Comments by "Keep It Real" (@KeepItReal33) on "Gingrich: Russia probe needs to be fair, out in the open" video.

  1. Robert Blue , I haven't seen even any circumstantial evidence. I've seen way more evidence that Hillary Clinton did some dirty deals with Russia. What evidence is there of President Trump's involvement with Russia?
    3
  2. Robert Blue , I'm serious. I truly haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that President Trump has colluded with Russia. If you have something, let's discuss it.
    3
  3. Dave Vago , Again, most of your "evidence " is VERY old dealings and the newer stuff are with government officials who, as part of their job, had dealings with the Russian ambassador. James Comey, the most corrupt person in Washington, admits that the investigation has been going on for almost a year now, but obviously they can't find anything,because they are still searching. The evidence on Hillary and Bill is much more compelling and serious. 1/5 of our Uranium supplies are now Russia's. And the Bill get twice his speaking fee. That alone should warrant an investigation. And we all saw the video of Sessions. He answered the question posed to him honestly. I'll bet you a thousand dollars that President Trump is STILL President in 2020
    3
  4. Dave Vago , Wrong MY believe system is the Constitution and you can't change that. There will have to be a grand jury, but it won't be for President Trump (he's your President,too). We are looking at months from now and will most likely be about leaks and leakers. Just my prediction. We will see which of us are right.
    3
  5. Robert Blue , Like President Trump's 2005 tax return. Lol
    1
  6. Robert Blue , We'll see. I think he is asking for immunity to protect himself. I don't think he has anything on President Trump. That's why I'm saying his testimony will more than likely be a disappointment to those who want President Trump to be involved in some way.
    1
  7. Dave Vago , Wrong. Manaford had dealings 10 years ago...wtf!? Hillary's campaign manager is on the board of a Russian company 1 year ago.... this is exactly why no one takes you seriously. Most of the people you mention were doing their job. Same can be said of Democrats that had meetings with the Russian ambassador. So, when you come up with something, let me know.
    1
  8. Dave Vago , The leaks don't say that he is a traitor. Lmao. Now you sound like CNN. I guess you have been ignoring the leaks and the surveillance issue. Well, you're in for a fun surprise. Anyway, it's way past my bed time. I have work tomorrow. Enjoy your evening.
    1
  9. Dave Vago , Both. IF someone is divulging classified information and it isn't of a widespread benefit to the American people, I would say it should be prosecuted. IF it is a benefit,then that would fall into the "whistle blower " category, for me (like Snowden). The leaks so far are only political in nature. None have "proven" anything. However, if a leak "proved" that President Trump did something intentionally against the American people, I would call that a service to the American people and it should fall into the "whistle blower " category. Just my opinion.
    1