Yes it is, very good of you to notice. My comments and replies are based on what is directed at me
TAKE THE POLL: HOW LONG BEFORE TRUMP GETS IMPEACHED
- Thread starter BigBlackBull76
- Start date
So just exactly what was the effect on the election? I read recently that "Russian interests" spent $100,000 on Facebook, not an awe inspiring amount. I could easily do that and more.I like the beginning "Two new reports suggest..." Didn't say anything about proof or a conviction.
I posted it on the political thread or trump thread......those adds had over 150,000 hits...and you know these right wingers will believe anything that goes against the left....and to add to it...Trump even quoted them repeatedly during his campaign stops
and you people on the right will believe anything your candidate says!
so with that many people reading them...and Trump spouting it...don't think that might have swayed a few votes!
Again..he is just a Russian plant...and the right is willing to let it slide to get what they want passed!
I think AFTER his IMpeachment everything he signed should be disallowed!
P u t I n 's big game plan is to destroy countries from within..so they need him...and he is using Trump to destroy this country!
https://www.blacktowhite.net/threads/politics-politics-politics.35353/page-556
post 11119
Last edited:
Will Trump Be Impeached? Here’s What We Know About Robert Mueller’s Russia Probe so Far
Newsweek Robert Valencia,Newsweek
President Donald Trump’s former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer sat down with special counsel Robert Mueller for an extensive interview on Monday. During the interview, Spicer and Mueller discussed the firing of FBI Director James Comey, as well as Trump’s meetings with Russian officials and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the Oval Office, according to a Politico report citing sources familiar with the meeting.
Spicer’s meeting signals that Mueller is increasing the number of interviews with former and current members of the Trump administration. A report by The Washington Post in September found that he was expecting to interview six White House advisers, including communications director Hope Hicks and former chief of staff Reince Priebus.
In fact, Priebus was interviewed last Friday, as the Mueller team considers him important because he was part of Trump’s conversations on firing Comey and meetings with Russian officials. Other White House aides reportedly on the list of possible interviews include White House counsel Don McGahn, communications adviser Josh Raffel and associate counsel James Burnham. The overall investigation intends to shed light on whether Russia meddled in the 2016 elections and colluded with Trump.
Even though Trump hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing, for now, his allies fear the president could face impeachment if Republicans lose the House next year. While it is too soon to predict Trump’s ouster, here are some key elements of the Mueller investigation so far:
May 17: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to spearhead the Russia probe.
June 16: Mueller began investigating Jared Kushner’s finances.
July 15-16: Mueller reportedly asked for the name of the person who represented two Russians with connections to Trump’s Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013 during a 2016 meeting attended by Donald Trump Jr.
July 25: Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, had his house raided by the FBI under Mueller’s inquiry, The New York Times reported. Authorities found binders and other documents that could lead to possible secret offshore bank accounts opened by Manafort.
August 1: Mueller appointed former U.S. Justice Department official Greg Andres, who then became the 16th lawyer on the team.
August 3: Mueller named a "grand jury," signaling that a larger investigation was underway.
August 31: Mueller reportedly teamed up with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to investigate Manafort.
September 15: Mueller obtained a search warrant for Facebook accounts linked to Russian operatives that aimed to influence the 2016 presidential election. Experts called the warrant a “turning point” in the investigation.
September 26: Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut announces that Manafort and Trump’s former national security advisor Michael Flynn could face criminal charges as part of Mueller’s investigation.
September 28: Ivanka Trump and Kushner’s private email domains face investigation, as well as batches of emails from White House senior aides. The investigation, conducted by the White House, hopes to find anything relevant to Mueller’s Russia probe.
October 13: Mueller interviewed Priebus.
October 17: Mueller sat down with Spicer.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-impeached-know-robert-mueller-172322625.html
Newsweek Robert Valencia,Newsweek
President Donald Trump’s former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer sat down with special counsel Robert Mueller for an extensive interview on Monday. During the interview, Spicer and Mueller discussed the firing of FBI Director James Comey, as well as Trump’s meetings with Russian officials and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the Oval Office, according to a Politico report citing sources familiar with the meeting.
Spicer’s meeting signals that Mueller is increasing the number of interviews with former and current members of the Trump administration. A report by The Washington Post in September found that he was expecting to interview six White House advisers, including communications director Hope Hicks and former chief of staff Reince Priebus.
In fact, Priebus was interviewed last Friday, as the Mueller team considers him important because he was part of Trump’s conversations on firing Comey and meetings with Russian officials. Other White House aides reportedly on the list of possible interviews include White House counsel Don McGahn, communications adviser Josh Raffel and associate counsel James Burnham. The overall investigation intends to shed light on whether Russia meddled in the 2016 elections and colluded with Trump.
Even though Trump hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing, for now, his allies fear the president could face impeachment if Republicans lose the House next year. While it is too soon to predict Trump’s ouster, here are some key elements of the Mueller investigation so far:
May 17: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to spearhead the Russia probe.
June 16: Mueller began investigating Jared Kushner’s finances.
July 15-16: Mueller reportedly asked for the name of the person who represented two Russians with connections to Trump’s Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013 during a 2016 meeting attended by Donald Trump Jr.
July 25: Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, had his house raided by the FBI under Mueller’s inquiry, The New York Times reported. Authorities found binders and other documents that could lead to possible secret offshore bank accounts opened by Manafort.
August 1: Mueller appointed former U.S. Justice Department official Greg Andres, who then became the 16th lawyer on the team.
August 3: Mueller named a "grand jury," signaling that a larger investigation was underway.
August 31: Mueller reportedly teamed up with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to investigate Manafort.
September 15: Mueller obtained a search warrant for Facebook accounts linked to Russian operatives that aimed to influence the 2016 presidential election. Experts called the warrant a “turning point” in the investigation.
September 26: Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut announces that Manafort and Trump’s former national security advisor Michael Flynn could face criminal charges as part of Mueller’s investigation.
September 28: Ivanka Trump and Kushner’s private email domains face investigation, as well as batches of emails from White House senior aides. The investigation, conducted by the White House, hopes to find anything relevant to Mueller’s Russia probe.
October 13: Mueller interviewed Priebus.
October 17: Mueller sat down with Spicer.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-impeached-know-robert-mueller-172322625.html
Sessions Changes His Story Again About His Russian Contacts
Newsweek Newsweek
On Wednesday, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Jeff Sessions changed his story yet again about what he discussed with Russian officials during the 2016 election.
In March, Sessions maintained that he did not discuss the Trump campaign with Russian officials whom he met during that time.
After those statements in March, the Washington Post reported in July that Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak informed his government superiors that he discussed Trump campaign-related issues, including policy issues important to the Russian government, with Sessions during the campaign.
In response, Sessions’s spokesperson said that he had not had conversations with Russian officials “concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election.”
And in his appearance before the Congress on Wednesday, Sessions told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he did not discuss “the details of the campaign” with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and he said it was possible that he did discuss “Trump’s positions.”
This represents the third narrative that Sessions has presented to Congress and the public on the issue.
First, at his confirmation hearing in January, he told Senator Al Franken (D-MN) that he had “been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians,” as well as responding to a written question from Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that he had not “been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election.”
Second, following the March revelation of Sessions’ two meetings with Kislyak during the campaign, Sessions released a public statement saying that “I never had meetings with Russian operatives or Russian intermediaries about the Trump campaign,” and he added, “no such things were discussed.”
Third, in June, after FBI Director James Comey reported that Sessions may have met with Kislyak a third time, Sessions testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that he did not recall whether he had communications with Russian officials:
HARRIS: Did you have any communications with Russian officials for any reason during the campaign that have not been disclosedin publicor to this committee?
SESSIONS: I don’t recall it, but I have to tell you, I cannot testify to what was said as we were standing at the Republican convention before the podium where I spoke.
HARRIS: My question —
SESSIONS: I don’t have a detailed memory of that–
HARRIS: It is a relates to your knowledge.
SESSIONS: To the best of my knowledge.
This was later was thrown into question by a July report that indicated intelligence intercepts of Russian officials’ communications showed Kislyak told officials in Moscow that Sessions did discuss campaign issues with him. In response, a Justice Department spokesperson released a statement saying that Sessions’ discussions were not “concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election.”
Over time, Sessions has narrowed the scope of his denial.
First, he denied having any communications with the Russians in response to Sen. Franken’s question during his confirmation hearing.
Then, In March, after it was revealed that he met with Kislyak twice on the campaign, he narrowed his denial to not discussing the Trump campaign with Kislyak.
After the intelligence intercepts were reported, indicating they did discuss the campaign, Sessions narrowed his denial to not discussing “election interference with any campaign or election.”
Now, he allows that that Trump campaign positions could have been discussed, but not campaign “details.”
Below is a transcript of part of the exchange between Leahy and Sessions:
LEAHY: …Later in March, when you did disclose such meetings, you said you did not recall what was said at the meetings. Now, your answer to my question was an emphatic “no.” It wasn’t “I don’t recall.”
Now, you’re a lawyer. I’m a lawyer. You’re, in fact, our nation’s top lawyer. Is there a difference between responding “no” and “I do not recall?” Is that legally significant?
SESSIONS: … yes, certainly, it is…
LEAHY: OK. So, then, if you could not recall, then you could not have answered my question — my first question yes or no, if later you said you don’t recall what was discussed.
Now, the reason I asked that: U.S. intelligence intercepts reported in July appear to reveal that you did, in fact, discuss campaign issues with the Russian ambassador, including Candidate Trump’s position on Russian-related issues.
So let me ask you this: Since the 2016 campaign, have you discussed with any Russian-connected official any of the following: e-mails, Russian interference, sanctions like the Magnitsky Act — you know, the so-called adoption issue — or any policies or positions of the campaign or Trump presidency? This is since the 2016 campaign.
SESSIONS: Senator Leahy, I want to be accurate, so I don’t want to have any ambiguity about your questions, but that’s a lot of questions. So let’s think about this. I have never had a meeting with any Russian officials to discuss any kind of coordinating campaign efforts.
LEAHY: Not my question. Let’s take it separate by — piece by piece. Did you discuss any of the following: e-mails?
SESSIONS: Repeat the question again about e-mails.
LEAHY: Since the 2016 campaign, have you discussed with any Russian-connected official anything about e-mails?
SESSIONS: Discuss with them? I don’t recall having done any such thing.
LEAHY: Have you discussed with them Russian interference in our elections?
SESSIONS: No.
LEAHY: Have you discussion — discussed anything like sanctions like the Magnitsky Act — what they call the adoption issue?
SESSIONS: I don’t believe I’ve ever had any discussion at any time about the Magnitsky Act.
LEAHY: Have you discussed with them any policies or positions of the campaign or Trump presidency?
SESSIONS: On — I — I’m not sure about that. If — I met with the Russian ambassador after I gave a speech at the Republican convention. He was right in front of the speakerphone, and we had a few — we had an encounter there. And that — he came — he asked for an appointment in my office later.
I met with 26 ambassadors in the last year, and he was one of them. He came into my office with two of my senior defense specialists and met with me for a while. And I don’t recall any conversation about — what was this last subject? Let me get it right. You asked me…
LEAHY: Any policies or positions of the campaign or the Trump presidency.
SESSIONS: I don’t think there was any discussion of — about the details of the campaign, other than — it could’ve been that, in that meeting in my office, or at the convention — that some comment was made about what Trump’s positions were. I think that’s possible.
Newsweek Newsweek
On Wednesday, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Jeff Sessions changed his story yet again about what he discussed with Russian officials during the 2016 election.
In March, Sessions maintained that he did not discuss the Trump campaign with Russian officials whom he met during that time.
After those statements in March, the Washington Post reported in July that Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak informed his government superiors that he discussed Trump campaign-related issues, including policy issues important to the Russian government, with Sessions during the campaign.
In response, Sessions’s spokesperson said that he had not had conversations with Russian officials “concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election.”
And in his appearance before the Congress on Wednesday, Sessions told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he did not discuss “the details of the campaign” with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and he said it was possible that he did discuss “Trump’s positions.”
This represents the third narrative that Sessions has presented to Congress and the public on the issue.
First, at his confirmation hearing in January, he told Senator Al Franken (D-MN) that he had “been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians,” as well as responding to a written question from Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that he had not “been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election.”
Second, following the March revelation of Sessions’ two meetings with Kislyak during the campaign, Sessions released a public statement saying that “I never had meetings with Russian operatives or Russian intermediaries about the Trump campaign,” and he added, “no such things were discussed.”
Third, in June, after FBI Director James Comey reported that Sessions may have met with Kislyak a third time, Sessions testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that he did not recall whether he had communications with Russian officials:
HARRIS: Did you have any communications with Russian officials for any reason during the campaign that have not been disclosedin publicor to this committee?
SESSIONS: I don’t recall it, but I have to tell you, I cannot testify to what was said as we were standing at the Republican convention before the podium where I spoke.
HARRIS: My question —
SESSIONS: I don’t have a detailed memory of that–
HARRIS: It is a relates to your knowledge.
SESSIONS: To the best of my knowledge.
This was later was thrown into question by a July report that indicated intelligence intercepts of Russian officials’ communications showed Kislyak told officials in Moscow that Sessions did discuss campaign issues with him. In response, a Justice Department spokesperson released a statement saying that Sessions’ discussions were not “concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election.”
Over time, Sessions has narrowed the scope of his denial.
First, he denied having any communications with the Russians in response to Sen. Franken’s question during his confirmation hearing.
Then, In March, after it was revealed that he met with Kislyak twice on the campaign, he narrowed his denial to not discussing the Trump campaign with Kislyak.
After the intelligence intercepts were reported, indicating they did discuss the campaign, Sessions narrowed his denial to not discussing “election interference with any campaign or election.”
Now, he allows that that Trump campaign positions could have been discussed, but not campaign “details.”
Below is a transcript of part of the exchange between Leahy and Sessions:
LEAHY: …Later in March, when you did disclose such meetings, you said you did not recall what was said at the meetings. Now, your answer to my question was an emphatic “no.” It wasn’t “I don’t recall.”
Now, you’re a lawyer. I’m a lawyer. You’re, in fact, our nation’s top lawyer. Is there a difference between responding “no” and “I do not recall?” Is that legally significant?
SESSIONS: … yes, certainly, it is…
LEAHY: OK. So, then, if you could not recall, then you could not have answered my question — my first question yes or no, if later you said you don’t recall what was discussed.
Now, the reason I asked that: U.S. intelligence intercepts reported in July appear to reveal that you did, in fact, discuss campaign issues with the Russian ambassador, including Candidate Trump’s position on Russian-related issues.
So let me ask you this: Since the 2016 campaign, have you discussed with any Russian-connected official any of the following: e-mails, Russian interference, sanctions like the Magnitsky Act — you know, the so-called adoption issue — or any policies or positions of the campaign or Trump presidency? This is since the 2016 campaign.
SESSIONS: Senator Leahy, I want to be accurate, so I don’t want to have any ambiguity about your questions, but that’s a lot of questions. So let’s think about this. I have never had a meeting with any Russian officials to discuss any kind of coordinating campaign efforts.
LEAHY: Not my question. Let’s take it separate by — piece by piece. Did you discuss any of the following: e-mails?
SESSIONS: Repeat the question again about e-mails.
LEAHY: Since the 2016 campaign, have you discussed with any Russian-connected official anything about e-mails?
SESSIONS: Discuss with them? I don’t recall having done any such thing.
LEAHY: Have you discussed with them Russian interference in our elections?
SESSIONS: No.
LEAHY: Have you discussion — discussed anything like sanctions like the Magnitsky Act — what they call the adoption issue?
SESSIONS: I don’t believe I’ve ever had any discussion at any time about the Magnitsky Act.
LEAHY: Have you discussed with them any policies or positions of the campaign or Trump presidency?
SESSIONS: On — I — I’m not sure about that. If — I met with the Russian ambassador after I gave a speech at the Republican convention. He was right in front of the speakerphone, and we had a few — we had an encounter there. And that — he came — he asked for an appointment in my office later.
I met with 26 ambassadors in the last year, and he was one of them. He came into my office with two of my senior defense specialists and met with me for a while. And I don’t recall any conversation about — what was this last subject? Let me get it right. You asked me…
LEAHY: Any policies or positions of the campaign or the Trump presidency.
SESSIONS: I don’t think there was any discussion of — about the details of the campaign, other than — it could’ve been that, in that meeting in my office, or at the convention — that some comment was made about what Trump’s positions were. I think that’s possible.
still following party lines huh torp?
no proof trump did anything and the problems in the world are Obama and Clinton!
you do know by his own admission that trump has obstructed justice.....but your party is willing to overlook all that to get those big tax breaks they want for the rich....and the Russian thing....no proof they still want to do away with the ACA so they can eliminate more voters by death!
your party is going to do nothing with trump...willing to let a Russian plant stay in the white house...just to put money in your pocket
a little party over country?
I hate to tell you this (no, I guess I rather enjoy telling you this) but there isn't a whole lot that has been proven. So far there is a lot of innuendo
This is really kind of funny. Maybe you haven't noticed but the Republicans aren't really agreeing on much of anything, they need to figure out what they want before they can use Trump to get what they want. and as to being a Russian plant, how did they get him elected?
Interesting statement. Apparently you want to ignore the U.S. Constitution. i.e. there is no legal provision in the Constitution or Federal law to nullify any actions taken by the President, any legislator or Supreme Court Justice before they were removed from office.
I don't think anyone in either party really wants Trump booted out of office. He would be far more dangerous to both parties if he was booted out of office. Like it or not the man has deep pockets, very deep pockets. If he was out of office and seriously pissed off he could and likely would unearth and publicize many of the sins of both parties. Going to prison? Not likely, I haven't seen anything criminal that has actually been substantiated. And even if something does crop up and he is prosecuted, he will die of old age before he serves any prison time.
first read my statement....I think AFTER his IMpeachment everything he signed should be disallowed!
take whatever time you need to process it...."I think"
and what has he done to everything Obama put in place?
guess you forgot about a little thing called executive orders?
or did you just miss that?....seems Trump (who used to complain about Obama doing it) has perfected it down to science!
come on torp...you know you would make a good replacement for Sean Hannity!...so much in common and similar mindsets!
Last edited:
Now you sound just like roger stone!
you seriously have to pull your self away from fox news!
the asshole is a traitor,crook, liar...already guilty of obstructing justice...just your party is sitting on things...and if found guilty of collusion....I doubt your party does much there either...the midterms will spell his doom if it doesn't happen before..
as for jail...doubt that will happen either...should!..but not likely!
Trump and Obama both did an excellent job of abusing executive orders. I am a little less forgiving of Obama because he was supposed to be a constitutional scholar and should know better. The executive order abuse really has to go back to Congress for letting the Presidents abuse the separation of powers and doing nothing about it. and you have to go further back than Obama
Let's go with little words as much as I can. I am not a Republican, why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp? When you can't grasp a fact as simple as that it makes me wonder how well you grasp current events As far as flat out crooked I think the Clinton's are way ahead of everyone. There has been a good deal of smoke but very little fire in the accusations against Trump.
I find it mildly humorous that you wail that the Republicans obstructed Trump when they were the minority party yet are incompetent to pass any legislation when the control both house of Congress and the White House.
What legal process are you referring to that would disallow everything he signed before he was impeached?
I assume you meant Obama, not Trump. The Republicans have done nothing but obstruct legislation the past 9 years now ... gee, Torp ... you know that's true. They've done NOTHING but collect their money and work half the time they should be working ... Trump, as president, is even worse.
Oh, and if Trump keeps at the pace he's going now with executive orders, he will have signed more executive orders than any president in the last fifty years ... and I would bet that its just the opposite about reading the executive orders he signs ... probably scans & skips over half the content, asks someone their opinion, and signs the orders. Anything to reverse what Obama did.
Interesting article on the number of executive orders past Presidents have signed while in office ...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/politics/donald-trump-executive-orders/index.html
Trump Fails To Sanction Russia Over Election Meddling and Defies Congress With Three-Week Delay
Newsweek Greg Price,Newsweek 17
The Trump administration has failed to place new sanctions on Russia, further deepening allegations the president is soft on Russia.
New sanctions resoundingly flew through both chambers of Congress in July, President Donald Trump signed the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” on August 2. The bill called for fresh sanctions not only on Russia but Iran and North Korea as well.
But the administration missed the October 1 deadline to “issue regulations or other guidance” to indicate who from Russia’s defense and intelligence sectors—like its powerful Federal Security Service—would be targeted by the new sanctions.
The bill did give Trump until early next year to actually impose new sanctions on specific parts of Russia’s economy like finance and energy, according to LawFare.
The White House and Treasury Department did not immediately respond to Newsweek’s requests for comment.
The bill was a direct result of Russia’s meddling in last year’s election, though Trump has not completely accepted Russia and President Vladimir Putin’s efforts or even agreed with the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that the Russians intentionally interfered in order to help Trump claim the White House over Democrat Hillary Clinton.
At the time of the bill’s signing, Trump did not have media or photographers present, unlike many of his other signings, and he lamented the bill’s challenge to his power as head of the executive branch. The measure included a clause that allowed Congress to review any lifting of sanctions should Trump try do so.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fails-sanction-russia-over-152317789.html
just shows how much congress trusts this Russian in the white house!
Newsweek Greg Price,Newsweek 17
The Trump administration has failed to place new sanctions on Russia, further deepening allegations the president is soft on Russia.
New sanctions resoundingly flew through both chambers of Congress in July, President Donald Trump signed the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” on August 2. The bill called for fresh sanctions not only on Russia but Iran and North Korea as well.
But the administration missed the October 1 deadline to “issue regulations or other guidance” to indicate who from Russia’s defense and intelligence sectors—like its powerful Federal Security Service—would be targeted by the new sanctions.
The bill did give Trump until early next year to actually impose new sanctions on specific parts of Russia’s economy like finance and energy, according to LawFare.
The White House and Treasury Department did not immediately respond to Newsweek’s requests for comment.
The bill was a direct result of Russia’s meddling in last year’s election, though Trump has not completely accepted Russia and President Vladimir Putin’s efforts or even agreed with the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that the Russians intentionally interfered in order to help Trump claim the White House over Democrat Hillary Clinton.
At the time of the bill’s signing, Trump did not have media or photographers present, unlike many of his other signings, and he lamented the bill’s challenge to his power as head of the executive branch. The measure included a clause that allowed Congress to review any lifting of sanctions should Trump try do so.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fails-sanction-russia-over-152317789.html
just shows how much congress trusts this Russian in the white house!
Yes that is one of my more interesting typo's. And you should remember DNC's Perez that said We weren't there for the American people but we will be there to oppose Trump. Kind of sounds like the Republican game plan. during the Obama administration.
Even the media is starting to acknowledge they have been a good deal more negative with Trump than they have with any other president in recent memory. It is quite arguable he could have gotten more accomplished if he wasn't having to constantly defend himself.
You seem to have forgotten that the Democratic party was reduced to near irrelevance during the Obama administration. I read recently that the investigation of Russian tampering has reached into the Democratic party, I do wonder where that will lead.
I find your reference to to the Republican's doing nothing other than collecting their money mildly humorous. That is typical of most politicians regardless of party affiliation. Simply put the majority of the politicians are too stupid or too lazy to do well in the private sector. The only reason a business would hire an ex-congressman or President is for their political connection and their ability to deliver what the business need. In reality it is cheaper and just as effective to donate to the politicians favorite charity.
Given all the crap Trump has to put up with I think he has done fairly well. The one thing that the far left doesn't seem to grasp is people like Trump and Obama a very self centered and can be quite petty. The main difference is Trump has deep pockets to reap his vengeance. Obama not so much. The one problem that the Clinton's and Obama are stuck with is that the Democratic party got decimated during Obama's tenure. When you are in the business of selling favors you need a party infrastructure to deliver. Right now the Democratic party is fighting for it's life. I really expect a third party push in 2018. If neither the Democrats or Republicans control Congress things could get very interesting indeed
I really don't have a problem with that right now. All that there has been is a lot of allegations and innuendo. I recently read that the investigation is reaching into the Democratic party.
It would prove very interesting if it came out that the Democratic party played a roll in all this.
..........
Man, that's a good one. Maybe you should try "stand up comedy" for a while. Well, the difference is that Obama didn't piss everyone off and cause chaos, hate & discontent, or lie every time he drew a breath of air. Didn't act like a 2-3 year old kid and keep firing people. Obama accomplished a lot considering.
That's what Trump should expect considering his uncontrollable MOUTH and tweeting stupidity. Several Republicans, mind you, have already said Trump possibly has serious mental issues.
Compared to WHAT? Certainly not a sitting President ... not at bringing civility & teamwork to a Congressional body. He hasn't done squat ... take OUT his executive orders and what do you have? One Supreme Court judge ... whoopee! And the Republicans handed him THAT by stalling on Obama's rightful choice.
Oh man, I gotta get off this one. If YOU see Trump as anything other than than a bumbling idiot at this point, you maybe should go for a mental checkup as well. Just WHAT is it going to take for you Trump lovers to finally cry "UNCLE" with Trump?
Last edited:
Donald Trump's Legacy Will Be The 'Debasement Of Our Nation'
HuffPost Hayley Miller,HuffPost 4 hours ago
The public feud between Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and President Donald Trump continued to escalate on Tuesday.
The GOP senator, who warned earlier this month that Trump’s behavior could lead to World War III, told CNN that he believes the president’s legacy will be the “debasement of our nation.”
“He’s obviously not going to rise to the occasion as president,” Corker said. “I think at the end of the day, when his term is over, I think the debasing of our nation, the constant non-truth-telling, just the name-calling ― I think the debasement of our nation will be what he’ll be remembered most for. And that’s regretful.”
Corker supported Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign, but has since become one of the president’s most outspoken critics among Senate Republicans. He has condemned Trump over his rhetoric toward North Korea as well his response to the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August.
When asked if he would support Trump in another election, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman told CNN “no way.”
“Let’s just put it this way: I would not do that again,” Corker said of supporting Trump. “I think many of us ― me included ― have tried to intervene ... to try to create some kind of aspirational approach, if you will, to the way that he conducts himself. But I don’t think that’s possible.”
Hours earlier, Corker doubled down on his concern over the president’s inability to lead during an appearance on NBC’s “Today” show.
“I think that there are people around him that work in an effort to contain him,” Corker said when asked if Trump was a “threat” to national security. “That would be [Secretary of Defense James Mattis] and [Secretary of State Rex Tillerson] and Gen. [John] Kelly there as chief of staff.”
“When you kneecap your secretary of state, whose diplomacy you have to depend upon ... you really move our country into a binary choice, which could lead to a world war,” he continued. “So, yes, I want him to support diplomatic efforts ― not embarrass and really malign efforts that are underway.”
Trump is scheduled to have lunch Tuesday with the Senate GOP to discuss tax reform. But Corker dismissed the meeting as a “photo op.”
“I think it’s fine for him to come over,” he said. “I do look at these things as more of a photo op. They’re not really about substance, but, you know, more power to him.”
Minutes earlier during an appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Corker defended another statement earlier this month that likened the White House to an “adult day care center.”
“I don’t make comments I haven’t thought about,” Corker said. “I would just like [Trump] to leave it to the professionals for a while and see if we can do something that’s constructive for our country, the region and the world.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bob-corker-won-apos-t-135443528.html
impeachment is not enough...need to bring back public executions!
HuffPost Hayley Miller,HuffPost 4 hours ago
The public feud between Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and President Donald Trump continued to escalate on Tuesday.
The GOP senator, who warned earlier this month that Trump’s behavior could lead to World War III, told CNN that he believes the president’s legacy will be the “debasement of our nation.”
“He’s obviously not going to rise to the occasion as president,” Corker said. “I think at the end of the day, when his term is over, I think the debasing of our nation, the constant non-truth-telling, just the name-calling ― I think the debasement of our nation will be what he’ll be remembered most for. And that’s regretful.”
Corker supported Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign, but has since become one of the president’s most outspoken critics among Senate Republicans. He has condemned Trump over his rhetoric toward North Korea as well his response to the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August.
When asked if he would support Trump in another election, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman told CNN “no way.”
“Let’s just put it this way: I would not do that again,” Corker said of supporting Trump. “I think many of us ― me included ― have tried to intervene ... to try to create some kind of aspirational approach, if you will, to the way that he conducts himself. But I don’t think that’s possible.”
Hours earlier, Corker doubled down on his concern over the president’s inability to lead during an appearance on NBC’s “Today” show.
“I think that there are people around him that work in an effort to contain him,” Corker said when asked if Trump was a “threat” to national security. “That would be [Secretary of Defense James Mattis] and [Secretary of State Rex Tillerson] and Gen. [John] Kelly there as chief of staff.”
“When you kneecap your secretary of state, whose diplomacy you have to depend upon ... you really move our country into a binary choice, which could lead to a world war,” he continued. “So, yes, I want him to support diplomatic efforts ― not embarrass and really malign efforts that are underway.”
Trump is scheduled to have lunch Tuesday with the Senate GOP to discuss tax reform. But Corker dismissed the meeting as a “photo op.”
“I think it’s fine for him to come over,” he said. “I do look at these things as more of a photo op. They’re not really about substance, but, you know, more power to him.”
Minutes earlier during an appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Corker defended another statement earlier this month that likened the White House to an “adult day care center.”
“I don’t make comments I haven’t thought about,” Corker said. “I would just like [Trump] to leave it to the professionals for a while and see if we can do something that’s constructive for our country, the region and the world.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bob-corker-won-apos-t-135443528.html
impeachment is not enough...need to bring back public executions!
Last edited:
