Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

kpete

(71,997 posts) Thu Jun 14, 2018, 11:46 AM Jun 2018

IG FALLOUT: Clearest sign that Trump allies didn't get what they wanted out of the IG report:

His top GOP allies are arguing that the report may have been watered down during the review process -->

Link to tweet

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

IG FALLOUT: Clearest sign that Trump allies didn't get what they wanted out of the IG report: (Original Post) kpete Jun 2018 OP

Why not just apologize to Hillary, bow to Trump, and get on with destroying the rest of the country? Freethinker65 Jun 2018 #1

What "people" are they referring to whomay have changed the official document? nt procon Jun 2018 #2

A fishing expedition gratuitous Jun 2018 #3

Freethinker65

(10,024 posts)

1. Why not just apologize to Hillary, bow to Trump, and get on with destroying the rest of the country?

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 11:55 AM

Jun 2018

procon

(15,805 posts)

2. What "people" are they referring to whomay have changed the official document? nt

Reply to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 12:40 PM

Jun 2018

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)

3. A fishing expedition

Reply to procon (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 01:02 PM

Jun 2018

Why aren't these esteemed members of Congress going through the proper channels (the chairman of the relevant congressional committee) instead of making irresponsible and vague scattershot allegations designed to impugn the IG?

"What are questions that will not be posed by the popular media, Alex?"

The proper response to the three stooges is, "Res ipsa loquitur, bitches."

Reply to this discussion