The Community
General Category => Matters of Life and The Universe => Topic started by: Zzzptm on July 03, 2018, 09:40:36 PM
-
https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SSCI%20ICA%20ASSESSMENT_FINALJULY3.pdf
Released just a few hours before a major US holiday because it's uncomfortable information. Nevertheless, it contradicts Putin's and Trump's position that Russians did not interfere with the US elections in 2016.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence also found that the US intelligence community did good work in determining the Russian involvement in the election and that the intel wasn't influenced by questionable sources (meaning the controversial Steele Dossier).
This finding comes not from a source hostile to Republican leadership, but from high-ranking members of the party itself. It arrived in a way calculated to minimize its impact, but arrive it did.
The SSCI has not yet released a finding on whether or not the Russians colluded with the Trump campaign.
Those are the facts as neutral as I can put them - now we can discuss.
-
To my knowledge, President Trump never definitively stated that Russia was not involved in the 2016 election medaling.
-
To my knowledge, President Trump never definitively stated that Russia was not involved in the 2016 election medaling.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/words-trump-russian-meddling/
While true there was never a "definitive statement" there was a good deal of "brushing it aside" perhaps?
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
^^^^^^
Brushing aside and stating something are 2 completely different things. Your link does not reveal a recording or a tweet where Trump said Russia did not meddle, because it never happened.
-
It feels like those who for some reason keep supporting Mr. President are starting to reach for straws... (and, no, not just saying you, Typh. All of you...)
-
Well I don't think that's a real surprise that Russia might have played a role (how big and how important that's anyone's guess) in the election...hell I think they have been trying to influence elections all over the world for years now with their hacks and what nots...
Did the russians involvement got Trump elected? No...absolutely not...but I don't think anyone in their right mind would even think that though...
Also was Trump aware of any Russian involvement during his campaign? No...if someone in his staff would have been involved (which I also doubt but knowing politics it is certainly possible) they would have made it sure that the candidate would not have any knowlage of any wrong doing (or questionable partnerships or what ever) so that they can have 100% plausable deniability.
On a side note Russia also involved in the presidential elections here in Finland. Some hackers from Russia had more than 10000 twitter bots and some false media posting comments and fake news about ALL candidates...So yeah...it's nothing uncommon...but is it Russian goverment sanctioned stuff? Who knows...probably not.
-
Pfffft, Russia. what is it, 1980 around here?
-
^ Re. Finland: Russia likes to stir up trouble at all extremes. Some countries, the extremists on the left are more radical. Others, the extremists on the right are the ones that are more likely to start stuff. Russia doesn't care.
There was Russian agitation that spurred on antifa activists in the USA, but their violence/brazenness did not equal that of the white supremacists in the USA in recent years.
And, yes, I do think that getting the white supremacist vote out was a key part of GOP success in 2016. It's also a strong reason that younger voters are becoming very active in opposing GOP policy and candidates.
-
It feels like those who for some reason keep supporting Mr. President are starting to reach for straws... (and, no, not just saying you, Typh. All of you...)
So sticking with the facts is reaching for straws now. :rolleyes:
-
What's the therefore here? Trump never said exactly Russia did not meddle. Therefore? It's all okay and libtards are whiny bitches?
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
It feels like those who for some reason keep supporting Mr. President are starting to reach for straws... (and, no, not just saying you, Typh. All of you...)
So sticking with the facts is reaching for straws now. :rolleyes:
Now, one could hardly accuse Mr. Trump of sticking to facts... :problem:
I see it differently, as regards support for the current president. He's got no real ties to senators or congressmen in his party, no relationships that have developed over the years, so it's all ideological or nothing with them. And while he's got stronger support in the House than in the Senate, it's still a split within the party that the party itself can't patch back together. As for the Senate, the several moderate GOP senators will essentially torpedo any move that's too far to the right for their tastes.
Supreme Court nominee, for example. If it's a nominee that can't speak convincingly about Roe v Wade as established law, move on, then that nominee will not get past the Senate. I'd guess that only a moderate Republican judge with the ability to swing ever so slightly would get through prior to the next session of Congress.
But for the hardest supporters for Trump, there are quite a few facts that are uncomfortable to accept and then reconcile with their standards. This is a man who has confessed to an attitude of general sexual harassment, who cheated on multiple wives, and had that affair with the actress that's got him in a legal mess. How is this guy family-friendly? Lots of anti-abortion rights groups are counting on him to stack the court with judges that will overturn Roe. If he appoints a guy that won't do the job, what point do they have in supporting Trump any more, beyond "he's not a Democrat." If his trade squabbles kill markets for US goods, the farmers and businessmen that lost those markets are going to have to reconcile their support with their economic state. Do they support him and accept their loss as a sacrifice for the nation, or do they move support to another guy that will get their markets back?
I think the GOP may see a challenger to Trump in the 2020 elections, should Trump make it that far. If the Democrats win big in 2018, and they might just, then it might be possible that Trump resigns in disgust.
-
What's the therefore here? Trump never said exactly Russia did not meddle. Therefore? It's all okay and libtards are whiny bitches?
No, not saying that. I was responding to Zzz's initial post in which he was claiming that Trump's position was that Russians did not interfere with the US elections in 2016.
-
What's the therefore here? Trump never said exactly Russia did not meddle. Therefore? It's all okay and libtards are whiny bitches?
No, not saying that. I was responding to Zzz's initial post in which he was claiming that Trump's position was that Russians did not interfere with the US elections in 2016.
Aha! Derp on me.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
But for the hardest supporters for Trump, there are quite a few facts that are uncomfortable to accept and then reconcile with their standards. This is a man who has confessed to an attitude of general sexual harassment, who cheated on multiple wives, and had that affair with the actress that's got him in a legal mess. How is this guy family-friendly?
Even if any of this were true (I'm sure some is and some is not), now you are reminding me of the 1990s when a lot of people (mostly republicans) were upset because then President Clinton may have been screwing around on his wife. Coincidentally, another President who had the economy running great. I didn't give a damn about that stuff then, and I don't give a damn about that stuff now.
-
What's the therefore here? Trump never said exactly Russia did not meddle. Therefore? It's all okay and libtards are whiny bitches?
No, not saying that. I was responding to Zzz's initial post in which he was claiming that Trump's position was that Russians did not interfere with the US elections in 2016.
Aha! Derp on me.
No problem buddy. I probably should have highlighted the specific part of Zzz's post that I was responding to. :pub:
-
But for the hardest supporters for Trump, there are quite a few facts that are uncomfortable to accept and then reconcile with their standards. This is a man who has confessed to an attitude of general sexual harassment, who cheated on multiple wives, and had that affair with the actress that's got him in a legal mess. How is this guy family-friendly?
Even if any of this were true (I'm sure some is and some is not), now you are reminding me of the 1990s when a lot of people (mostly republicans) were upset because then President Clinton may have been screwing around on his wife. Coincidentally, another President who had the economy running great. I didn't give a damn about that stuff then, and I don't give a damn about that stuff now.
Hold on... this is the stuff that Trump's pretty much either admitted to at one point in his public record, or where we have substantial evidence and testimony to support the accuracy thereof. I'll give a pass on "I don't give a damn", fair enough. But it's also not a matter of some true, some ain't. The man has done a lot of cheating and has bragged about it.
But for those who do insist on family values, this guy ain't any of them.
-
^^^^^^
The story I seriously doubt is the porn star. She and her attorney have done an extensive publicity tour, releasing a lot of hot air, but producing no evidence.
George W. said he was going to bring family values back to the White House. Of course, he also got us in a war that should have never happened, allowed the worst attack on American soil in modern history, and tanked the economy. But, at least he brought those family values back to the White House. :doh:
-
George W. said he was going to bring family values back to the White House. Of course, he also got us in a war that should have never happened, allowed the worst attack on American soil in modern history, and tanked the economy. But, at least he brought those family values back to the White House.
:rofl:
-
allowed the worst attack on American soil in modern history
Actually if one wants to point fingers at this it should be pointed at Bill Clinton as Osama Bin Laden was in the cross hairs back during his adminstration and if I recall correctly the CIA had people on the ground with eyes on Bin Laden and finger on the trigger but Clinton did not authorize the hit. Had Bin Laden been taken out at that point (1999?) the 2001 attacks most likely would have never happened.
-
allowed the worst attack on American soil in modern history
Actually if one wants to point fingers at this it should be pointed at Bill Clinton as Osama Bin Laden was in the cross hairs back during his adminstration and if I recall correctly the CIA had people on the ground with eyes on Bin Laden and finger on the trigger but Clinton did not authorize the hit. Had Bin Laden been taken out at that point (1999?) the 2001 attacks most likely would have never happened.
Probably true.
-
Well, the whole Bin Laden thing was complicated by inter-departmental rivalries. Also, the USA was not yet in a frame of mind to justify extrajudicial killings on the scale that would include a pre-9/11 Bin Laden.
After 9/11, the USA was in that frame of mind and the programs of extrajudicial killings began under Bush and were expanded under Obama.
But back to the topic at hand, I don't doubt the stripper/sex actress' story. The evidence brought up is not of the encounter itself, but of the bungled-up bank transfers that show an attempt to pay her off and to conceal many aspects of the payoff. From the looks of it, it seems to be a classic case of bank fraud, mixed in with billing fraud and campaign finance fraud.
She wouldn't have gotten the money if there weren't any legs to her story. At the same time, I can see how holes could be punched into parts of it, so I'm willing to let that slide. But the money trail... that's the mess that is 100% the doing of Trump and his associates. Even if Ms. Daniels is bogus in her claims, the hush money payoffs were themselves incriminating.
-
She wouldn't have gotten the money if there weren't any legs to her story. At the same time, I can see how holes could be punched into parts of it, so I'm willing to let that slide. But the money trail... that's the mess that is 100% the doing of Trump and his associates. Even if Ms. Daniels is bogus in her claims, the hush money payoffs were themselves incriminating.
Cohen paid her the money without Trump's knowledge. All that means is that he may have believed her or wasn't sure, so being more safe than sorry. Still proves nothing.
-
She wouldn't have gotten the money if there weren't any legs to her story. At the same time, I can see how holes could be punched into parts of it, so I'm willing to let that slide. But the money trail... that's the mess that is 100% the doing of Trump and his associates. Even if Ms. Daniels is bogus in her claims, the hush money payoffs were themselves incriminating.
Cohen paid her the money without Trump's knowledge. All that means is that he may have believed her or wasn't sure, so being more safe than sorry. Still proves nothing.
Giuliani, speaking in the capacity as Trump's lawyer, said that Trump *did* know about the payment.
-
She wouldn't have gotten the money if there weren't any legs to her story. At the same time, I can see how holes could be punched into parts of it, so I'm willing to let that slide. But the money trail... that's the mess that is 100% the doing of Trump and his associates. Even if Ms. Daniels is bogus in her claims, the hush money payoffs were themselves incriminating.
Cohen paid her the money without Trump's knowledge. All that means is that he may have believed her or wasn't sure, so being more safe than sorry. Still proves nothing.
Giuliani, speaking in the capacity as Trump's lawyer, said that Trump *did* know about the payment.
Giuliani also said Trump *did not* know what the payment was for.
-
Cohen paid her the money without Trump's knowledge. All that means is that he may have believed her or wasn't sure, so being more safe than sorry. Still proves nothing.
Bridge in Brooklyn I'm selling...
C'mon now. Trump had no knowledge?
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Cohen paid her the money without Trump's knowledge. All that means is that he may have believed her or wasn't sure, so being more safe than sorry. Still proves nothing.
Bridge in Brooklyn I'm selling...
C'mon now. Trump had no knowledge?
One has to understand the differences in the way some of the people that are super wealthy live. Cohen was Trump's fix-it guy. He had a free hand to take care of problems that his boss was to busy to bother with. So when Cohen would present the boss with a stack of checks to endorse, Trump is not going to ask what every single check is for. Now I know what you are thinking, "but a check for $100,000 ?" Well the sad truth is that $100,000 to Trump is like $10 to you and me.
-
Thing is, given Trump's history, the way his name keeps cropping up whenever Russian Oligarchs are in the news, the fact that he lies so often he's had some of the best lawyers in the land bail on him rather than face disbarment for suborning perjury... I'm inclined to *not* give him a pass in this case. There's too much mess around him for it to all be nothing. And I think there's a real chance there's not only something to all this, there's likely a whole lot more to come.
There's proof enough to get grand juries involved to issue indictments where they raid Trump's personal lawyer's office. That's pretty much what happens just before the RICO indictments start to fly out.
-
No collusion!
-
One has to understand the differences in the way some of the people that are super wealthy live. Cohen was Trump's fix-it guy. He had a free hand to take care of problems that his boss was to busy to bother with. So when Cohen would present the boss with a stack of checks to endorse, Trump is not going to ask what every single check is for. Now I know what you are thinking, "but a check for $100,000 ?" Well the sad truth is that $100,000 to Trump is like $10 to you and me.
No, I wasn't thinking that, haha. If Trump has numerous affairs and this was just another one to hush up, then I could see Cohen not bothering to tell him. He very likely has had numerous affairs actually...so, yeah, maybe.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Why do you guys always assume the worst in someone? :doh:
-
Why do you guys always assume the worst in someone? :doh:
We listen to Black Sabbath, among other things. :smug:
And as for "no collusion"... no, not in *this* indictment.
And think - the GOP has spent more hours grilling the FBI than they have trying to find out more about the Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
-
And as for "no collusion"... no, not in *this* indictment.
Keep dreaming. :rolleyes:
And think - the GOP has spent more hours grilling the FBI than they have trying to find out more about the Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Well when you've got FBI agents spewing obvious bias, what do you expect? The democrats would be doing the same thing if the bias was against Hillary.
-
Why do you guys always assume the worst in someone? :doh:
Why do you defend somebody who's obviously a jackass?
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Why do you guys always assume the worst in someone? :doh:
Why do you defend somebody who's obviously a jackass?
I'm kinda wondering about that too...:)
-
may be off topic , but anyway :
US morality will always amaze me. We are only men with our strengths and our weaknesses. these are increased tenfold when a very rare minority of us accede to power. Power, Money, Sex. Pretty simple and eternal logic of the system. Ditto for music and movies stars.
In England, situations and reactions to the sex scandals are pretty close to the USA. Here, we have a certain perspective on things. During the funeral of François Miterrand, his wife and children were present but also Mazarine, his illegitimate daughter conceived during his presidential era, and her mother. When the news was known throughout France, no one was shocked during the broadcasted ceremony on TV. We had almost compassion for her. It was just love after all.
The case of Francois Hollande was very different. The photos showing him with his helmet riding a scooter in the streets of Paris early in the morning carrying cupcakes to his mistress Julie Gayet were greeted with laughter and mockery. Just ridiculous as the 5 years spent supporting this incompetent socialist. What a poor clown. The broken dishes at the Elysee Palace by Valérie Trierweiller, his official companion, and her late hospitalization for nervous breakdown only prolonged the good joke. The whole country was bent laughing.
Maybe our Astérix side, I don't know ... Until today, none of them fell into the trap of a sex party with whores, except the best of us, Dominique Strauss-Khan. The thing is Dom is out of category.
That being said, our young president and his anorexic old wife makes us laugh less now. Fucking little banker ,Rothschilds and pro-European ultra-liberal lobbying valet.
That being said, I am surprised that the mystery of Hillary unconscious and thrown like a vulgar bag into a black van by the security service agents did not raise more than questions. Very strange sequence. Some talked about a video montage ...
-
Why do you guys always assume the worst in someone? :doh:
Why do you defend somebody who's obviously a jackass?
I guess it depends on your definition of "jackass". To me, if you are 8 years in office, while in the mean time the economy struggles, unemployment increases, the stock market decreases, and other countries take advantage of you, then for those 8 years you acted like a jackass.
-
But a good deal of that narrative is an invention, a fiction made to promote a partisan of the other side. Break it down and it becomes a little less damning for Obama.
Economy struggles: the whole thing went to pieces in Bush II's last year and I was pleasantly surprised that we did NOT have a deeper depression than we did.
Unemployment increases: see above. Again, that we did not have a longer depression was also a pleasant surprise. I was very pessimistic in 2008 that the economic collapse would lead to a trade war, which invariably leads to a real war. Should Trump manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, I'll be quite disappointed. It seems that he is headed that way, as well.
Stock market decreases: There was a sell-off, it was back on the way up at the end of Obama's administration. Natural business/speculative cycle, it will surely head down again.
Other countries take advantage of you: this is the biggest drum of the far right, and it is beaten over and over to justify a dismantling of the multinational, pluralist systems built up after WW2 to prevent a return to nationalist, balance-of-power global politics. We do NOT want strongmen running nations as they please, as that leads to wars. Wars with Maxim guns were bad enough. We do NOT want wars with nuclear weapons.
I'm seeing articles emerging in the defense press that point to a very troubling development for Trump. Normally, the defense press is very supportive of sitting presidents, even if they're Democrats. After all, it's the POTUS that signs that budget, and the defense industry wants it to be as big as it can be. In a normal circumstance, the defense press will talk about new weapons systems, the threats that we're not taking seriously (translation: the new weapon systems we should be buying are as follows...), and the success or issues of current weapon systems.
Lately, the defense press is talking about "growing and legitimate concerns" about Trump's foreign policy. That's a red flag to me. In the last few days, I've read articles about how NATO spending more on defense is not a good thing if the nations either can't afford it or spend it on the wrong stuff, how antagonizing regional and international allies while praising rivals is providing fundamental threats to the continuance of the alliance system the USA built up after WW2, and how Trump's talk of not renewing START would then open up the path for Russia to not only increase its nuclear weapons arsenal, but would also remove diplomatic and intelligence community visibility into Russia's military capability.
If a guy on a music board thinks Trump is a doofus, it's quite likely that the guy in question is a doofus himself. After all, my avatar is of The Dude. Who's to say I'm not as big a doofus as that character?
But if the defense industry press is raising critical concerns about Trump's foreign policy, that is a big warning sign. If they don't want him around because they think he'll be bad for their business (profits are sharply lower in the event of a nuclear war), then they'll make moves to undermine him and right the course of the Republican Party in general. Failing that, it's full-on support of Democratic hawks to return a Clinton-Obama style of neoconservative foreign policy.
I would say that the narrative of the Trump camp is at sharp odds with reality, and that the Trump camp is going to find itself increasingly isolated. It's easier to make friends, and then deals, with more rational and realistic politicians.
-
Economy struggles: the whole thing went to pieces in Bush II's last year and I was pleasantly surprised that we did NOT have a deeper depression than we did.
Unemployment increases: see above. Again, that we did not have a longer depression was also a pleasant surprise.
Well, let's all congratulate Barak Obama for not making a dreadful situation even more dreadful. :doh:
Stock market decreases: There was a sell-off, it was back on the way up at the end of Obama's administration. Natural business/speculative cycle, it will surely head down again.
Baloney. Markets shot up because Trump rescinded many of Obama policies that were unfriendly to businesses.
-
It's easy to make a dreadful situation more dreadful... look what Hoover did with the start of the Great Depression. Just sayin'.
And the DJIA is a measure not of actual production, but of speculative feelings among investors in America. GDP grew for a very long time under Obama, what with the natural recovery in the business cycle and all.
Either give top marks to Obama for getting that GDP back where it needed to be, or leave all that economic/speculative stuff to cycles that run independently of US presidents.
-
Well there is no denying that during Obama's administration the US national debt more than tripled and that his economical actions (or non actions) helped to facilitate a world wide depression.
Also he spent money that the country did not have to make changes that helped to deepen the economical pit the country was falling into.
Obama might have a charismatic leader and had a good on camera presense but as a president he was dreadful...especially from an economical point of view...but he also helped devide the country even more than it ever was.
This is coming from the eyes of an outside observer.
-
I deny it, so, yes, there's denying it, lol.
The debt increases under every president.
The economy rebounded under Obama.
Endless regurgitated talking points...
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
I recommend "This Time It's Different" by Reinhart and Rogoff. The debt did not triple, it increased by the entirely predictable 150-210 percent that national debt increases by during a sovereign debt crisis.
One should note that removing restrictions on banking and brokerage activities, such as Trump and Congress have recently done, will produce short-term run-ups in markets at a cost of increased underlying instability that will deepen the resulting crash.
We were very lucky indeed after 2008, but have not done enough shoring up and discharging of bad debt to prepare us for the next crash.
Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
-
So, how about that summit?
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
So, how about that summit?
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
LOL
-
So, how about that summit?
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
LOL
I would think it went well.
I mean I *wouldn't* think it went well. There are many summits. Both good and bad. It's hard to say. I'm sure they made some good deals about the cyber and the nuclear and Putin promised not to collude in the 2020 election.
-
I would think it went well.
I mean I *wouldn't* think it went well. There are many summits. Both good and bad. It's hard to say. I'm sure they made some good deals about the cyber and the nuclear and Putin promised not to collude in the 2020 election.
Well said. By which I mean while sad...
Look, if you were a diplomat and somebody from the press asked you to condemn the guy standing next to you, with whom you are supposed to be diplomacizing, then, after maybe calling into question why you're even holding a press conference with this turd, maybe, you'd also probably kiss the dictator's ass in public. Right?
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Mr. Trump certainly had no problem with trashing leaders that were properly diplomatically elected to their faces.
I watched him this morning on the news and he's saying he wasn't going to go screaming and yelling to Putin like some people wanted. I don't believe anyone wanted that. We wanted him to show us the strength of a Nixon or a Reagan.
And never mind what comment Trump is walking back. The fact that he's walking back ANY comment made in such a setting indicates something went off the rails - probably when he went off his script.
-
There was a time, not too long ago, that behaving that way would cause a person to be hung for treason.
We're much more enlightened 'round these parts nowadays. I nominate the POTUS for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I mean, come on, talk about giving yourself a reach around, I mean reaching across the aisle!
-
More news this morning about the Senate passing a unanimous resolution to not allow US citizens to be interrogated by Russians, which Trump proposed as a good idea at Helsinki.
Party affiliation and aims aside, I see this as a follower of politics and realize that a president that manages to alienate Congress with his words and actions is a president headed towards impeachment. With the smoke around Trump, I'm sure there's a fire there somewhere that can serve as the basis of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to justify the political move to impeach and then convict.
Clinton was impeached, but there was no real chance he was going to be convicted. Andrew Johnson was impeached, but no so unpopular as to get the necessary votes for impeachment. Nixon was unpopular enough, but resigned as the House prepared articles of impeachment.
Trump is not popular now, and should the Democrats do as well as they are projected to do in the 2018 elections, he will be less popular when the new Congress is seated in 2019. I used to think that he'd be a lame duck for his last two years and then be out as a one-termer, but now I think that Mike Pence might finish out Trump's term.
-
Oh, and by the way
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/20/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-playboy-model-recording/index.html
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Oh, and by the way
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/20/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-playboy-model-recording/index.html
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Yeah, there's that.
I read a lawyer blog that says Cohen was, legally speaking, a negligent idiot for recording his clients' conversations. One of the worst things a lawyer can do when conversing with a client, particularly about matters that are unprivileged, such as planning how to evade the law, also known as "criminal activity."
-
Typhon, Charger, come quick! Trump needs you!
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
I've taken a peek at the Carter Page surveillance warrant... daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang...
Mr. Page has a lot of explaining to do and "fake news!" ain't gonna cut it. Trump and Co.'s constant trashing of the nation's top cops sounds more and more like some kind of scenery-chewing gangster in a 1930s crime flick.
"YOU CAN'T CATCH ME, YOU FLATFOOT COPPERS! GO HELP SOME OLD LADIES ACROSS THE ROAD AND GET OUTTA MY WAY!" ... or something like that.
We have laws, and law enforcement is enforcing those laws. I know quite a few folks that voted for Trump are of the mind that if the police are issuing search warrants, that target is probably guilty. Same logic seems very valid here.
-
Trump has changed his tune from "no collusion!!" to "collusion is not a crime." Yikes.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Trump has changed his tune from "no collusion!!" to "collusion is not a crime." Yikes.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Technically, it's the conspiracy that's the federally-defined crime. But, yeah, collusion happened. It's a disgrace. The guy's like a villain out of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang...
-
Just like the mainstream media, you guys tell only half of the story. :naughty: Yes, Trump said collusion is not a crime. He then stated that it doesn't matter anyway, because there was no collusion.
-
Just like the mainstream media, you guys tell only half of the story. :naughty: Yes, Trump said collusion is not a crime. He then stated that it doesn't matter anyway, because there was no collusion.
But just in case y'all find out there really is collusion, which it now seems you will, I'll add this new bit about collusion not being a crime, and all my talking heads will parrot me, and forums across the land will be abuzz with my new little ear worm, and in the end, that's all that matters.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Just like the mainstream media, you guys tell only half of the story. :naughty: Yes, Trump said collusion is not a crime. He then stated that it doesn't matter anyway, because there was no collusion.
There was alleged conspiracy, and that's the legal term for the collusion. This story has the same drip-drip-drip that went with Watergate.
If there was no collusion, it's a moot issue to argue if it was a crime or not. If there was collusion, then it's vital to change the argument from discussions of conspiracy, either before the fact or after the fact, with a foreign power. Given that Giuliani has done a pig's breakfast of a job as lawyer, we have a scenario in which the Trump team knew about the meeting with the Russian operatives, that Trump was aware of it and dictated statements that meeting participants should give to the press, and then Trump and his team proceeded to cover up the meeting. When the meeting couldn't be covered up, they lied about the agenda of the meeting. When that was shown to be a lie, they went with the "Well, the info on Hillary wasn't a big nothing."
Doesn't matter if the info they wanted from the Russians was a big nothing. They did all that conspiracy with a foreign power for no benefit and massive future liability, which is coming home to haunt them now.
-
2 years from now I'm going to dig up some of these posts, so we can all recognize how delusional you guys were. :))
-
2 years from now I'm going to dig up some of these posts, so we can all recognize how delusional you guys were. :))
It's OK. You don't have to be right. :D
-
2 years from now I'm going to dig up some of these posts, so we can all recognize how delusional you guys were. :))
Famous last words... :))
-
2 years from now I'm going to dig up some of these posts, so we can all recognize how delusional you guys were. :))
Haha. Shall I dig up the part where you went on about Trump not knowing about paying off Stormy and then have you listen to the Michael Cohen tape about Karen McDougall? If you pay me off I'll keep it secret. But make sure to pay cash.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Since you guys are now conspiring against me, I will have to refer all of you to my attorney.
(https://s20.postimg.cc/4eaqj22dp/attorney.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YNxPZLeA-2E/Vs9r12MZACI/AAAAAAAAAVI/s2Yh60EaQ8g/s1600/I-guess-I-shouldn%2527t-be-surprised-I-have-to-tell-you-this.-But-it%2527s-probably-a-bad-idea-that-you-willingly-talk-to-the-police%252C-being-a-criminal-and-all..jpg)
-
In case any of you would like a good laugh. :)
-
Yes, let's change the subject(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180806/60fde6b6254b0d30864886f240aa0b58.jpg)
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
-
So far, the meeting has gone from what meeting? to oh, that meeting about adoption and now to, yes it was about dirt on Clinton.
Trump's knowledge about it has gone from none, to ignored, to he helped Don Jr. write his response now back to none.
Changing stories coupled with rationalization (everyone was doing it, who wouldn't do it, it's no big deal) goes along with a worst case scenario.
Applying some of the jingoist law and order logic I've heard from staunch GOP die-hards over the years, "If you're being investigated, you're pretty much guilty."
The only reason the Cohen tapes would be in a state to be leaked to the media would be that they've passed through the overseer of the evidence seized from his office and were determined to be non-privileged. The only non-privileged stuff would be things like "could you pick up some milk on the way home from work" or where the lawyer is advising how to commit a crime or is involved in the preparations for the commission of a crime. The stuff on the tape wasn't about picking up a gallon of milk, so it is linked to criminal activity and, therefore, non-privileged.
Also therefore, Donald J. Trump was involved in criminal activity during the course of his 2016 campaign. We've got several different threads of criminal activity that we know of, more may yet emerge.
-
2 years from now I'm going to dig up some of these posts, so we can all recognize how delusional you guys were. :))
You can't do that here. If you want to dig up old posts and such you need to go over to BSO >:D