Trump's Russian Collusion

[Typical Lax Dad]

TLD and Diss,
As someone who represented his country - thank you for paying your tax dollars and my great education and all of that leadership training and having fun playing with toys - you might want to dial it down a tad. I think Salt is bringing thoughts and opinions and he can speak for himself but I also know he represented his country. Not sure what you all did and it does not matter but if you cannot take an alternate opinion - you should put some big boy pants on

Welcome aboard. Old Sailor is quick to point out how other folk hate this country. He can speak for himself. His words are all I need to see. A Russian / Saudi apologist. I don’t care about the flowery nomenclature. BS is BS.

Trump (& I) do not want to lose Saudi Arabia as ally or needlessly worsen an already dangerous confrontation with Russia.
If you see that as "apologist", that's your problem.

I lost enough friends during the Cold War & in Iraq to not want a do over.
If that means tolerating some things we can't change, which do not threaten us, then so be it.
I do not hold the fantasy that we can change centuries of Russian or Arab society,
& it's arrogant to think that we can.

Uh huh.

[MDlaxfan76]

TLD and Diss,
As someone who represented his country - thank you for paying your tax dollars and my great education and all of that leadership training and having fun playing with toys - you might want to dial it down a tad. I think Salt is bringing thoughts and opinions and he can speak for himself but I also know he represented his country. Not sure what you all did and it does not matter but if you cannot take an alternate opinion - you should put some big boy pants on

Welcome aboard. Old Sailor is quick to point out how other folk hate this country. He can speak for himself. His words are all I need to see. A Russian / Saudi apologist. I don’t care about the flowery nomenclature. BS is BS.

Trump (& I) do not want to lose Saudi Arabia as ally or needlessly worsen an already dangerous confrontation with Russia.
If you see that as "apologist", that's your problem.

I lost enough friends during the Cold War & in Iraq to not want a do over.
If that means tolerating some things we can't change, which do not threaten us, then so be it.
I do not hold the fantasy that we can change centuries of Russian or Arab society,
& it's arrogant to think that we can.

Uh huh.

He's predictable as all get out.
Forget the Russians and Saudis, how bout them Chinese?
Let's do a Cold War with them, instead.
After all, they don't look like us do they?

Whatever Trump says, it must be brilliant.
(The Chinese clearly didn't buy off Trump sufficiently...maybe Ivanka, but not enough...)

[old salt]

So if you agree with Trump on foreign policy, national security, immigration, trade & manufacturing,
that makes you old, white, racist & misogynistic.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel morally superior as you sink into the tar pit.

[old salt]

He's predictable as all get out.
Forget the Russians and Saudis, how bout them Chinese?
Let's do a Cold War with them, instead.
After all, they don't look like us do they?

Whatever Trump says, it must be brilliant.
(The Chinese clearly didn't buy off Trump sufficiently...maybe Ivanka, but not enough...)

When all else fails, go with the race card trope.

We're already in a Cold War with China. Let's push Russia closer to them.
Putin's even policing the S China Sea for them now.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So if you agree with Trump on foreign policy, national security, immigration, trade & manufacturing,
that makes you old, white, racist & misogynistic.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel morally superior as you sink into the tar pit.

Sometimes.

[foreverlax]

So if you agree with Trump on foreign policy, national security, immigration, trade & manufacturing,
that makes you old, white, racist & misogynistic.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel morally superior as you sink into the tar pit.

A lot of Trump supports are, for sure.

[seacoaster]

Meant to post this yesterday. I am sure that these guys -- George and Neal -- just have a bad case of "TDS" or are "sore losers" or just "hate America:"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... b031b3b195

"On Tuesday, Trump gave us direct evidence of his contempt toward the most foundational precept of our democracy — that no person, not even the president, is above the law. He filed a brief in the nation’s second-most-important court that takes the position that Congress cannot investigate the president, except possibly in impeachment proceedings. It’s a spectacularly anti-constitutional brief, and anyone who harbors such attitudes toward our Constitution’s architecture is not fit for office. Trump’s brief is nothing if not an invitation to commencing impeachment proceedings that, for reasons set out in the Mueller report, should have already commenced.

The case involves a House committee’s efforts to follow up on the testimony of Trump’s now-incarcerated former attorney, Michael Cohen, that Trump had allegedly committed financial and tax fraud, and allegedly paid off paramours in violation of campaign finance laws. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed Trump’s accountants in mid-April for relevant documents, and Trump tried to block the move, only to be sternly rebuked in mid-May by a federal judge in Washington.

The appeals brief filed Monday by Trump attacks that decision. But to describe Trump’s brief is to refute it. He argues that Congress is “trying to prove that the President broke the law” and that that’s something Congress can’t do, because it’s “an exercise of law enforcement authority that the Constitution reserves to the executive branch.”

But in fact, Congress investigates lawbreaking, and potential lawbreaking, all the time. Mobsters, fraudsters, government employees, small companies, big companies — like it or not, all types of people and businesses get subpoenaed from time to time so that Congress can figure out whether current laws are effective, whether new laws are needed, whether sufficient governmental resources are being devoted to the task, whether more disclosure to the government or the public is required, or greater penalties, and so on.

To this, Trump’s brief complains that “Congress could always make this (non-falsifiable) argument” to justify any investigation. But that’s simply the result of the fact that, as the district court explained, Congress’s “power to investigate is deeply rooted in the nation’s history.” Congress, relying on English parliamentary tradition, has performed this function since the founding.

To accept Trump’s argument to the contrary — to say Congress can’t look into matters that might involve crimes — would in many cases gut Congress’s ability to gain information it needs to legislate. And perversely, in Trump’s case, it makes a virtue of the fact that he has been accused of committing crimes.

Which brings us to the main point: England’s King George III was above the law, but the founders of our republic wanted a system that would divide power and have the branches check one another. The idea that only the president can investigate the president is an argument for autocrats, not Americans.

Trump says “trust me,” but that was exactly the argument the founders rebelled against. They knew that public officials would not always be angels, and that power had to be checked and dispersed. As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 51, “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”

....

For the past three decades, many constitutional law classes have begun with Nixon’s breathtaking statement to David Frost in May 1977: “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Generations of students have gasped, shocked that a former president could say such a thing. This time, it’s not a former president but a sitting one. Every principle behind the rule of law requires the commencement of a process now to make this president a former one."

If you support the President still, with all of his statements and antics clear and out in the open, you don't believe in the principles on which the country was founded and exists. So just go on walking your dogs.

[dislaxxic]

Trump Tells ABC: Sure, I’d Collude Again

dickfor

..

[6ftstick]

Trump Tells ABC: Sure, I’d Collude Again

dickfor

..

Trump should have asked Stephanopois why he helped the Clintons spend millions in Campaign donations from the Chinese Government. 22 people pled quilty to federal campaign violations and the DNC had to return almost 3 million in illegal donations from foreign nationals.

The Washington Post reported in 1998—“evidence gathered in federal surveillance intercepts has indicated that the Chinese government planned to increase China’s influence in the U.S. political process in 1996.”

Oh yeh, by the way George, have you asked your BFF Hillary Clinton why she paid Russian spies for information for the steel dossier?

Is there any question why the American people hold the media and you liberal hypocrites in such contempt.

[6ftstick]

So if you agree with Trump on foreign policy, national security, immigration, trade & manufacturing,
that makes you old, white, racist & misogynistic.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel morally superior as you sink into the tar pit.

A lot of Trump supports are, for sure.

Don't forget deplorable!

[jhu72]

Trump Tells ABC: Sure, I’d Collude Again

dickfor

..

Trump should have asked Stephanopois why he helped the Clintons spend millions in Campaign donations from the Chinese Government. 22 people pled quilty to federal campaign violations and the DNC had to return almost 3 million in illegal donations from foreign nationals.

The Washington Post reported in 1998—“evidence gathered in federal surveillance intercepts has indicated that the Chinese government planned to increase China’s influence in the U.S. political process in 1996.”

Oh yeh, by the way George, have you asked your BFF Hillary Clinton why she paid Russian spies for information for the steel dossier?

Is there any question why the American people hold the media and you liberal hypocrites in such contempt.

Never happened. Old fake news.

[jhu72]

So if you agree with Trump on foreign policy, national security, immigration, trade & manufacturing,
that makes you old, white, racist & misogynistic.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel morally superior as you sink into the tar pit.

A lot of Trump supports are, for sure.

Don't forget deplorable!

He didn't. He spelled it out.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Meant to post this yesterday. I am sure that these guys -- George and Neal -- just have a bad case of "TDS" or are "sore losers" or just "hate America:"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... b031b3b195

"On Tuesday, Trump gave us direct evidence of his contempt toward the most foundational precept of our democracy — that no person, not even the president, is above the law. He filed a brief in the nation’s second-most-important court that takes the position that Congress cannot investigate the president, except possibly in impeachment proceedings. It’s a spectacularly anti-constitutional brief, and anyone who harbors such attitudes toward our Constitution’s architecture is not fit for office. Trump’s brief is nothing if not an invitation to commencing impeachment proceedings that, for reasons set out in the Mueller report, should have already commenced.

The case involves a House committee’s efforts to follow up on the testimony of Trump’s now-incarcerated former attorney, Michael Cohen, that Trump had allegedly committed financial and tax fraud, and allegedly paid off paramours in violation of campaign finance laws. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed Trump’s accountants in mid-April for relevant documents, and Trump tried to block the move, only to be sternly rebuked in mid-May by a federal judge in Washington.

The appeals brief filed Monday by Trump attacks that decision. But to describe Trump’s brief is to refute it. He argues that Congress is “trying to prove that the President broke the law” and that that’s something Congress can’t do, because it’s “an exercise of law enforcement authority that the Constitution reserves to the executive branch.”

But in fact, Congress investigates lawbreaking, and potential lawbreaking, all the time. Mobsters, fraudsters, government employees, small companies, big companies — like it or not, all types of people and businesses get subpoenaed from time to time so that Congress can figure out whether current laws are effective, whether new laws are needed, whether sufficient governmental resources are being devoted to the task, whether more disclosure to the government or the public is required, or greater penalties, and so on.

To this, Trump’s brief complains that “Congress could always make this (non-falsifiable) argument” to justify any investigation. But that’s simply the result of the fact that, as the district court explained, Congress’s “power to investigate is deeply rooted in the nation’s history.” Congress, relying on English parliamentary tradition, has performed this function since the founding.

To accept Trump’s argument to the contrary — to say Congress can’t look into matters that might involve crimes — would in many cases gut Congress’s ability to gain information it needs to legislate. And perversely, in Trump’s case, it makes a virtue of the fact that he has been accused of committing crimes.

Which brings us to the main point: England’s King George III was above the law, but the founders of our republic wanted a system that would divide power and have the branches check one another. The idea that only the president can investigate the president is an argument for autocrats, not Americans.

Trump says “trust me,” but that was exactly the argument the founders rebelled against. They knew that public officials would not always be angels, and that power had to be checked and dispersed. As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 51, “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”

....

For the past three decades, many constitutional law classes have begun with Nixon’s breathtaking statement to David Frost in May 1977: “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Generations of students have gasped, shocked that a former president could say such a thing. This time, it’s not a former president but a sitting one. Every principle behind the rule of law requires the commencement of a process now to make this president a former one."

If you support the President still, with all of his statements and antics clear and out in the open, you don't believe in the principles on which the country was founded and exists. So just go on walking your dogs.

[6ftstick]

Trump Tells ABC: Sure, I’d Collude Again

dickfor

..

Trump should have asked Stephanopois why he helped the Clintons spend millions in Campaign donations from the Chinese Government. 22 people pled quilty to federal campaign violations and the DNC had to return almost 3 million in illegal donations from foreign nationals.

The Washington Post reported in 1998—“evidence gathered in federal surveillance intercepts has indicated that the Chinese government planned to increase China’s influence in the U.S. political process in 1996.”

Oh yeh, by the way George, have you asked your BFF Hillary Clinton why she paid Russian spies for information for the steel dossier?

Is there any question why the American people hold the media and you liberal hypocrites in such contempt.

Never happened. Old fake news.

Did you read the part that 22 people connected to the Clinton campaign PLEADED guilty to election violations.

You have read that Hillary PAID for the Steele Dossier. Facts.

Never happened eh.

The FBI has arrested a politically prominent Chinese millionaire, the alleged secret source of foreign money in a campaign finance scandal during the Clinton administration, on charges he lied about why he brought more than $4.5 million in cash into the United States over the last two years.

The complaint says Ng brought a suitcase full of $400,000 in cash to the United States on June 13 and later that day brought the suitcase to a meeting with “Business Associate-1” in Queens, New York.

Ng was identified in a 1998 Senate report as the source of hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally funneled through an Arkansas restaurant owner, Charlie Trie, to the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration.

“Trie’s contributions purchased access for himself and Ng to the highest levels of our government,” the Senate report said.

Ng and Trie made a number of visits to the White House to attend Democratic National Committee-sponsored events and were photographed with President Bill Clinton and then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. ABC News reported in 1997 that Ng had made six trips to the White House.

Senate investigators said Ng “refused to meet with or answer the investigators questions,” although he was never charged with a crime in the investigation.

Trie, an American citizen, pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/fb ... d=33990683

What NEVER HAPPENED WAS TRUMP COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS.

[jhu72]

Meant to post this yesterday. I am sure that these guys -- George and Neal -- just have a bad case of "TDS" or are "sore losers" or just "hate America:"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... b031b3b195

"On Tuesday, Trump gave us direct evidence of his contempt toward the most foundational precept of our democracy — that no person, not even the president, is above the law. He filed a brief in the nation’s second-most-important court that takes the position that Congress cannot investigate the president, except possibly in impeachment proceedings. It’s a spectacularly anti-constitutional brief, and anyone who harbors such attitudes toward our Constitution’s architecture is not fit for office. Trump’s brief is nothing if not an invitation to commencing impeachment proceedings that, for reasons set out in the Mueller report, should have already commenced.

The case involves a House committee’s efforts to follow up on the testimony of Trump’s now-incarcerated former attorney, Michael Cohen, that Trump had allegedly committed financial and tax fraud, and allegedly paid off paramours in violation of campaign finance laws. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed Trump’s accountants in mid-April for relevant documents, and Trump tried to block the move, only to be sternly rebuked in mid-May by a federal judge in Washington.

The appeals brief filed Monday by Trump attacks that decision. But to describe Trump’s brief is to refute it. He argues that Congress is “trying to prove that the President broke the law” and that that’s something Congress can’t do, because it’s “an exercise of law enforcement authority that the Constitution reserves to the executive branch.”

But in fact, Congress investigates lawbreaking, and potential lawbreaking, all the time. Mobsters, fraudsters, government employees, small companies, big companies — like it or not, all types of people and businesses get subpoenaed from time to time so that Congress can figure out whether current laws are effective, whether new laws are needed, whether sufficient governmental resources are being devoted to the task, whether more disclosure to the government or the public is required, or greater penalties, and so on.

To this, Trump’s brief complains that “Congress could always make this (non-falsifiable) argument” to justify any investigation. But that’s simply the result of the fact that, as the district court explained, Congress’s “power to investigate is deeply rooted in the nation’s history.” Congress, relying on English parliamentary tradition, has performed this function since the founding.

To accept Trump’s argument to the contrary — to say Congress can’t look into matters that might involve crimes — would in many cases gut Congress’s ability to gain information it needs to legislate. And perversely, in Trump’s case, it makes a virtue of the fact that he has been accused of committing crimes.

Which brings us to the main point: England’s King George III was above the law, but the founders of our republic wanted a system that would divide power and have the branches check one another. The idea that only the president can investigate the president is an argument for autocrats, not Americans.

Trump says “trust me,” but that was exactly the argument the founders rebelled against. They knew that public officials would not always be angels, and that power had to be checked and dispersed. As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 51, “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”

....

For the past three decades, many constitutional law classes have begun with Nixon’s breathtaking statement to David Frost in May 1977: “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Generations of students have gasped, shocked that a former president could say such a thing. This time, it’s not a former president but a sitting one. Every principle behind the rule of law requires the commencement of a process now to make this president a former one."

If you support the President still, with all of his statements and antics clear and out in the open, you don't believe in the principles on which the country was founded and exists. So just go on walking your dogs.

This is what is so disappointing. It is not about policy, almost since day one with Trump it has not been. He is a traitor to the American principles of government as are his supporters, at this point in time. No one can make the argument that they don't know what he is doing.

[jhu72]

Trump Tells ABC: Sure, I’d Collude Again

dickfor

..

Trump should have asked Stephanopois why he helped the Clintons spend millions in Campaign donations from the Chinese Government. 22 people pled quilty to federal campaign violations and the DNC had to return almost 3 million in illegal donations from foreign nationals.

The Washington Post reported in 1998—“evidence gathered in federal surveillance intercepts has indicated that the Chinese government planned to increase China’s influence in the U.S. political process in 1996.”

Oh yeh, by the way George, have you asked your BFF Hillary Clinton why she paid Russian spies for information for the steel dossier?

Is there any question why the American people hold the media and you liberal hypocrites in such contempt.

Never happened. Old fake news.

Did you read the part that 22 people connected to the Clinton campaign PLEADED guilty to election violations.

You have read that Hillary PAID for the Steele Dossier. Facts.

Never happened eh.

The FBI has arrested a politically prominent Chinese millionaire, the alleged secret source of foreign money in a campaign finance scandal during the Clinton administration, on charges he lied about why he brought more than $4.5 million in cash into the United States over the last two years.

The complaint says Ng brought a suitcase full of $400,000 in cash to the United States on June 13 and later that day brought the suitcase to a meeting with “Business Associate-1” in Queens, New York.

Ng was identified in a 1998 Senate report as the source of hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally funneled through an Arkansas restaurant owner, Charlie Trie, to the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration.

“Trie’s contributions purchased access for himself and Ng to the highest levels of our government,” the Senate report said.

Ng and Trie made a number of visits to the White House to attend Democratic National Committee-sponsored events and were photographed with President Bill Clinton and then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. ABC News reported in 1997 that Ng had made six trips to the White House.

Senate investigators said Ng “refused to meet with or answer the investigators questions,” although he was never charged with a crime in the investigation.

Trie, an American citizen, pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/fb ... d=33990683

What NEVER HAPPENED WAS TRUMP COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS.

JUST IN CASE YOU STILL THINK IT NEVER HAPPENED.

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/ ... g-lap-seng

I never wrote that. Fake news. You lie. You have got to be the most dimwitted of posters.

[dislaxxic]

Meant to post this yesterday. I am sure that these guys -- George and Neal -- just have a bad case of "TDS" or are "sore losers" or just "hate America:"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... b031b3b195

"On Tuesday, Trump gave us direct evidence of his contempt toward the most foundational precept of our democracy — that no person, not even the president, is above the law. He filed a brief in the nation’s second-most-important court that takes the position that Congress cannot investigate the president, except possibly in impeachment proceedings. It’s a spectacularly anti-constitutional brief, and anyone who harbors such attitudes toward our Constitution’s architecture is not fit for office. Trump’s brief is nothing if not an invitation to commencing impeachment proceedings that, for reasons set out in the Mueller report, should have already commenced.

The case involves a House committee’s efforts to follow up on the testimony of Trump’s now-incarcerated former attorney, Michael Cohen, that Trump had allegedly committed financial and tax fraud, and allegedly paid off paramours in violation of campaign finance laws. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed Trump’s accountants in mid-April for relevant documents, and Trump tried to block the move, only to be sternly rebuked in mid-May by a federal judge in Washington.

The appeals brief filed Monday by Trump attacks that decision. But to describe Trump’s brief is to refute it. He argues that Congress is “trying to prove that the President broke the law” and that that’s something Congress can’t do, because it’s “an exercise of law enforcement authority that the Constitution reserves to the executive branch.”

But in fact, Congress investigates lawbreaking, and potential lawbreaking, all the time. Mobsters, fraudsters, government employees, small companies, big companies — like it or not, all types of people and businesses get subpoenaed from time to time so that Congress can figure out whether current laws are effective, whether new laws are needed, whether sufficient governmental resources are being devoted to the task, whether more disclosure to the government or the public is required, or greater penalties, and so on.

To this, Trump’s brief complains that “Congress could always make this (non-falsifiable) argument” to justify any investigation. But that’s simply the result of the fact that, as the district court explained, Congress’s “power to investigate is deeply rooted in the nation’s history.” Congress, relying on English parliamentary tradition, has performed this function since the founding.

To accept Trump’s argument to the contrary — to say Congress can’t look into matters that might involve crimes — would in many cases gut Congress’s ability to gain information it needs to legislate. And perversely, in Trump’s case, it makes a virtue of the fact that he has been accused of committing crimes.

Which brings us to the main point: England’s King George III was above the law, but the founders of our republic wanted a system that would divide power and have the branches check one another. The idea that only the president can investigate the president is an argument for autocrats, not Americans.

Trump says “trust me,” but that was exactly the argument the founders rebelled against. They knew that public officials would not always be angels, and that power had to be checked and dispersed. As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 51, “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”

....

For the past three decades, many constitutional law classes have begun with Nixon’s breathtaking statement to David Frost in May 1977: “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Generations of students have gasped, shocked that a former president could say such a thing. This time, it’s not a former president but a sitting one. Every principle behind the rule of law requires the commencement of a process now to make this president a former one."

If you support the President still, with all of his statements and antics clear and out in the open, you don't believe in the principles on which the country was founded and exists. So just go on walking your dogs.

That is one POWERFUL essay. Thanks for posting it, sc...

Trump has been behaving this way his whole life. His penchant for siccing lawyers on any and all objectors, or challenging people that challenge him and attempting to out-spend his opposition...of looking for ANY and ALL means of escaping accountability for his bad faith efforts at working the system to his advantage...these things all speak of the nasty, dirty side of capitalism and the outright avarice that drives many "business people" of this ilk. It's ugly and it's shameful...and seems to me to be an almost inevitable outgrowth of an ideology (capitalism) that has MANY great characteristics - when left to the devices of greedy, shameless, selfish people - gets twisted beyond recognition, bastardized by these people who seem to feel that it works at its highest (most ruthless?) level if it is unregulated and unimpeded by weaklings and do-gooders trying to see that it doesn't run rampant and off the rails in pursuit of ever-more gain for a small class of participants.

..

[6ftstick]

Trump Tells ABC: Sure, I’d Collude Again

dickfor

..

Trump should have asked Stephanopois why he helped the Clintons spend millions in Campaign donations from the Chinese Government. 22 people pled quilty to federal campaign violations and the DNC had to return almost 3 million in illegal donations from foreign nationals.

The Washington Post reported in 1998—“evidence gathered in federal surveillance intercepts has indicated that the Chinese government planned to increase China’s influence in the U.S. political process in 1996.”

Oh yeh, by the way George, have you asked your BFF Hillary Clinton why she paid Russian spies for information for the steel dossier?

Is there any question why the American people hold the media and you liberal hypocrites in such contempt.

Never happened. Old fake news.

Did you read the part that 22 people connected to the Clinton campaign PLEADED guilty to election violations.

You have read that Hillary PAID for the Steele Dossier. Facts.

Never happened eh.

The FBI has arrested a politically prominent Chinese millionaire, the alleged secret source of foreign money in a campaign finance scandal during the Clinton administration, on charges he lied about why he brought more than $4.5 million in cash into the United States over the last two years.

The complaint says Ng brought a suitcase full of $400,000 in cash to the United States on June 13 and later that day brought the suitcase to a meeting with “Business Associate-1” in Queens, New York.

Ng was identified in a 1998 Senate report as the source of hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally funneled through an Arkansas restaurant owner, Charlie Trie, to the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration.

“Trie’s contributions purchased access for himself and Ng to the highest levels of our government,” the Senate report said.

Ng and Trie made a number of visits to the White House to attend Democratic National Committee-sponsored events and were photographed with President Bill Clinton and then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. ABC News reported in 1997 that Ng had made six trips to the White House.

Senate investigators said Ng “refused to meet with or answer the investigators questions,” although he was never charged with a crime in the investigation.

Trie, an American citizen, pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/fb ... d=33990683

What NEVER HAPPENED WAS TRUMP COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS.

I never wrote that. Fake news. You lie. You have got to be the most dimwitted of posters.

Ahhh Personal attacks in the face of the truth. I expected no less.

Some more proof what you say "didn't happen" HAPPENED

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/p ... edirect=on

As the conduit for more than $600,000 in contributions to the Democratic National Committee that had to be returned as coming from illegal or suspect sources, Trie has long been viewed as a potential font of information on whether Democratic Party or White House officials knowingly accepted improper funds and on alleged efforts by the government of China to influence the presidential election.

[foreverlax]

The complaint does not offer details about who the government believes received the cash, other than identifying a "Business Associate-1". There is no indication of any current ties to the Clintons or the Democratic Party, and a spokesman for the Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign, Brian Fallon, said there had been no contact between the campaign and Ng.

From your article....so what did Clinton do?

[6ftstick]

The complaint does not offer details about who the government believes received the cash, other than identifying a "Business Associate-1". There is no indication of any current ties to the Clintons or the Democratic Party, and a spokesman for the Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign, Brian Fallon, said there had been no contact between the campaign and Ng.

From your article....so what did Clinton do?

see above

AND THERES THIS

The exploits of indefatigable Clinton bag man Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie produced the hit of the week at last week's Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearings on campaign finance. Mr. Trie in early 1996 had temporarily shifted his attention from the president's reelection campaign to his legal defense fund. He had showed up once with a brown envelope containing $460,000 in $1,000 contributions, some on sequentially numbered money orders made out in different names but the same handwriting.

WAPO Sunday, August 3, 1997