… let’s not come to a predetermined conclusion that the president is somehow engaged in this (collusion with Russia) nefarious activity…”–Tom Reed
With “predetermined,” Tom suggests that people are jumping to conclusions. That is hardly the case–we have Trump’s own words as evidence of nefarious activity. Nefarious suggests criminal; it can also mean corrupt, evil, malicious and wicked. With “somehow” Tom suggests uncertainty. There is nothing uncertain about Trump’s stubborn faith in Michael Flynn or his oval office meeting with Russian diplomats.
On MSNBC, Reed mentioned the Trump administration’s involvement with Russia “during the election.” The investigation should focus on the Trump administration’s involvement with Russia before, during, and after the election.
Reed mentioned the need for “factual evidence.” Is there any other kind? Are 18 unreported contacts with Russian agents factual evidence, one wonders.
what did REED know, and when did REED know it?
Mr. Reed will be the last rat off the ship. For what it is worth, I think that Trump himself, is either innocent of any collusion, but more than likely blissfully ignorant of his staffs abuse of him. He just does not have the depth of thought required to collude with anyone.
I’ve been wondering the same thing. On the one hand, Reed’s kind of a low-level useful water-carrying tool for the GOP; on the other hand, his doubling down on supporting Trump does contain a whiff of desperation, doesn’t it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you insinuating that Trump is the useful idiot of some yet unnamed cabal in the White House?
Rather than innocent, Trump may simply not remember what he did or didn’t do. Loss of memory might explain why he didn’t recall having heard “prime the pump.” Surprisingly, Trump seems unconcerned about reports that one of his close advisers is a “person of interest.”
Bannon perhaps or Kushner?