Drawing deductions from pure speculation is not logical.
Take a moment to turn that off in Tapatalk Settings.
Also he's on the House Ethics Committee. When your side wins the election, that means you are investigating your own people. You don't keep too many friends doing that. In a manner of speaking, Trumps win is Chaffetz loss. And BTW, the pay ain't all that grand compared to what he can make in the private sector.
Chaffetz is head of the oversight committee. The oversight committee is charged with holding people accountable. Since there's mounting evidence implicating the Trump people in the Russian scandal, rather than do his job as oversight chair, Chafftez can resign, tell the country it's for his family he forgot existed last year when he was running, and get out of dodge before the scandal blows up.
There's enough in there that is factual to be a plausible outcome, no matter how bad right wingers believe they stand for family values. If you had taken the time to read the thread, you would've seen what I just typed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is no "mounting evidence", you are delusional.
Seriously.
How often do you have to be called out for making authoritative statements about things you know nothing about before you stop doing it?
Precisely.
So Chaffetz, with nothing to investigate But Trump and his ethics, is walking away.
He doesn't want to ruin his GOP career/credentials.
There is no "mounting evidence", you are delusional.
Seriously.
The official investigation into relations between Donald Trump and Russia now has "specific, concrete and corroborative evidence of collusion", it has been reported.
New evidence proves discussions took place “between people in the Trump campaign and agents of [Russian] influence relating to the use of hacked material,” a source allegedly told the Guardian.
The developments come as it has emerged that Britain’s spy agencies were among the first to alert their American counterparts to contact between members of Mr Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives.
British and other European intelligence agencies first intercepted suspicious “interactions” between people associated with the US President and Russian officials in 2015 as part of routine surveillance of Russia, intelligence sources have confirmed to a number of different publications.
Spy agencies, including GCHQ, were not deliberately targeting members of the Trump team but rather recorded communications through “incidental collection,” CNN reports.
LOL. I see you are unable to post the "mounting evidence" as well. I know it must hurt to be holding on to a lie, but you need to let it go.
Sure.
We'll all see the mounting evidence when the multiple investigations are over, and their findings are made public.
Until then, feel free to hew to the party line.
But don't expect anyone here to buy your line of nonsense.
So you are saying that your claim of "mounting evidence" is just a guess that you hope will be corroborated sometime in the future? Thanks for helping make my point, RJ!
Yawn...
A source foghorned from atop a mountain so even the right wingers would understand.
A source so rock solid that you provided story can't even state with any certainty that the source actually said what they reported was said.
:roll: * ∞
So, you don't believe the source. Fine. Just say, "They made it all up." That's your prerogative. It is unreasonable to expect everyone else to ignore the mounting evidence against the Trump campaign and then call them conspiracy theorists when they discuss the Trump-Russian collusion, for which we have ample evidence of.
LOL. You keep using the word "mounting evidence" when you don;t actually have any evidence. You have unnamed sources with unverified claims. That isn't evidence. As I said, the only thing you show to be mounting is unverifiable accusations.
There is nothing available to anyone that is not second hand.
There is nothing available to anyone that is not second hand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?