Does it worry anybody else that Trump supporters...

@hippyjoe1955 Well, they don't show that. But using them solely to discredit people conducting an active investigation into Russian espionage is highly problematic.

I mean, if you were to replace it with a better investigation... but that's not what's going on here.

@WoodyAq Did you even bother to find out what was happening or are you one of those "Liberal good - Conservative bad" kind of morons.

@hippyjoe1955 Nope. I'm a "read everything" and sort through the bullshit kinda guy.

So when Trump says, "[ex-KGB colonel] Putin told me that Russia isn't spying on America, and I believe him over the guy I picked to head the NSA", I think: "Let's review that statement carefully."

@hippyjoe1955 Says you that literally repeats "liberal bad, conservative good" and still accuses me of being a Democrat when I'm an Anarchist, not a liberal and not even American.

@hippyjoe1955 @WoodyAq woody...what do you mean by, "they don't show that..."?

The public hasn't seen these documents yet.

@BizSuitStacy They've seen redacted versions of them.

@WoodyAq ohhhh the redacted versions - again - the public hasn't seen them yet.

@BizSuitStacy The public has seen the redacted versions.

@WoodyAq repeating yourself isn't going to help. You know the public hasn't seen the documents in full. It means the incriminating details have been obfuscated. Those who have seen the unredacted versions tell us that there is no national security risk. So...who do you suppose they are trying to protect?

@BizSuitStacy You implied the public hadn't seen the redacted documents: they have.

Redactions could hide incriminating details, there is just no reason, from the unredacted portion, to believe that is the case. It looks instead like an attempted fishing expedition.

The reasons for redactions generally are to mask sources and methods that are important for counter-intelligence operations.

@WoodyAq I implied nothing of the sort. I said the public hasn't seen the documents - and until the unredacted are released - as far as I'm concerned, they haven't.

A fishing expedition? Where did you come up with that though? Oh wait. That's right - this whole "investigation" into Trump is the fishing expedition. Let's investigate Trump for "collusion with the Russians" in hopes we can find a crime to impeach.

@BizSuitStacy Hmmm. Where to begin 🤔 These are the known (admitted) facts.

1) The Russians used their foreign intelligence apparatus to intervene in favour of the Trump campaign.

2) Key members of the Trump campaign were aware of this effort, and expressed enthusiasm for cooperating with it at the time.

3) All these members, and Trump himself, lied about this knowledge and willingness after the fact.

These facts warrant investigation ... and far better explanations than Trump has given so far.