Privately? And not under oath? Wow, this should be the absolute pinnacle of âtruthinessââŚ
I donât see anywhere in this article where they will not be under oath, only that they will now do it privately. Did you read that elsewhere?
Why the eff would DIFI agree to this, and not stick to her guns that it be public â
Wtf!?!
One rule for regular folks like Hillary Clinton, another rule for Trumps and Manafort. I would really like to see some research into the question of precisely who, in the past, has been accorded this privilege and who has not.
One Russian Agent plus Colluder, Junior and weâre treating them with kid gloves. Amazing. Whereâs Dick Cheney and his Enhanced Interrogation Techniques when you need him? Grumble.
" We are guilty of the charge but Daddys going to give us a Pardon " .
Itâs been reported elsewhere that, heeding their attorneyâs advice, neither Butthead or Manafort will testify under oath.
Requirement #1 is donât let the American people know, so Trump and Manafort can reserve their right to lie to us.
Itâs okay that Russia and half the world knows what they did. Just keep the American people in the dark.
Deal?
The committee also is looking at the work of Glenn Simpson, a political operative who was involved in the compilation of a dossier of unsubstantiated and sometimes salacious information about Trump and his associates and their interactions with Russians.
The very idea of career fabulist Manafort testifying and me believing his utterly shameful blarney is SO ridiculous to me! So hard to imagine, to even conceive of!!!
He and W are holding hands and testifying behind closed doors somewhere like they did with the 9-11 hearings.
Even W, I tend to regard as a paragon of truth compaed to this congenital baggy pants man LIAR!!! More deceitful we have not yet seen!!!
Isnât it amazing? Me too.- not to mention that these days W looks like a man with actual compassion and just a thimbleful of statescraft that looks like a shipload next to Trump.
Itâs really tragic. How low can the GOP go - donât anyone ever ask that rhetorical question again - they come up with something worse every damn time.
That is such bullshit. I canât believe the Ranking Member (DIFI) would accede to this. Wtf.
Note to the corporate media - âevery single last detail has not yet been tracked to the death and verified by ten independent sourcesâ is not actually the definition of âunsubstantiated.â If they really weâre trying to characterize it objectively, something like " initially compiled at the request of republican opponents by a highly-respected former senior official in British intelligence, who for years ran the Russia desk for MI6 and was so aghast at what his contacts were relaying to him about Russiaâs interference that he continued to work without compensation. Many of the less salacious details in the dossier have since checked out."
ETA - the development of compromising information, or âkompromat,â is a notorious trademark of the KGB, and one of its foremost practitioners was an otherwise unremarkable senior officer, Vladimir Putin. Allegations and extensive evidence, albeit some of it circumstantial, of Trumpâs ties to Russian oligarchs have persisted for decades, and grown more acute once reputable financial institutions in the West would no longer lend him money, due to Trumpâs extensive bankruptcies.
Iâm just hoping that Simpson lets slip which ânever Trumpâ pest hired Fusion and then âaway we gooooooâ.
That would be great - hadnât thought of that.
Btw - it was Jeb!, iirc.
Isnât private testimony only necessary when the committee is protecting state secrets?
This is ridiculous! Why would anyone who was a private citizen at the time in question have secrets that the US govât would need to protect?
Though it would be awesome, at last check thatâs conjecture