation, whatever way it goes, will NOT conclude that the election turned on Russian interference. That statement is beyond the scope of any investigator, and cannot honestly be made, due to the existence of a raft of other variables.
There is so much circumstantial evidence here….I would be shocked if there wasn’t collusion. You heard it here first. All the facts point to collusion.
Except for the fact that every principal and legislator that has access to the evidence has stated categorically that they’ve seen no evidence of collusion.
Preposterous. By that measure we would never go to war.
Nonsense. The end/means justification has been rejected by all major religions as sinful, and the vast majority of secular philosophers who have studied it. And the matter of war makes my case, not disputes it. That’s why Bush’s pre-emptive wars were rejected by many spiritual leaders and secular thinkers, because it depended on end justifying means reasoning. Are you telling me that you were a supporter of Bush’s wars?
“It’s not impossible to prove a hack. Someone could simply confess.”
As I said, unless the hacker is a klutz. A confession would qualify.