Is this the turning point?

[PaulS]

so the gov. is not letting her out on bail bc they only think she didn't register as a foreign agent?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by PaulS

so the gov. is not letting her out on bail bc they only think she didn't register as a foreign agent?

Nothing to see here

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...utors-say.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/accuse...fraud-lawsuits

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

so the gov. is not letting her out on bail bc they only think she didn't register as a foreign agent?

probably so she doesn't leave the country like they did during the Clinton years...

"A total of 120 participants in the fundraising scandal either fled the country, asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, or otherwise avoided questioning."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

probably so she doesn't leave the country like they did during the Clinton years...

"A total of 120 participants in the fundraising scandal either fled the country, asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, or otherwise avoided questioning."

But the media was criticized for not going after that story
From the same article you quoted


Many people still believe that a major cover-up of that scandal worked — in part because the media expressed skepticism and devoted only a fraction of resources they are spending on the Trump–Russia story. Network reporters expressed outright skepticism of the story, with many openly criticizing the late senator Fred Thompson, the chair of the Senate investigating committee, for wasting time and money. On June 17, 1997, Katie Couric, then the Today co-anchor, asked the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward about the story: “Are members of the media, do you think, Bob, too scandal-obsessed, looking for something at every corner?”

According to an analysis by the Media Research Center, the news coverage of the congressional hearings on the China scandal in the summer of 1997 were dwarfed by reports on the murder of fashion designer Gianni Versace and the death of Princess Diana.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But the media was criticized for not going after that story
From the same article you quoted


Many people still believe that a major cover-up of that scandal worked — in part because the media expressed skepticism and devoted only a fraction of resources they are spending on the Trump–Russia story. Network reporters expressed outright skepticism of the story, with many openly criticizing the late senator Fred Thompson, the chair of the Senate investigating committee, for wasting time and money. On June 17, 1997, Katie Couric, then the Today co-anchor, asked the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward about the story: “Are members of the media, do you think, Bob, too scandal-obsessed, looking for something at every corner?”

According to an analysis by the Media Research Center, the news coverage of the congressional hearings on the China scandal in the summer of 1997 were dwarfed by reports on the murder of fashion designer Gianni Versace and the death of Princess Diana.

point?

yes, I am aware that the media and democrats were more interested in Versace and Di than chinese communists infiltrating and influencing the White House

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

point?

yes, I am aware that the media and democrats were more interested in Versace and Di than chinese communists infiltrating and influencing the White House

The point is that you did another whatabout, but didn't tell the rest of the story. That if something happened the media did not bring their A game to that show. Now the complaint is that they are looking at the current Russia issues.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The point is that you did another whatabout, but didn't tell the rest of the story. That if something happened the media did not bring their A game to that show. Now the complaint is that they are looking at the current Russia issues.

huh?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's brilliant strategy that you are not smart enough to understand...don't worry...he's got this...

It is not brilliant strategy - it makes no sense. Why is Trump so malleable around VVP?

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

China however is moving itself forward better then anyone probably gives them credit for.

No, China is not moving itself forward and better. It is going to crush millions it its rise

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Putin and Trump are so similar in their need to be seen in a certain light, the summit was like watching a mutual admiration society meeting.

No, not similar at all. Putin is leagues ahead of Trump, Obama, Clinton, Bush (at least junior) but more like a combination Bond villain - the image he tries to cultivate, and a smarter Tony Soprano that also owns his FBI

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

It is not brilliant strategy - it makes no sense. Why is Trump so malleable around VVP?

that was sarcastic....Spence was always quick to defend Obama's questionable moves, particularly in regard to Russia and Syria as "playing brilliantly" or something...as though no one else was smart enough to understand the hidden brilliance of his decisions