“…no conclusions have been reached on the key question of Trump and collusion”
NYT: New target?
Explosive, or a dud?
Wonderful thing, subpoenas.
Er … why?
“we did so without informing him whom we were working for…”
“It is an explosive problem, this use of the dossier by the Obama Justice Department…”
“It would be a tragedy if the report has a minority section…”
“It would be better to be aggressive and gather evidence quickly, he believed…”
“It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience…”
Or was it the transition?
“There’s no crime of collusion.”
“Manafort knows where the bodies are buried.”
Almost entirely relates to 2006-14.
Panetta: Of course we have to probe DNC and Team Hillary connections to dossier.
Follow the money.
WaPo: My, how quiet the Democrats have become.
“This president conspired with agents of the Russian government to steal an election…”
“Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation…”
“There was even a Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies…”
“…whether or not there’s fire, we need to figure it out.”
“I’m not going to go off and make all kinds of outrageous claims.”
“The meeting provided no meaningful information…”
“At the same time, the pressure to produce scoops increased.”
“I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this…”
Good thing this guy isn’t running for another term, eh?
“Nor do I know of anyone else in the campaign who did so.”
Aesthetics and optics.
“I’m a Russia hawk.”
“It’s a hell of a defense to say that your collusion was incompetent…”
“…it is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump — helped along by Aras and Emin.”
“Everyone is trying to convert wishful thinking into hard evidence.”
“Maybe they’re trying to pin the tail on some donkey here.”