DescentBB

I wonder if any of those potentially illegal campaign donations were worth it for Mr. Trump? Obviously not, judging from the his flop of an inauguration.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:08 pm Never underestimate the stupidity and blindness of Trump's devoted followers, even in the face of some pretty damning evidence that the man is a traitor to our nation, a puppet for a hostile foreign nation and that his party and it's adherents are enablers. The endgame, when it comes, is going to be a long and messy affair as Trump whines and blathers that he's innocent and that it's all a "witch hunt". I'm betting Mueller is selectively leaking this because of the upcoming conformation hearings for Trump's new attorney general, a man who is openly hostile to the Mueller investigation. I've also always wondered what would happen if we ever elected someone as unfit as Trump to the presidency. Now we know. We've been made the laughing stock of the world and our government is impotent and crumbling into the vile morass of Trump's swamp.

Just what damning evidence. By the way the press and the Dems are down playing the Meuller report as it looks like like there is no evidence. Hopefully the report will be made soon. Or do you think opposition research funded by the Hillary campaign via the steel report qualifies as evidence?

woodchip wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:26 amJust what damning evidence. By the way the press and the Dems are down playing the Meuller report as it looks like like there is no evidence.

Citation needed.

woodchip wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:26 amHopefully the report will be made soon. Or do you think opposition research funded by the Hillary campaign via the steel report qualifies as evidence?

Yes, that's exactly what evidence is. And if it means Hilary and other Democrats go to jail, then so be it. I have not tolerance for corruption regardless of political party. You won't find anyone on this board defending Democrats when illegal ★■◆● is done. No one here gives a ★■◆● about Hilary Clinton, so stop with the whataboutism. Why are you even talking about her?

woodchip wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:26 am

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:08 pm Never underestimate the stupidity and blindness of Trump's devoted followers, even in the face of some pretty damning evidence that the man is a traitor to our nation, a puppet for a hostile foreign nation and that his party and it's adherents are enablers. The endgame, when it comes, is going to be a long and messy affair as Trump whines and blathers that he's innocent and that it's all a "witch hunt". I'm betting Mueller is selectively leaking this because of the upcoming conformation hearings for Trump's new attorney general, a man who is openly hostile to the Mueller investigation. I've also always wondered what would happen if we ever elected someone as unfit as Trump to the presidency. Now we know. We've been made the laughing stock of the world and our government is impotent and crumbling into the vile morass of Trump's swamp.

Just what damning evidence. By the way the press and the Dems are down playing the Meuller report as it looks like like there is no evidence. Hopefully the report will be made soon. Or do you think opposition research funded by the Hillary campaign via the steel report qualifies as evidence?

All they could get Al Capone on was tax evasion. But everyone knows he was guilty of ordering capital murder. So since the authorities could never get proof, he was never convicted as a murderer, according to your standards.

Trump is like Al Capone. He orders his underlings to do the dirty work while he sits at the top and stays out of the muck. Despite that lofty position, Trump is still picking up the stench of that muck, which makes him the top Don, err slimeball. Enough of his underlings have been investigated or convicted of working with Russian agents, all to help Trump get elected, that the stench of traitor is getting overwhelming.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:45 pm Trump is like Al Capone.

Come on now, that's an outrageous insult to the legacy of Al Capone.

Excusez-moi. AL Capone at least had a brain.

Well that was pretty anti-climactic. I thought for sure they'd get Junior for something. I'm willing to believe the "no collusion" line in a narrowly legal sense. IE: Trump orbit didn't conspire in the actual illegal act of the DNC data thefts and transfer to Wikileaks. It's close to the opinion I had early on, that a lot of Trump's actions, while obviously detrimental, weren't as obviously illegal.

Of course, I'd love an explanation for all the lying about contacts with Russians. I'd like to think Mueller did some fleshing out on that, but that seems to be something they can (and maybe should?) keep confidential if it involves things outside his narrow mandate. I'm not sure how limited he was in providing threads for others to pull on.

Vander wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 11:58 am Of course, I'd love an explanation for all the lying about contacts with Russians. I'd like to think Mueller did some fleshing out on that, but that seems to be something they can (and maybe should?) keep confidential if it involves things outside his narrow mandate. I'm not sure how limited he was in providing threads for others to pull on.

Yeah, so many people working for Trump have been actually indicted for some crime or another it stinks to high heaven. You don't surround yourself with that many crooked people and not at least have some knowledge of what was going on under your watch. Either that or Trump is incredibly stupid and clueless. Neither instance puts Trump in a good light as a leader. If he's so squeaky clean, why all the thrashing and gnashing from Trump about the whole Mueller investigation anyway? Innocent people don't try so hard to shut down an investigation with their new found powers if they're not worried about something. I'm still waiting for all the other investigations to sniff through all of Trump's skeleton filled closets and find something to stick it to him.

https://news.yahoo.com/other-investigat ... =hvper.com

Tunnelcat wrote:I'm still waiting for all the other investigations to sniff through all of Trump's skeleton filled closets and find something to stick it to him.

For me it's more a matter of curiosity. I don't really think anything like this will bring him down. Two years ago I might've thought it possible, but back then I was under the mistaken assumption that Republicans had at least some tiny sliver of integrity or susceptibility to shame. Fool me once, shame on.. shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again.

Either way, all these investigations will at least get under his skin and piss him off, maybe enough to make the fat bastard have a coronary and solve all our problems. By the way, we the people of this nation haven't actually viewed the Mueller Report, something that we paid 25 million to see. All we've seen is what everyone is now calling the Barr Report and we all know is that AG Barr is a Trump apologist who doesn't think that a sitting president should be indicted, on anything. But my question is, if a president can't be indicted, does that only leave impeachment? And since most of the current Republicans in Congress could never see their favored megalomaniac dictator doing anything wrong in their eyes, that option is very unlikely.

Patience...

Easy for you to say. You're sitting pretty up north of our border and sit there laughing while our moron of a president steers the ship of state into an iceberg.

while you let your Trump hate blind you to what is going on, you ignore how a opposition research file, funded by Hillary Clinton, paid a foreign agent to get dirt on Trump, then the same file was used to obtain a FISA warrant and how then the whole intelligence apparatus of the USA was used to try and prevent a candidate in a presidential election from winning. Even worse how they then attempted to unseat a duly elected president. And where is the much vaunted 4th leg of our govt., the press? Why, being willing accomplices to the whole scam. I wonder where Obama's presidency would be if he had a press writing 533k inflammatory stories against him. I also wonder where Trumps would be if he was caught on open mike talking to a Russian President about how he would have more flexibility in dealing with Russia once he (Obama) was re-elected. So keep on focusing your hate filled, media driven attention on Trump. I'm sure America will be the better for it.

woodchip wrote:how then the whole intelligence apparatus of the USA was used to try and prevent a candidate in a presidential election from winning.

There's a big gaping hole in your logic. Why, at a time when US Intel had already fingered Russia for the DNC hack and dump, at a time when Trump had been informed by US Intel that this was the case, at a time when Comey was out there talking about Clinton email against DOJ policy, didn't a single person in this whole supposedly nefarious intelligence apparatus mention that there had been an ongoing counterintelligence investigation of Trump going since July? If this huge deep state were so against a Trump presidency, why didn't it leak before the election?

Even worse how they then attempted to unseat a duly elected president.

How? By investigating to see if he was involved a criminal conspiracy and when not being able to prove it, said they're not able to prove it? Your theory might have at least been plausible last week, but now it's invalid. I don't see any way they COULDN'T investigate.

I wonder where Obama's presidency would be if he had a press writing 533k inflammatory stories against him.

You should definitely keep FAR away from this angle of attack. Every week we learn of something that would've made you apoplectic if it happened under Obama. Can you even imagine your reaction if something like Flynn had happened under Obama? Or if Obama was Individual 1, an un-indicted co-conspirator in a felony involving his own election? (with the bonus of it being a multiple women sex scandal, and publicly lying about it!) Hell, I've forgotten more existential scandals that in previous times would've basically ended a presidency, but in our current fatigued state garner only a few days coverage because we learn about a new one. Remember when financial records showed Trump as integral in a decade long, billion dollar tax fraud scheme? (makes Whitewater, an investment the Clintons LOST $40k on seem quaint) Or when he let 3 billionaires that are PAYING HIM to be in his country club run the VA? Or the STRAIGHT UP NEPOTISM of hiring his family for top White House positions and apparently overruling security services when they wouldn't grant clearances? Or ethical challenges any number of his appointees? Wilbur Ross? Ryan Zinke? Tom Price? Steve Mnuchin? David Shulkin? I even had to look up Scott Pruitt's name because I couldn't remember it.

So yeah, there wasn't enough evidence to tie Trump to the very narrow and specific act of the DNC data theft/dump. Congratulations? But that doesn't mean they didn't gleefully attempt to amplify the attack, even after they were told it was an attack. It doesn't mean Trump didn't baldly lie about Russian financial interests. (they knew he was lying, compromising him) When Don Jr. replied "If it's what you say I love it" when dangled Russian government dirt on Clinton, why did he set a meeting? Remember when the Gore campaign got sent Bush's debate prep video? They weren't all "woohoo lets use it!" THEY TURNED IT OVER TO THE FBI. After becoming President, not only did Trump quash attempts to address vulnerabilities for the future, Trump sh!t on notions the Russian's even interfered at all. Right after the IRA/Concord/GRU indictments, he stood next to Putin, looking thoroughly whipped, and agreed with Putin over his own intel agencies! What a weak character hiding behind a tough guy facade.

I could go on and on, but know most of this is lost on you. I just feel the need to vent every now and then.

woodchip wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:00 amSo keep on focusing your hate filled, media driven attention on Trump. I'm sure America will be the better for it.

Who are you even talking to? The media certainly doesn't drive my opinion of Trump. His actual words inform my opinion. I also don't see anyone here brandishing a caricature of Trump like you had of Obama for years. Is that how you wanted to make America better during his presidency? Why haven't you held Trump up to the same standard you had for Obama? Trump capitulated on North Korea and is letting Russia move military all over the world without resistance. What a pussy. And of course, let's not forget about the disastrous trade war with China that has accomplished nothing except raising prices for Americans. What a loser.

woodchip wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:00 am while you let your Trump hate blind you to what is going on, you ignore how a opposition research file, funded by Hillary Clinton, paid a foreign agent to get dirt on Trump, then the same file was used to obtain a FISA warrant and how then the whole intelligence apparatus of the USA was used to try and prevent a candidate in a presidential election from winning. Even worse how they then attempted to unseat a duly elected president. And where is the much vaunted 4th leg of our govt., the press? Why, being willing accomplices to the whole scam. I wonder where Obama's presidency would be if he had a press writing 533k inflammatory stories against him. I also wonder where Trumps would be if he was caught on open mike talking to a Russian President about how he would have more flexibility in dealing with Russia once he (Obama) was re-elected. So keep on focusing your hate filled, media driven attention on Trump. I'm sure America will be the better for it.

Oh, you mean what's now known as the Steele Dossier? Does it bother you that a Republican is the one who paid to initiate the whole thing in the first place? A Republican who hated Trump? What a rare animal these days.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/p ... inger.html

Hmmmm. Does it also bother you that a lot of what's IN the Dossier has also been corroborated?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... rated.html

No, I'm not alone on this. I'm joined by a large group of people, including many sane Republicans who absolutely hate Trump to the core of their being. The man is poisonous with his rhetoric and nothing but a con man out to enrich himself. He has NO redeeming value as a human being, let alone be our President. The man is a stain upon the office. So Republicans are now telling everyone to just drop things after the Mueller Report didn't nail Trump to the wall and that we should now work with our duly elected President for the good of the country? How the hell is that going to work out when everything he's done is for himself? All anyone has to do is listen to his bull★■◆● and demeaning speeches during his boner rallies to figure out that the man is NOT sincere in working with the Dems or any Repub who doesn't tow HIS line and kiss his orange ass, nor will he ever.

And it wasn't the Dossier that started the whole investigation into Trump anyway, despite what Trump keeps blathering. Take off the Orange-colored glasses that are blinding you to the facts and read the actual timeline of events. If Clinton had been involved with even A THIRD of this crap, you'd be screaming you head off that she's at best a traitor to our nation.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/timel ... stigation/

Speaking of North Korea, how's this little Trump diktat square with you woody? The White House says it's because Trump LIKES Kim Jong Un. What a load. There's so much love, at least from Trump, that maybe they should just marry each other.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump ... 2019-03-22

Gee I am so glad our morally-bankrupt little parrot has returned to teach us all how to drop trou and salute our Glorious Leader.

vision wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 12:54 pm

woodchip wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:00 amSo keep on focusing your hate filled, media driven attention on Trump. I'm sure America will be the better for it.

Who are you even talking to? The media certainly doesn't drive my opinion of Trump. His actual words inform my opinion. I also don't see anyone here brandishing a caricature of Trump like you had of Obama for years. Is that how you wanted to make America better during his presidency? Why haven't you held Trump up to the same standard you had for Obama? Trump capitulated on North Korea and is letting Russia move military all over the world without resistance. What a pussy. And of course, let's not forget about the disastrous trade war with China that has accomplished nothing except raising prices for Americans. What a loser.

Well lets look at what you are saying. Where did Trump capitulate with Korea? Last I heard Trump walked away from the talks which does not show any signs of giving in. Or are you thinking of previous president (not limited to Obama) how gave more aid to NKorea for nothing in return?
And we should go to war with Russia over a failed state like Venezuela? Or when you use the word pussy are you really thinking Obama's red line threat to Syria?
China trade war? Lets at least wait to see how the trade talks with China plays out. Of course having a 500 billion deficit year in and year out may be more your cup of tea.

Vander wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:34 am

woodchip wrote:how then the whole intelligence apparatus of the USA was used to try and prevent a candidate in a presidential election from winning.

There's a big gaping hole in your logic. Why, at a time when US Intel had already fingered Russia for the DNC hack and dump, at a time when Trump had been informed by US Intel that this was the case, at a time when Comey was out there talking about Clinton email against DOJ policy, didn't a single person in this whole supposedly nefarious intelligence apparatus mention that there had been an ongoing counterintelligence investigation of Trump going since July? If this huge deep state were so against a Trump presidency, why didn't it leak before the election?

Even worse how they then attempted to unseat a duly elected president.

How? By investigating to see if he was involved a criminal conspiracy and when not being able to prove it, said they're not able to prove it? Your theory might have at least been plausible last week, but now it's invalid. I don't see any way they COULDN'T investigate.

I guess you forgot about FBI agents Strzok Page being fired for certain emails, the most curious being this exchange:

In early August 2016, after Page asked Strzok, "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!", Strzok responded: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

Vander wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 10:34 am

I wonder where Obama's presidency would be if he had a press writing 533k inflammatory stories against him.

You should definitely keep FAR away from this angle of attack. Every week we learn of something that would've made you apoplectic if it happened under Obama. Can you even imagine your reaction if something like Flynn had happened under Obama? Or if Obama was Individual 1, an un-indicted co-conspirator in a felony involving his own election? (with the bonus of it being a multiple women sex scandal, and publicly lying about it!) Hell, I've forgotten more existential scandals that in previous times would've basically ended a presidency, but in our current fatigued state garner only a few days coverage because we learn about a new one. Remember when financial records showed Trump as integral in a decade long, billion dollar tax fraud scheme? (makes Whitewater, an investment the Clintons LOST $40k on seem quaint) Or when he let 3 billionaires that are PAYING HIM to be in his country club run the VA? Or the STRAIGHT UP NEPOTISM of hiring his family for top White House positions and apparently overruling security services when they wouldn't grant clearances? Or ethical challenges any number of his appointees? Wilbur Ross? Ryan Zinke? Tom Price? Steve Mnuchin? David Shulkin? I even had to look up Scott Pruitt's name because I couldn't remember it.

So yeah, there wasn't enough evidence to tie Trump to the very narrow and specific act of the DNC data theft/dump. Congratulations? But that doesn't mean they didn't gleefully attempt to amplify the attack, even after they were told it was an attack. It doesn't mean Trump didn't baldly lie about Russian financial interests. (they knew he was lying, compromising him) When Don Jr. replied "If it's what you say I love it" when dangled Russian government dirt on Clinton, why did he set a meeting? Remember when the Gore campaign got sent Bush's debate prep video? They weren't all "woohoo lets use it!" THEY TURNED IT OVER TO THE FBI. After becoming President, not only did Trump quash attempts to address vulnerabilities for the future, Trump sh!t on notions the Russian's even interfered at all. Right after the IRA/Concord/GRU indictments, he stood next to Putin, looking thoroughly whipped, and agreed with Putin over his own intel agencies! What a weak character hiding behind a tough guy facade.

I could go on and on, but know most of this is lost on you. I just feel the need to vent every now and then.

Try better next time. Lets look at the Russian corp. Concord Management and Consulting, indictments. Seems when the russian corp decided to fight it in our courts, Mueller decided to try and postpone it as he knew what the discovery process would mean: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/05/politics ... index.html
This is only one instance of the weak hand Mueller had. In general lets shoe horn this diatribe by you into one thing. Where was there ever any tangible proof of Trumps complicity in collusion with the Russians? Never was any but the allegation was there so let the party begin eh. And the start of all this was the Steele dossier, a fake bit of reporting that the weak minded libs bought into:

"The author of the fake Russia dossier - paid for by Hillary and the DNC and used to launch the witch hunt against President @realDonaldTrump - now admits he relied on claims posted by a random person on a CNN site 'not edited, fact-checked or screened,'"

So I guess the fake news syndrome is delightfully even way back then and any spurious claim is a honorable way by the Dems to start a process in the hopes preventing and then unseating a president they don't like. And a weak president? Read my reply to vision about red lines.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:46 pm


Oh, you mean what's now known as the Steele Dossier? Does it bother you that a Republican is the one who paid to initiate the whole thing in the first place? A Republican who hated Trump? What a rare animal these days.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/p ... inger.html

So a Reb. started it but it was the Dems who wound up funding and using it.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:46 pmHmmmm. Does it also bother you that a lot of what's IN the Dossier has also been corroborated?


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... rated.html

Lo...Slate a liberal rag.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:46 pmNo, I'm not alone on this. I'm joined by a large group of people, including many sane Republicans who absolutely hate Trump to the core of their being. The man is poisonous with his rhetoric and nothing but a con man out to enrich himself. He has NO redeeming value as a human being, let alone be our President. The man is a stain upon the office. So Republicans are now telling everyone to just drop things after the Mueller Report didn't nail Trump to the wall and that we should now work with our duly elected President for the good of the country? How the hell is that going to work out when everything he's done is for himself? All anyone has to do is listen to his bull★■◆● and demeaning speeches during his boner rallies to figure out that the man is NOT sincere in working with the Dems or any Repub who doesn't tow HIS line and kiss his orange ass, nor will he ever.

And it wasn't the Dossier that started the whole investigation into Trump anyway, despite what Trump keeps blathering. Take off the Orange-colored glasses that are blinding you to the facts and read the actual timeline of events. If Clinton had been involved with even A THIRD of this crap, you'd be screaming you head off that she's at best a traitor to our nation.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/timel ... stigation/

Speaking of North Korea, how's this little Trump diktat square with you woody? The White House says it's because Trump LIKES Kim Jong Un. What a load. There's so much love, at least from Trump, that maybe they should just marry each other.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump ... 2019-03-22

You cleary don't understand negotiations. Pretending to like someone has been part of a salesman demeanor, just see how that car sales man treats you next time you show interest in buying a car from your local auto dealer. As to what he says? Is that any worse than Obama's famous "If you want to keep your plan" statement or Cilntons "I never had sex with that woman, not once, not ever". All presidents lie and obfuscate the truth. Get over it.

And to show you how we have been played...From Sen. Rand Paul, not exactly a bastion of Republican rah rah efforts:

Thursday, Paul revealed that his source told him that the intelligence community under then-President Obama -- including Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-FBI Director James Comey -- were frustrated because they had the dossier but nobody believed it was credible.

"They wanted to somehow get this information out ... that even the media wasn't publishing. Nobody would publish it because it was so scandalous, unverifiable and, likely, fiction," Paul said.

He claimed that's why Brennan pushed to have the dossier attached to an intelligence report, so it would appear more justified and credible.

woodchip wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:22 am

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:46 pm


Oh, you mean what's now known as the Steele Dossier? Does it bother you that a Republican is the one who paid to initiate the whole thing in the first place? A Republican who hated Trump? What a rare animal these days.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/p ... inger.html

So a Reb. started it but it was the Dems who wound up funding and using it.

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:46 pmHmmmm. Does it also bother you that a lot of what's IN the Dossier has also been corroborated?


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... rated.html

Lo...Slate a liberal rag.

The Republicans would have done the exact same thing if something like the Dossier that concerned Clinton was dropped into their laps. In fact, Don Junior was absolutely thrilled to the possibility of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton, from the Russians. As to the Dossier, you don't like Slate? Well, try this source on for size. I could give you hundreds of other links, but you'd just ignore them because you think everything nasty ever published about Trump is liberal trash.

https://www.justsecurity.org/44697/stee ... r-knowing/

Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:46 pmNo, I'm not alone on this. I'm joined by a large group of people, including many sane Republicans who absolutely hate Trump to the core of their being. The man is poisonous with his rhetoric and nothing but a con man out to enrich himself. He has NO redeeming value as a human being, let alone be our President. The man is a stain upon the office. So Republicans are now telling everyone to just drop things after the Mueller Report didn't nail Trump to the wall and that we should now work with our duly elected President for the good of the country? How the hell is that going to work out when everything he's done is for himself? All anyone has to do is listen to his bull★■◆● and demeaning speeches during his boner rallies to figure out that the man is NOT sincere in working with the Dems or any Repub who doesn't tow HIS line and kiss his orange ass, nor will he ever.

And it wasn't the Dossier that started the whole investigation into Trump anyway, despite what Trump keeps blathering. Take off the Orange-colored glasses that are blinding you to the facts and read the actual timeline of events. If Clinton had been involved with even A THIRD of this crap, you'd be screaming you head off that she's at best a traitor to our nation.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/timel ... stigation/

Speaking of North Korea, how's this little Trump diktat square with you woody? The White House says it's because Trump LIKES Kim Jong Un. What a load. There's so much love, at least from Trump, that maybe they should just marry each other.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump ... 2019-03-22

woodchip wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:22 amYou cleary don't understand negotiations. Pretending to like someone has been part of a salesman demeanor, just see how that car sales man treats you next time you show interest in buying a car from your local auto dealer. As to what he says? Is that any worse than Obama's famous "If you want to keep your plan" statement or Cilntons "I never had sex with that woman, not once, not ever". All presidents lie and obfuscate the truth. Get over it.

Oh, I understand negotiations all right. If some car dealer refuses to give me a deal and the price that I want, I walk out. They lose, not me. Simple as that. Invariably they will later call back with a better deal because I've got the money to spend and I'm in a position of strength. What Trump has done was outright capitulate. The first negotiation with NK resulted in the US giving up their military readiness exorcises with SK, a suggestion that was given to Trump by Putin by the way. For that, we got nothing but silence and more behind the scenes rebuilding of some of NK's nuclear facilities. The second grand meeting with NK resulted in what I would have done. Kim walked out because he went into those second negotiations with the assumption that Trump would be a pushover.....again. When he didn't' get what he wanted the second time around, negotiations broke down. But later on, as we've seen so much with Trump's form of self rule, Trump can't walk away. He absolutely craves the adoration of Kim Jong Un, so by his own fiat, he decides to drop the more severe sanctions that were supposed to be levied on NK. I don't call that dealing. I call that giving in to another salesman because you have a lousy poker face and you're so desperate just seal the deal that you'll pay way over sticker price to get that car no matter what.

Oh, and Trump is such a nice guy. His sycophant DeVos in the Department of Education wants to drop ALL funding for the Special Olympics in the effort to balance the humongous budget. This funding is only a drop in the bucket in our rapidly expanding government budget by the way, but oh so symbolic. How about Trump dropping those BILLIONS he wants for that stupid border wall, BILLIONS that are going to come out of the Defense Budget? Nope, Trump's gotta keep face with his base. Heaven forbid he lets them down. What's sick is that DeVos wants as much money as possible for those damn public money sucking charter schools. Special Olympics can be best served by philanthropy. Nice. How about the public money sucking charter school system get served by rich philanthropists instead and leave the public money to fix our sagging public school system? So this is the new Republican Party. They want to get rid of abortion and make sure all have a chance at life, but they don't want to help fund the lives of those who are born with special needs or disabilities. Whatever happened to the Compassionate Conservative?

woodchip wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:24 amWhere did Trump capitulate with Korea? Last I heard Trump walked away from the talks which does not show any signs of giving in. Or are you thinking of previous president (not limited to Obama) how gave more aid to NKorea for nothing in return?

Trump hasn't been able to stop North Korea's nuclear ambitions, at all, and has now lifted sanctions from them. At this rate Trump will be giving Kim a hand-job by Christmas. And from what I remember, any aid we give to N.Korea is to stave off a humanitarian crisis. Neither the Trump or Obama administration has the leverage or negotiating skills to deal with Kim. I don't buy the 'tough' guy act from Trump. He's the wimpiest president in my lifetime. Also, he wears waaay too much make up for me to take him seriously on anything.

woodchip wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:24 amAnd we should go to war with Russia over a failed state like Venezuela? Or when you use the word pussy are you really thinking Obama's red line threat to Syria?

Do you think it's a good idea for Russia to have troops in South America? Maybe they can put some nukes there too. Cuba 2.0 sounds good, right? Would you like that? Also, Syria is apples and oranges. Can't you argue a point without resorting to whataboutism? You talk like anyone gives a ★■◆● about Obama. I never voted for the guy, or any democrat for President, ever.

woodchip wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:24 amChina trade war? Lets at least wait to see how the trade talks with China plays out. Of course having a 500 billion deficit year in and year out may be more your cup of tea.

I see how the trade war is playing out in the high prices I see on goods I need. Tariffs are taxes on Americans. Also, a 500 billion deficit is small compared to our GDP. We get a lot for that 500 billion.

woodchip wrote:I guess you forgot about FBI agents Strzok Page being fired for certain emails, the most curious being this exchange:

In early August 2016, after Page asked Strzok, "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!", Strzok responded: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

He gave an explanation of this during his congressional testimony, which, if taken in context and with some objectivity, was pretty convincing. Again, the logic of your claim completely falls apart. If you're willing think the absolute worst of Strzok and co, why don't you think they would leak the obviously damaging info that Trump and his campaign were the subject of a counterintelligence investigation before the election?! The simple alternative is that they were doing their job, and while Trump was behaving shady as hell, they remained pretty professional under the circumstances.

Lets look at the Russian corp. Concord Management and Consulting, indictments. Seems when the russian corp decided to fight it in our courts, Mueller decided to try and postpone it as he knew what the discovery process would mean:

This is basically lawfare. (going both ways!) The Concord proprietors remain outside the grasp of law enforcement, while their lawyers attempt to gain access to what is essentially SIGINT. Such evidence should absolutely be provided to the defendant, but not if they will never present themselves to the court. It's entirely likely that the U.S. might end up dropping the case, rather than expose intel for no benefit.

In general lets shoe horn this diatribe by you into one thing. Where was there ever any tangible proof of Trumps complicity in collusion with the Russians?

"Collusion" is not a specific crime. The actual crimes were in the DNC theft and dump (hacking related) and the troll farm stuff. (identity theft, fraud, etc) These are the specific things Mueller was charged to investigate, and to ascertain whether Trump's orbit were involved in them, which would open them to conspiracy charges. This is what Mueller has apparently not been able to prove, and I'm perfectly willing to accept the result.

But this is a narrower scope than what "collusion" can mean. For instance, I would consider Manafort sharing internal campaign polling data with Russians "collusion," but it isn't necessarily a crime. I would consider coordinating with Wikileaks on the timing of the email dumps as "collusion," but it isn't necessarily a crime. I would consider amplifying the damage of the DNC dump after he was told it was a Russian op as "collusion," but again, not necessarily a crime. I would consider Junior's Trump Tower meeting, or Kushner's seeking a back channel at least attempts at collusion.

"Collusion" can also be used to describe the quid pro quo relationship Trump and Russia appeared to be in during the campaign. It is undeniable that Trump was compromised by Russia BY HIS OWN LYING. At any time Russia could've produced the letter of intent for Trump Tower Moscow that he signed as a candidate, while lying about his financial interests in Russia.

So narrowly defining "collusion" as only things that are strictly illegal ignores issues that are severely important to the republic.

As for the Steele Dossier, it was never presented or taken as anything more than a collection of unverified data points put together by a somewhat trusted intelligence source. Things that should be look into and corroborated. Some has been corroborated, some not.

And a weak president?

If I can get you to answer just one question, why do you think Trump lies all the time?

Vander wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:48 pm If I can get you to answer just one question, why do you think Trump lies all the time?

That's the million dollar question.

https://www.factcheck.org/person/donald-trump/

Also, If Trump's so innocent, why was he throwing temper tantrums and firing people right and left the whole time the investigation was going on? If I knew I was squeaky clean, I certainly wouldn't paint a target on myself and potentially risk obstruction of justice by making a constant commotion the whole time.

B-but her emails!

Yep, Barr is covering for Trump. Typical political appointee hack. Some of Mueller's investigators are saying things are more damaging to Trump than Barr is portraying to public. I was wondering when the real information would start leaking out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/p ... eport.html

I find it interesting that Barr is covering for Trump than he seems to be covering for himself (since he has gone on record saying he doesn't care if they release the memo). I wonder if they found something on Barr?

LightWolf wrote:I find it interesting that Barr is covering for Trump than he seems to be covering for himself (since he has gone on record saying he doesn't care if they release the memo).

I'm pretty sure Trump just says whatever he thinks makes himself sound the best at any given moment. It's the only consistency to be found in his inconsistent communication.

That was the other possibiliy.

Russia is only the foundation of the corruption we are enduring in the hollowed halls of the White House and our government. Trump's making the government smaller like he promised, but he's making what's left of it far more corrupt and entrenched with powerful business interests. Now we have that swamp filled by a bunch of nepotistic flunkies who couldn't pass a security clearance, and I'm just talking about the Trump family members working in the White House. The rest of the government has slowly been being filled with unqualified Trump sludge. Number One and Number Two on that list of people Trump overruled the security process for were the little preppies Ivanka and Jered. Top on the list of reasons why they were denied clearances was due to shady foreign entanglements and business interests. Now if this same whistle blower was making the exact same claims in a Hillary Clinton White House, what would Republicans be yelling right now instead of "she's only a disgruntled employee"? Somehow I don't think that would be the end of it and all our eardrums would be blown out. Alongside Vander's comment, Trump also lied to the American people when he said he didn't intervene in Jered's and Ivanka's behalf, all because they are "Good people". If anyone believes that, they're a Trumptard who's taken too big a swig from the Trump Koolaid tap.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/01/70872622 ... clearances

Plus, how long before there's an uncontrolled nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a place were hostility and tensions between nations are at an all time high and have been pretty much like that forever. Hmm. The Saudis eventually figure out how to make a nuke with the nuclear power and help WE give them all in the name of boosting U.S. nuclear business interests, one of those companies being NuScale, which hails from my town of Corvallis. Even Jordan and who knows else is playing in this picture. I wonder how Israel feels about that right now? A future Middle East nuclear proxy war all in the name of business, competition and market share. At least Russia is downwind.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/us-appr ... uters.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... g-globally