What do you mean by "angle"? He was paid to find dirt on Trump. Is that an angle?
-
Jesus, I agree with you on that basic point, but the way you are presenting it makes it sound like you think Fleischer may be correct.
Ahem. The post says that BC of idiotic standards Dems have employed they have earned that from Fleischer. Two wrongs and all that.
-
-
Indeed we're the ones who say words have meaning? Throwing out terms w no evidence is stupid when your opponent thinks words have no meaning
-
I appreciated the essay & thought had great nuisance. This group think w no nuisance is not good & obv not limited to ppl on the right.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Even ignoring your somewhat novel interpretation of “two wrongs don’t make a right” Fleischer’s tweet is singularly indefensible, though.
-
Sure. And so were Dem attacks. ESPECIALLY given that the Dems were also exchanging something of value for info from FSB.
-
Bad judgment vs. bad faith. Dems saw Trump had motive, prior relationships, pattern of behavior pointing to collusion. Fleischer sees what?
-
So did Dems. Collusion as defined by them was trading things of value for info from FSB. Bingo. Collusion.
-
You seem to be operating on "Dems are good people and Trump is bad so it's okay for Dems to give a legal firm things of value for FSB info"
-
No, I’m operating on Trump had motive, prior relationships, had a pattern of soliciting and *using* Russian aid including illegal measures.
-
Such as?
-
And more importantly Putin and his associates had ample motive to aid Trump and to harm Clinton. You know all this. So does Fleischer.
- 12 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.