Sean was not very interested in discussing Trump's Good Day, so here is what he would like to discuss.
"Everything I have said in this thread has been *if* what Cohen is saying is true. You yourself said you think Trump knew about the meeting.
So what's the threshold that has to met for you? Why are you so reluctant to talk about it or offer any sort of opinion about this? You ran multiple threads on the merits of impeaching Obama where you opined freely on the pros/cons. (Oops, your bias is showing again!)" SeanNow just for the record...
"Please remember that I was actually against the silly Conservatives who thought impeaching Obama made sense.
"J, Maybe you can enlighten me and save me some research. With some Conservatives openly dreaming of impeaching Obama, could you tell me what grounds they are imagining using? I may not always agree with the President, however this seems a bit out there. Thoughts?" G2A
"I don't think I ever said I supported impeaching him. Or encouraged anyone to do so. Please note the question mark in the post's title. Hiram and yourself said it would be a big deal if it happened and that the GOP and/or country would be damaged if they took that action. I said that ~50% of the population would support or not be against it. As for grounds, here is what one group thinks... It does seem they would need a better smoking gun to sway that middle 20%." G2A
I am happy to discuss the pros / cons here however I think you want to just "get out the rope"... Kind of like Jerry wanted to do when Obama was President. In both cases I recommend letting the process work." G2A
Since I was not for impeaching Bush or Obama, I will need to do some research on what offenses are cause for impeachment.
Heritage Stds for Impeachment
Heritage Stds for Impeachment
The VOX piece was pretty fascinating, and based on it I don't think Trump is going anywhere anytime soon. At least as long as the GOP holds a majority in the House of Representatives.
Now for the question... Should he be impeached? At this time and based on what has been proven, I would say no.
If Michael Cohen can prove that Trump knew about the meeting with the Russians before it occurred. And Trump has been lying to us citizens for 1+ years about the topic, then I think he should be impeached. Not necessarily because he knew about the meeting, but because he LIED about this very serious topic.
Also, he should be impeached if it is proven that he turned into such a panzy in front of Putin because he is compromised.
104 comments:
Sure.
--Hiram
ROFL! If what Cohen said is true, then Trump knew that Don, Jr. took a meeting with a lobbyist who wanted to alter a law about adoption of Russian orphans, under the pretense of some "dirt" on Hillary colluding with the Russian government. She lied; nothing of value was exchanged or offered, and the meeting was short. IF Trump knew, remembered and lied about it, which is a big if, there was absolutely no crime or high misdemeanor to any of it. There wasn't a "coverup" because there was no criminal act to cover up. The meeting was well known and was not a crime in itself. And lies by politicians are so routine as to not be worth comment. Lies under oath, as Clinton did, /might/ be impeachable, though again, the lie was not over an underlying criminal act, however distasteful it was.
In any event all this high dudgeon, hue and cry and hissy fit is almost laughably extreme and outrageous.
Jerry,
What would Trump need to be guilty of before you would support impeaching him?
We know that he lies to the American people often.
We know that he acted like a subservient fawning fan boy in the presence of Putin during the Helsinki press conference.
Now remember that you would have happily impeached Obama for much less.
So are you willing to hold Trump accountable for his behaviors and poor character, or only politicians from the other tribe?
And please remember what I said.
"If Michael Cohen can prove that Trump knew about the meeting with the Russians before it occurred. And Trump has been lying to us citizens for 1+ years about the topic, then I think he should be impeached. Not necessarily because he knew about the meeting, but because he LIED about this very serious topic.
Also, he should be impeached if it is proven that he turned into such a panzy in front of Putin because he is compromised."
The standard in the constitution is "high crimes and misdemeanors", but really the standard is whatever the Congress says that it is. If the point were really to find grounds for impeachment, Mueller could open up an investigation into Trump's business career. But he has chosen not to to dot that, mostly. The argument that America knew he was a crook when they elected him is not without merit.
--Hiram
"We know that he lies to the American people often.
We know that he acted like a subservient fawning fan boy in the presence of Putin during the Helsinki press conference."
Who is this "we" you speak of? I know of absolutely no such thing, certainly not in the terms you use. You will have a tough time impeaching a President based on your highly biased opinion of what has actually transpired. You would need overwhelming and concrete evidence opf something criminal. If mere annoyance and incompetence were a crime, Obama wouldn't have lasted a year.
"Now remember that you would have happily impeached Obama for much less." My memory must be failing me, because I remember no such thing. Not only that, but it would be pretty difficult to find "much less" than what you are accusing Trump of.
"So are you willing to hold Trump accountable for his behaviors and poor character, or only politicians from the other tribe?"
I am willing to hold all politicians to the same standards AT THE POLLS, but I must include in their "behaviors" the expected policies they will work for, and balance that against any character flaws as =I= see them. This puts Democrats of all stripes at a severe disadvantage, IMHO, because they lack both character and practical policy preferences.
Who is this "we" you speak of?
Of course we is everyone. We all knew Donald was a crook, and we all know he lies to us constantly.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Please forgive Jerry, he has entered the Trump True Believer cult.
He is only allowed to see The world through Trump’s eyes.
All other views, news, comments,etc are just fake news.
"She lied; nothing of value was exchanged or offered, and the meeting was short."
Everyone involved with this meeting has been lying about it for two years, why should we believe their description of the contents of the meeting? Especially given where it lies within the timeline of the Russian activities unveiled in Mueller indictment of the 12 members of Russian intelligence...
"Not necessarily because he knew about the meeting, but because he LIED about this very serious topic."
Why is meeting with Russian intelligence to conspire to meddle in the election not sufficient?
It's fascinating how we've gone from:
“I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does.” - Donald Trump, 1/16/17
to
"Working with Russian intelligence to win elections is totally cool!" - many Trump supporters today
Sean,
Now we will need to some way know that they knew they were "Russian Government Agents".
And not just some Russian citizens with dirty on Hillary.
I am only as convinced of Trump's "innocence" as you rabid Trump-haters are of his guilt, of.... something.
Jerry,
Well I personally have no hate for Trump, however I certainly do not approve of his lying to the American citizens on a regular basis for political gain. And to sow discord in America.
Now that link just documents where Trump had to change his position when the proof became solid... How many more times is ok?
"Now we will need to some way know that they knew they were "Russian Government Agents"."
If you're expecting to see their KGB employee badge, I think you'll be left wanting. But there are things like this:
Newsmax: Emails: Lawyer Who Met Trump Jr. Tied to Russian Officials
"The Moscow lawyer said to have promised Donald Trump's presidential campaign dirt on his Democratic opponent worked more closely with senior Russian government officials than she previously let on, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
Scores of emails, transcripts and legal documents paint a portrait of Natalia Veselnitskaya as a well-connected attorney who served as a ghostwriter for top Russian government lawyers and received assistance from senior Interior Ministry personnel in a case involving a key client."
Or this:
The Hill: Russian from Trump Tower meeting: 'I am a lawyer, and I am an informant'
"And in an interview set to be broadcast Friday on "NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt” and on MSNBC's "On Assignment with Richard Engel," Veselnitskaya calls herself an "informant" for the Russian government, an admission that goes further than her previous claims of just being a private attorney.
“I am a lawyer, and I am an informant,” she says in the NBC interview. “Since 2013, I have been actively communicating with the office of the Russian prosecutor general.”"
Then of course there is Trump's reluctance to blame Russia and hold them accountable
As proven by his in implementing legislature imposed sanctions.
" I personally have no hate for Trump"
Sorry, I thought we were having a contest on who could most extremely mis-characterize the other side of a debate.
Sean,
I guess I am more interested in what the Trump personnel knew at that time. Not what we have learned since.
I agree that it was stupid and irresponsible for them to meet with Russians... I just don't know if it is illegal...
Jerry,
Are you really okay with your President lying to you often?
Jerry,
Given his history how would anyone know when he is telling the truth?
"I agree that it was stupid and irresponsible for them to meet with Russians... I just don't know if it is illegal..."
There are several laws on the books regarding foreign involvement in (and working with foreigners in relation to) elections. Also, keep in mind that you can be impeached for activities that aren't illegal, but rather represent an abuse of power.
"I guess I am more interested in what the Trump personnel knew at that time. "
The e-mail sent to Don Jr. regarding the meeting said:
"in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"
CNN: The email exchange Trump Jr. released, in chronological order
You can keep looking for the exit door here, but I'm not sure you're going find it.
Watch out, lets you get run over by a shifting goalpost.
WaPo: Rudy Giuliani just obliterated the goal posts on Trump-Russia collusion
"Trump's lawyer/spokesman Rudolph W. Giuliani appeared on Fox News's and CNN's morning shows on Monday to downplay the idea that colluding with the Russians would have even been illegal and to argue against strawmen.
The most notable portion of the interviews was when Giuliani rekindled the idea that collusion isn't even a crime. Trump's defenders have occasionally noted that the word doesn't appear in the criminal code — which is a misnomer — but Giuliani took it a step further: He basically suggested Trump would have had to pay for Russia to interfere on his behalf."
I can't wait to see what the Mueller probe concludes... :-)
"Are you really okay with your President lying to you often?"
John, isn't it up to me to judge what the President says as truthful or not? It is certainly not up to you, in my behalf. I honestly don't know where you guys get this stuff.
Jerry,
Did you even bother to read this source that ‘fake news’ decried by Trump turns out to be true?
- Trump knew nothing about Daniels, McDougal or payoffs
- Trump had no role in Trump Jr.’s statement on Russia meeting
- Michael Flynn did not discuss sanctions with the Russians
- Trump did not give classified information to Russia
In all of these cases the Trump Org blatantly told us US citizens one thing until they got caught in the lie. Then they reversed the story later.
Why doesn't this bother you?
Or are you able to somehow deny this is happening regularly?
And then there are the ever changing stories from his flunkies.
"John, isn't it up to me to judge what the President says as truthful or not?"
So, now truth is subjective? You really have drunk the orange kook-aid.
Moose
Here is a more complete list of Trumps False Statements.
How are you able to ignore his continuous stream of mistruths?
Moose,
Could you have imagined Jerry saying that about Obama?
"How are you able to ignore his continuous stream of mistruths?"
First off, I would have to believe they were untruthful. By the time I consider the source of the charge and weigh other information, I end up in doubt, at best. Then I generally ignore most of it as an attempted distraction from what is important. Why are you so insistent that I must see Trump as a liar, and what difference does it make?
Lunacy
Moose
Jerry,
It is your choice if you want to look at Trump with rose colored glasses or not. I personally try to always face reality, then make a decision. Self deception does not sit well with me personally.
In this case I have no doubt that Trump is a pathological liar and exaggerator. I don't even need to look at sources to know this. It started right away when he claimed the "largest inauguration crowd in history", when the photos clearly indicated his error... And continued right up to the other day when he had claimed he knew nothing about the playboy centerfold mistress pay off, and then a tape with him talking about it shows up.
Why is it important for you a block acknowledgement of all these mistruths?
Personally I can disagree with his lying and attacking, and still see his good side.
Does your acknowledging his "warts" prevent you from supporting him? Therefore you need to deny their existence?
My wild guess prediction of what the future holds for Trump: Mueller will wrap up the investigation with in the next year. There will be enough evidence of high crimes to impeach Trump. The house, which will be held by dems after the election, will vote to impeach (though with a slim majority there may not be enough votes.) There will not be a super majority in the Senate to convict and Trump will finish out his term. Trump will lose the 2020 election.
Anybody else care to try to predict the future?
Laurie, no. I want you to be happy and if that "rosy" prediction does it for you, great.
"Why is it important for you a block acknowledgement of all these mistruths?"
Right now I am blocking acknowledgement that the sun will burn out in 3 billion years. I won't acknowledge the truth that one day an asteroid will hit us. I am deliberately ignoring anything to do with Caitlyn Jenner or Rosie O'Donnell or Whoopi Goldberg. I'm not terribly concerned about which TV shows are cancelled for this season. In other words, I try to not sweat the inconsequential, trivial, or irrelevant, and Trump's "character" or lack thereof does not impact my paycheck or happiness. The tax cut does.
Laurie,
You are probably correct, if the DEMs can take the majority in Congress.
As for if Trump would win or lose in 2020, I think it would depend if the DEMs find their way back to the middle or if they keep moving left.
"I try to not sweat the inconsequential, trivial, or irrelevant, and Trump's "character" or lack thereof does not impact my paycheck or happiness. The tax cut does."
So does this mean that you acknowledge that we need to take everything Trump says with a big grain of salt?
At what point will his lies become "consequential" to you?
Maybe this explains why older people seem so susceptible to Trump's methods.
Trumps Lies vs Your Brain
PT How Trump Lies Differently
This one would explain a lot...
USA Today Root Cause of Trump Lies and Reversals
"So does this mean that you acknowledge that we need to take everything Trump says with a big grain of salt?"
Let me try to help you. I don't take salt. I don't pay much attention to what Trump says or tweets, though I must confess a certain perverse pleasure in watching the media explode all over themselves about it. I think it's just part of the show, most of the time, while the real work goes on behind the scene, and that's what I care about.
Yes, indeed. The real work is dismantling our republican democracy and turning it over to the oligarchs, shitting on the poor and elderly, destroying our environment, and making enemies of our allies. Nobody with a brain (Trump supporters need not apply) is foolish enough to believe that the "show" is what it's really about.
Moose
That pretty much is the definition of self deception, denial and rationalization.
So if you don't actually listen to Trump...
How do you know that the media is the one spreading falsehoods?
And not Trump?
I mean you are pretty adamant usually the Trump is correct and the media is incorrect...
Did you buy into Trump's "don't believe what you are seeing, just trust me"...
My old Daddy used to say, "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see." Tweets and media I hear. Tax cuts and better foreign policy I see. It may be half bad, but infinitely better than what the media are telling me. And when media and Democrats are solidly aligned in opposition to every word, I suspect Trump is on the right side of whatever underlying issue is involved, tweet storms notwithstanding.
So much for evaluating and analyzing...
It sounds like you are saying... "I trust people who agree with me and say / do what I like"...
Which of course is in essence confirmation bias at its finest.
Which is fine, but I just find it interesting to hear you admit that you are so strongly confirmation biased. Usually you claim to have evaluated the facts and formed your own opinion.
I don't think anyone here will be surprised though because your comments are usually too general and aligned with tribe conservative to be unique to your own analysis.
you forgot "IMHO." You see confirmation bias because you cannot conceive of a contrary viewpoint based in fact and analysis.
Sounds like you are admitting that I am generally right. Or that anything "aligned with tribe conservative" is always wrong. Which is it?
Nope. I agree with Tribe Conservative on some things and Tribe Liberal on some things and neither on others.
And I do have to listen to both sides to determine who is telling the truth in each case. However when you write something like this...
"And when media and Democrats are solidly aligned in opposition to every word, I suspect Trump is on the right side of whatever underlying issue is involved, tweet storms notwithstanding."
It means that you are judging truth and factuality based on stereotypes and generalities. Certainly not a good method, especially when dealing with an individual like Trump. A man who lives to manipulate people like the Pied Piper played for rats...
So /I/ am dealing in stereotypes, but Trump is the Pied Piper? Remember the surveys that said Rush Limbaugh's audience is far more knowledgeable than the average citizen?
Pew
As for judging truth, how else do you do it? You evaluate based on your experience and knowledge. If you know the media is massively biased and you routinely hear liberals say stupid stuff like "free college for everybody," then what they say about Trump has less value than what you might see and hear and make up your own mind about.
You did not link to PEW, you linked to an Opinion piece that apparently cherry picked the original piece.
And yes Rush and Hannity listeners would know who controlled the house back then because Rush and Hannity would both have been bemoaning it everyday on their shows.
Where as the normal outlets would not have cared as much.
Here's a detailed breakdown of the percentage of individuals answering each of the three questions correctly from the different news audiences:
•The New Yorker/Atlantic: 71 percent (correctly identified Democrats as the majority in the House), 71 percent (correctly identified Condoleezza Rice), 59 percent (correctly identified Gordon Brown)
•NPR: 73 percent, 72 percent, 57percent
•Hannity & Colmes: 84 percent, 73 percent, 49 percent
•Rush Limbaugh: 83 percent, 71 percent, 41 percent
•Colbert Report: 73 percent, 65 percent, 49 percent
•Daily Show: 65 percent, 48 percent, 36 percent
•NewsHour: 66 percent, 52 percent, 47 percent
•O'Reilly Factor: 70 percent, 60 percent, 41 percent
•C-SPAN: 63 percent, 59 percent, 35 percent
•Letterman/Leno: 51 percent, 42 percent, 31 percent
•CNN: 59 percent, 48 percent, 29 percent
•National Enquirer: 44 percent, 32 percent, 22 percent
Now I do agree that nerds like us who watch this stuff more closely will be more informed. It probably has little to do with our choice of news outlet.
Especially on general fact based questions like who controls the House, who is ?, etc.
"As for judging truth, how else do you do it?"
Well with Trump it is pretty easy...
- He says the "biggest crowd ever", you look at the photos and say... --- He is lying"
- He says he knew nothing about Daniels, McDougal or payoffs. Then later a tape appears with him talking about the payoffs. --- He lied.
- He says he had no role in Trump Jr.’s statement on Russia meeting. Then later we learn that he did. --- He lied.
- He says he did not give classified information to Russia. Later we learn he did. --- He lied.
I mean it takes minutes to check Trump and the Fact Checkers in most cases. Trump's lies are just that extreme and often unnecessary.
John, I thought you knew. There are no absolute truths. Truth is simply something we each judge for ourselves. Is there anything more Trumpian than that? I don't think so.
Moose
Now I was willing to give:
Bush some latitude when he thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and when he thought the mission was accomplished when the Iraqis were freed.
And Obama when he thought we could keep our Doctors...
These were forward looking or uncertain things.
But when one says. I did not know about hush payments to my mistresses, and then a tape shows up with him talking about hush payments to his mistresses... I can not even stretch my rationalizing that far.
That takes a real Trump True Believer to do so. :-)
Except there is absolutely no evidence of Trump making "hush payments to mistresses"! What you have is a lot of innuendo and hearsay, amplified by a Trump-hating media. And about what? trivialities.
WMD indicators WERE found in IRAQ, every intelligence agency on the planet thought so, and Saddam bragged about it constantly. Where is the lie?
Obama probably did not know, so blinded was he by thoughts of his own omnipotency and omhniscience. But in practical terms he stated it as an absolute, yet it was a huge untruth, to the detriment of all of us. It was the "lie of the year."
Again, why is it so important to you to be able to say "Trump lied"?
Just again yesterday, the media where all aghast saying that you need an ID to buy groceries. "LIE!" they say. Yet if you want to cash a check for groceries, or use an EBT card, you DO have to have ID. They could not report on the essence of what he said, that many common activities require ID but voting does not. No...
Oh, and I think I've just answered my own question.
I'm sorry, we're supposed to know the "essence" of what he said? Am I supposed to trust a lunatic like you to tell me what he actually meant? What kind of nonsense is that? He said what he said. It is a fact that "you need an ID to buy groceries" is false.
Moose
And it is a fact that you don't need an ID to vote. That is true. Now which idea is more important?
Jerry,
Please feel free to disagree with Trump's own words.
And I don't see people calling Trump a liar over his foolish quote...
I hear people saying he is disconnected from the real world that normal people live in.
Seems true to me...
When he makes major screw ups like this it is really hard to take anything he say seriously. Either
A. He is incompetent at public speaking correctly
B. He is intentionally mis-speaking to manipulate people
"We believe that only American citizens should vote in American elections, which is why the time has come for voter ID, like everything else. Voter ID," Trump told the crowd of supporters gathered at the Florida State Fairgrounds.
"You know, if you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID," Trump continued. "You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture."
He added that "the only time you don't need it in many cases is when you want to vote for a president, when you want to vote for a senator, when you want to vote for a governor or a congressman. It's crazy."
Kind of like his supposed would / wouldn't thing...
You continue to prove my point. This is not about what Trump said or didn't say; this is an attempt to discredit him generally, and by extension everything else he does or says. It's "fake news" because it concentrates on the trivial and distracts from the substantive.
You think collusion with Russia is trivial. The intelligent folks think it's substantive.
Moose
Has Trump said he has colluded with Russia? The "intelligence folks" didn't even know the Steele dossier was created by Russian propagandists.
Jerry,
If the Clinton campaign had met with Russian operatives you would have been going through the roof. Since it was the Trump folks it is okay...
I will never understand how the tribe members do this rationalizing and double standard thing.
Trump does it again
So how, exactly, did Clinton arrange that Uranium One deal, in exchange for millions of dollars into her personal accounts, without meeting "Russian operatives"?
Jerry,
You can keep trying to distract from the issue of Trump's poor character and questionable actions... However that is the topic that is relevant today.
So let's say that both Clinton and Trump are in with the Russians...
How do you rationalize that it is okay for Trump etal to do so?
Let's NOT say that both Clinton and Trump are "in with the Russians"? I don't rationalize it away, there seems no rational basis for saying so in the first place. This whole discussion about "Trump's character" is a distraction from the pursuit of good public policy. Should Trump have punched Putin in the nose? That's what some Democrats seem to suggest.
Not punching required...
However continuing to say this during his speeches... Hours after his security chiefs announced that Russia was still at it... Definitely not good
"In Helsinki, I had a great meeting with Putin," Trump said at a rally in Pennsylvania just hours after his top national security officials decried Russian attempts to influence US elections. "We discussed everything. ... We got along really well. By the way, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Now we're being hindered by the Russian hoax -- it's a hoax, OK?"
Sounds pretty much right on the truth to me. "We" (the administration) is being hindered because Democrats in Congress keep insisting that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election. The evidence suggests it is a hoax. Russians probably meddled in our politics, with fake Facebook accounts and such, but Obama interfered in foreign elections, and our biased press is certainly meddling in our politics to this day, and to a much greater degree.
I suppose Trump could have been tough, like Obama, and told Putin to "cut it out," though that doesn't seem to have been very effective.
Jerry,
How does having Mueller investigating in anyway stop Trump from doing his job?
Mueller never says a word... Trump and his lawyers are the only ones with blow horns discussing it on the news.
It looks like Obama had 2 months to act and Conservatives would have cried foul if he had acted aggressively.
Whereas Trump has had years... And he has done pretty much nothing.
Mueller isn't the problem, except that he exists. It is Democrats who are using Mueller as an excuse for not doing THEIR job, and for obstructing Trump from doing his.
The GOP obstructed Obama for 6 years, the DEMs will do the same with or without a probe.
That is the reality of two tribes being so polarized.
Trump is just using the probe as a distraction and something to excite his base. If he stopped talking about it we would hear little about it.
Well that and if he stopped kissing up to Putin like a submissive lackey.
Polarization may be the problem, but to claim "both sides do it" is completely missing the point. That being that it matters substantially WHAT is being obstructed.
To say "Trump is using the probe as a distraction" implies that Trump deliberately caused the probe, which is obvious nonsense. The probe is a travesty of justice, contrived to cover up the massive criminality and collusion of the Clinton campaign.
He kind of did cause the probe.
Did you read that timeline of how often Trump’s people communicated with Russians?
Then there was his firing Comey and telling 60 minutes it was because of Russia issues...
And now he brings it up every time he can to rile the true believers...
Also, please remember that Trump’s nominees signed off on the investigation and are keeping it open no matter what Trump claims.
Oh, piffle. Are we going to get this excited because a few people connected to the Trump campaign met with ITALIAN citizens? Australians? Germans? Isn't a Presidential candidate supposed to have SOME idea of what foreign policy is, things like knowing Israel is in the Middle East?
And doesn't having the Russians show support for Trump fulfill their intent to sow discord and distrust of the American political system? After all, he was the outsider, wild card, the guy who could hot possibly win. If anything, they were helping Hillary by helping her least electable opponent. And how do we KNOW the Russians were the ones that hacked the DNC? The FBI was never permitted to look at their servers, and it is well known that some hacks deliberately leave fake "Russian footprints."
This isn't Teapot Dome, more like Tempest in a Teapot.
Well we will see what else the investigation shows...
By the way, Italy, Australia and Germany are all allies of the USA and not working to infiltrate our social media.
Maybe Trump and yourself are just Commie Lovers... wasn’t that bad thing some years back?
The "investigation" hasn't turned up one d**d thing to warrant its existence. Now they are reduced to looking at Trump tweets for evidence of "obstruction," and they cannot even say obstruction of WHAT? Unless it is the witch hunt this always was.
Italy and Germany were the "enemy," just in our lifetime, and have their own interests at heart even today (as they should). We don't KNOW if they are working in our social media, but we do know that Democrats make a huge effort there, distorting our politics every bit as much or more.
And "Trump and [I]" are not the ones loudly proclaiming ourselves Socialists. We're the MAGA people and it is Democrats trying to stop us. Face it, this whole "Russia,
Russia, Russia" thing is a distraction from and attempt to stymie the legitimately elected President from his desirable policy initiatives. It's searching for an excuse for why Hillary, the worst Democrat candidate in history, lost.
By the way, "commie" was always a misnomer. USSR was the SOCIALIST Republics, and socialism was supposed to be the smooth path to the ultimate utopia of communism. That has not worked out as theory predicted.
the funny
Let us repeat...
Putin just last month in Helsinki said he wanted Trump to Win
That does not sound like the words of someone who is being "beaten up"... It sounds like the words of a fellow collaborator... :-)
These comics are probably more accurate
Trump is not responsible for the people who support him, and there is no conspiracy until something of value is traded, or action taken to advance the conspiracy. If 17 Trump-hating investigators, $14 million and 18 months cannot find it, maybe it's time to start thinking there's "no there, there."
Or maybe you believe the CIA killed Kennedy, or 9/11 was an inside job, or Americans never actually landed on the moon?
The "buck stops" with the candidate / President. Of course he is responsible for the actions of his campaign leaders.
Compared to other Special investigations. This one is just getting started.
And please remember that Rosenstein and Mueller are Republicans.
And even better yet... Trump appointed Rosenstein...
This is the funniest part of Trump's "17 angry Democrats" silliness...
"Regardless, any recommendations brought by those lawyers have to flow through Mueller, who was first appointed to lead the FBI by George W. Bush and who is a registered Republican. Any charges also have to get the sign-off of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, also a Republican and a man who serves in his position after having been appointed to it by Trump himself. (Rosenstein also appointed Mueller, after Sessions recused himself from investigations dealing with the 2016 election.)"
We have an investigation that is run by Trump's appointees and Republicans and Trump is complaining... :-)
Not just that but they are bring charges against people...
I am guessing that is what makes Trump most scared.
Charges which have absolutely nothing to do with the supposed reason for the investigation, and some of it is already running into legal trouble of its own. For example, the first group of Russian hackers, indicted in absentia, found a US attorney and demanded defendant's right to "discovery." That case will probably never again see the light of day. The unrelated case against Manafort is in trouble, too, and you may notice NOT being pursued by Mueller and his team. They're scrambling to justify their existence, and at this point if they cannot voluntarily stop what appears to be a witch hunt, they should be fired for incompetence. Unless somebody finds a blue dress and Trump lies about it under oath, we're all wasting our time and neurons.
But her emails...
Apparently SHE lied. If your meaning is that is what "agents" do, you could have a point, but it is pretty hard to collude with somebody who lies about what they are offering.
If your intent is to collude, but it doesn't quite work out, are you guilty of attempting collusion?
I mean, if your intent is to murder, but the person doesn't die, are you guilty of anything?
Moose
Moose,
I think we have confirmed that Jerry has:
One legal standard for Democrats
and
Another for Republicans
Jerry,
Do you remember that long and drawn out White Water investigation? It got a President impeached for fibbing about a new sexual adventure...
If Trump does not learn to close his mouth and filter his twitter... It is just a matter of time until he gets into legal trouble.
And yes Trump and his lawyers want to keep him from testifying under oath because they know he can not make it through a simple interview without mixing up his past lies...
No, I don't. Nor an investigation of Bill's Excellent Sexual Adventures, nor of Uranium One, nor of a private server-- a de facto violation of federal law and national security. So I think an investigation of Russian collusion and election tampering that, by all evidence and occasional open admission, has no basis in fact, is applying a HIGHER standard (or Lower, depending on your viewpoint) legal standard.
I notice the NYT is taking your same line, that Trump's recent "admission" that the purpose of the meeting with a Russian lobbyist was opposition research--i.e. dirt on Hillary-- as showing his original statement a lie. Any reasonable reading of it shows the opposite, that the two statements are entirely consistent and both point to nothing whatsoever illegal, conspiratorial or "national security" related. The horse is dead. Quit whipping.
It seems to me that most folks see the President's shifting story as suspicious... I certainly do...
And apparently even Fox News is reporting on it
Well maybe this will be a good reminder of how much Conservatives also like a good witch hunt :-)
"It seems to me that most folks see the President's shifting story as suspicious." Of course. How many people read the NYT, or the other major media following their [mis]lead? Don't believe everything you read in the papers.
I also note that the two Trump statements at the heart of the Fox story are absolutely consistent.
Source please.
Our source quote Trump then and now, and the quotes are very different.
I mean even the fox folks noted the change.
I looked at your Fox citation, and saw no substantive difference between the quote yesterday and the one a year ago. I also note the general failure of our eagle-eyed media to notice the difference between the purpose of the meeting and the focus, or actual agenda, neither of which was in the least criminal or even concerning, unless you are determined to somehow build a mountain out of an anthill.
Jerry,
Please remember...
Story 1: Met to talk about Russian adoptions... (aka relieving sanctions on rich Russians)
Story 2: Met to get dirt on Hillary from Russians...
John...those stories are completely consistent. Why are you making such a big deal out of nothing?
Moose
Just my irrational and emotional nature I guess... :-)
Thanks, Moose. Nice to see somebody "gets it."
I get that you support people who accept election help from foreign entities and a political party that explodes deficits, with no benefit ever to the majority of American people.
Moose
And I now understand why you are a Democrat (apparently). You "support people who accept election help from foreign entities and a political party that explodes deficits, with no benefit ever to the majority of American people."
Post a Comment