The question was how does the guy get his reputation (one of a retired reality TV show host?) back about allegations of his questionable ties to Russia. I listed examples of things which, if cleared up, would help.
The FBI said 'nothing there'. Read the article yourself.
I wouldn't know; I don't have cable......
You are genuinely not aware that a number of people, 5 or more, you can look it up yourself, were arrested, charged, convicted and served time as a result of the investigation?
Sussmann is charged with making a false statement to the FBI. During that meeting, Sussmann allegedly told Baker he was not bringing the allegations on behalf of any specific client, but rather as a citizen concerned with national security. Durham’s team alleges they have evidence that Sussmann later billed Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign for his FBI meeting.
Let’s make a comparison:
I am not claiming ANYTHING just simply posting what the FBI said about it. How many of those convictions were directly related to Trump/Russia collusion accusations? and not some other 'misbehavior'?
You posted what Fox says the FBI said about one particular aspect of one particular area of investigation. Reading your other posts again, you appear to have conflated that to something to do with the investigation as a whole, as your comments, for example in pst 17, dimsiss the whole investigation based on one aspect of one part of it. As I said, those convictions came out of the investigation into links between Trump's campaign and various links with foreign govts in one way or another. I'm not sure what you mean by directly related, perhaps you think this was simpler or more straightforward than it actually was.
Nothing of the kind. You accuse me of selective reading and I was pointing out the same in you.
The primary one: Trump/Russia collusion. Without that and the so called 'Steele Dossier' there would be no collusion. Do you believe the Steele Dossier is accurate and truthful?
Without the media/Clinton screaming Russia, Russia, Russia there would have been no basis for an investigation. Which is why the FBI said 'nothing there'.
Because you only talk about one side of the coin as if the other side is 'angelic'.
Just read the article again. I can’t be bothered to point out to you what your own article says, and how that doesn’t match what you are saying. If you’re not willing to engage with your own supporting materials, I’m not willing to try and debate an imaginary point about your imaginary ideas.
I read it for what it says.....try doing the same thing instead of looking for ulterior motives and bogey men.
Your comments have drifted well away from anything I said. If you want to actually discuss something I actually said, do that, I don’t see the point in engaging with your imagination.
Without that data being interpreted as 'something' the FBI said there was 'nothing there'. No bias in the initial data 'interpretation' no investigation.....no collusion......no Russia, Russia, Russia by the leftist media and Clinton and backers. Connect the dots......
I’m not going to try and argue with your imaginary version of events. We’re simply back to the plain reality that only very narrowly selective reading choices lead to your particular set of conclusions on anything but the narrowest of related issues, and even those are not on wholly solid ground. But so what? If you want to live in a carefully constructed box and never be exposed to anything that contradicts what you want to think, you’re free to do that.
