Good job he sorted out north Korea. They should give him a Nobel Peace Prize.
LOL.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-45067681
LOL.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-45067681
TAKE THE POLL: HOW LONG BEFORE TRUMP GETS IMPEACHED
- Thread starter BigBlackBull76
- Start date
nongolfer
Male
Hudson Institute: By any measure, a conservative think thank, but also by any measure, extremely factual when reporting hard news.
Just to highight this, let's take a liberal source and see how they rate the factaul nature of Hudson Institute:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/hudson-institute/
Real Clear Politics / Real Clear Investigations: Same as above.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/
Pick any source to attempt to discredit the news accuracy of both the above. Then read this:
https://www.realclearinvestigations..._meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setup.html
Then try to find a legitimate counter to what the conclusion is.
Then attempt to reconcile your hatred of Donald Trump to your approval of this type of government violations of any American citizen's civil liberty.
I never cared a whole lot for William Jefferson Clinton, but I still disagreed with the government's violation of his civil liberty.
The difference between myself and several in this thread. My principles are not flexible based n whether I like or dislike someone. To defend any of this is unAmerican. This is not going to work out like a lot of you hope it works out. And I will still defend your right to disagree with me, and hate Donald John Trump. But I won't defend a violation of any American citizen's civil liberty.
We're not here yet, so just keep watching as this unravels.
Just to highight this, let's take a liberal source and see how they rate the factaul nature of Hudson Institute:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/hudson-institute/
Real Clear Politics / Real Clear Investigations: Same as above.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/
Pick any source to attempt to discredit the news accuracy of both the above. Then read this:
https://www.realclearinvestigations..._meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setup.html
Then try to find a legitimate counter to what the conclusion is.
Then attempt to reconcile your hatred of Donald Trump to your approval of this type of government violations of any American citizen's civil liberty.
I never cared a whole lot for William Jefferson Clinton, but I still disagreed with the government's violation of his civil liberty.
The difference between myself and several in this thread. My principles are not flexible based n whether I like or dislike someone. To defend any of this is unAmerican. This is not going to work out like a lot of you hope it works out. And I will still defend your right to disagree with me, and hate Donald John Trump. But I won't defend a violation of any American citizen's civil liberty.
We're not here yet, so just keep watching as this unravels.
I appreciate you coming to the debate here offering something rationale for a change for people to consider and I respect what you are relaying @nongolfer. I do my best to be non-objective and not view all information from a cognitive-bias but be cognitively dissonant. I will take a serious look at what you have provided when I have the opportunity and respond with my thoughts.
However don't mistaken my continuous posting of all the bad news press the man who's name shall not be named causes to hit the front pages of his own doing to be hatred from me. I don't hate anyone but I do dislike the person's behavior and think his policies as well as leadership direction is dangerous and unhinged. This is coming from no place of hatred, only simple facts on the state of the union and the person who was never fit to sit in the highest office of the land.
There has been so much crazy stuff coming out I haven't even been looking or thinking about it much really anymore and I think alot of people who were magnetized by his magnanimous personality are slowly waking up and his luster is fading. There is only so much crazy that people can tolerate.
Using history as a key, another thing to consider is as long as his job approval #s are low and people's dissatisfaction are high this will end the way everyone think its going to end with only one term. The question is whether he will be voted out, resign, or face articles of impeachment (DEMs have high probabilty of retaking the House). I'm not a DEM and I deplore Nancy Pelosi as much as the next Repub so I'm not cheering for this but its a possibility we should consider.
ref: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php
Last edited:
nongolfer
Male
Not really anything unexpected for those that are paying attention. Manafort, who also has some minor connections to Democrats, is a scum bag. And essentially a minor campaign finance violation that is only tangentially connected to POTUS.
It will be news for some time, and then it will disappear. It will be pretty sensational for those who don't pay attention though.
It will be news for some time, and then it will disappear. It will be pretty sensational for those who don't pay attention though.
@submission52 - I take it you are aiming your post toward me. Well first off the biggest joke is the idiot siting up in the white-house right now who continuously embarrasses himself week after week.
Again I haven't seen one rationale response from a Trump supporter beyond repeating the brain-washed rhetoric that Trump and his propaganda arms (fox news, Devin Nunes, and other twisted GOP supporters) go around spewing without any facts.
You don't know what news sources I consult and I don't believe in anything. The problem with the word believe is that the word 'LIE' sits right in the middle of it. And its especially why I don't believe in anything that comes out of the Liar in chief's loud mouth.
I get the facts and use multiple independent corroborating sources of information from investigative fact finding reporting. I try to stay away from liberal left skewed or hard right spin opinionated news sources.
If you have something factual to support your claims please provide them here and I'll consider it.
But lets start having a rationale discussion here and start using our own critical brains and lets cut off all the news media both CNN, and Fox.
Lets say @submission52 I'm on your-side and Mueller's investigation will find no collusion with Russia except for the Deep State Democrats and the fake dossier. Lets say I agree with you Ok. So to answer your question yes I will come back on here and apologize if I'm found in error for making the mistake of believing the witch-hunt.
Now that I've answered your question help me to answer the 20 questions below with solid facts and rationale responses so I have the correct information from sources I may be missing that are factual to support the position you listed above about this being a with-hunt and Democratic collusion without repeating what comes from out of Trump or his supporters mouths.
Question 1: Does the hacking into the computers of the Democratic National Committee and political think tanks constitute a crime?
Question 2: Why did Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort agree to take a meeting with foreign agents from Russian to knowingly accept dirt on Hillary Clinton and the DNC? Was that a violation of campaign election laws to knowingly and willingly accept support from a foreign power?
Question 3: Did Trump know that the meeting with the Russians at Trump Tower was going to be held?
Question 4: Who ordered Donald Jr. to lie about the intent of the meeting saying it was to discuss about Russian baby adoption?
Question 5: Did they (Trump Jr, his *******-in-law, and Presidential Campaing manager) know who was going to be present at the meeting beforehand in that Ivan Akhemet was a former Russian Intelligence officer who specialized in using hacked emails to smear business and political opponents (this is what he did in Russia for a decade against other Russian Businessmen)? Why was he at the meeting to discuss about Russian baby adoption?
Question 6: Why was the Trump campaign eager to accept intelligence from a foreign government about their political rivals which constitutes a definite form of interference and against US laws?
Question 7: If your getting help from a foreign government and your help is intelligence then your receiving help and abetting a foreign power. What was agreed to be given in return for exchange of this information and assistance?
Question 8: Is there a long-standing Justice Department regulation that they do not interfere with US Political campaigns?
Question 9: Do you know what Mueller's Special Counsel authorities and mandates state with regards to investigating the Trump Campaign and possible Collusion?
Question 10: If someone breaks the law, and it is within the statue of limitations do you agree that those individuals should be investigated to the fullest extent, given a fair hearing, prosecuted and charged for crimes they are found guilty of committing?
Question 11: If you know someone or lets say its me and I hire numerous men to work at my business whom a majority of them are being convicted of lying, committing other high-crimes against the state, embezzling money, misappropriation of funds, tax evasion, working as agents of foreign nation states would you begin to seriously question my integrity and judgement as an individual who has now shown a long history of associations with people accused of involvement in criminal enterprise activity?
Question 12: Have you read the Glen Simpson Co-founder of Fusion GPS testimonies to the US House of REPs and Senate? Oh you haven't. Well I have and they are bi-partisan reports from both REPUBs and DEMOs.
Well here are the questions related to the 'so-called fake Dossier' which you should read the transcripts of the testimony for yourself.
Question 13: What were the dates that 'so-called fake Dossier' was compiled and given to Fusion GPS? How was it that facts of events that we now know to be true reported in the Dossier by Christopher Steele 8 to 10months before they became public knowledge?
For example please answer the following for me factually:
Question 14: What did he report in the 'so-called fake Dossier' as the stated goal and intent of Russian hacking? Remember he wrote and reported this before it became public knowledge that the DNC was hacked or the first DNC email and memo was even released by wikileaks.
Well I'll actually help answer this one for you. Christopher Steele wrote the following in the 'so-called fake Dossier' report:
"1. Continuing on this theme, IVANOV said that the audience to be targeted by such operations was the educated youth in America as the PA assessed that there was still a chance they could be persuaded to vote for Republican candidate Donald TRUMP as a protest against the Washington establishment (in the form of Democratic candidate Hillary CLINTON). The hope was that even if she won, as a result of this CLINTON in power would be bogged down in working for internal reconciliation in the US, rather than being able to focus on foreign policy which would damage Russia’s interests. This also should give President PUTIN more room for manoeuvre in the run-up to Russia’s own presidential election in 2018.
2. IVANOV reported that although the Kremlin had underestimated the strength of US media and liberal reaction to the DNC hack and TRUMP’s links to Russia, PUTIN was generally satisfied with the progress of the anti-CLINTON operation to date. He recently had had a ******* with PUTIN to mark this. In IVANOV’s view, the US had tried to divide the Russian elite with sanctions but failed, whilst they, by contrast, had succeeded in splitting the US hawks inimical to Russia and the Washington elite more generally, half of whom had refused to endorse any presidential candidates a result of Russian intervention.
3. Speaking separately, also in early August 2016, a Kremlin official involved in US relations commented on aspects of the Russian operation to date. Its goals had been threefold- asking sympathetic US actors how Moscow could help them; gathering relevant intelligence; and creating and disseminating compromising information (‘kompromat’). This had involved the Kremlin supporting various US political figures, including funding indirectly their recent visits to Moscow. S/he named a delegation from Lyndon LAROUCHE; presidential candidate Jill STEIN of the Green Party; TRUMP foreign policy adviser carter PAGE; and former DIA Director Michael Flynn, in this regard as successful in terms of perceived outcomes."
Now answer me this, do you think those three (3) goals/mission of Russian hackers stated above were successfully accomplished? Be reasonable and rationale with your answer. Remember we are on the same side here but not using repeated rhetoric from Trump's mouth.
Question 15. Did Donald Trump stay in The Moscow Ritz Carlton in 2013 as the so-called fake Dossier report stated? Remember that Trump (according to Comey and his memo) stated that he never stayed at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow.
I'll also help answer this question for you. Lets use the REPUB investigation and Donald Trump's body-guard as a source (not liberal fake-news media) to help answer this question and lets even quote what Donald Trump's Body guard stated as he testified to congress:
"This is not how Schiller characterized the events in his own testimony.
Testifying before Congress last November, Schiller said that a Russian man he didn’t know offered to send five women to Trump’s hotel room. According to an NBC News report about the testimony, Schiller said that although he interpreted the offer as a joke, he discussed it with Trump as they walked back to his hotel room before each of them turned in for the night.
“Schiller testified that he stood outside Trump’s hotel room for a time and then went to bed,” NBC reported. “One source noted that Schiller testified he eventually left Trump’s hotel room door and could not say for sure what happened during the remainder of the night.”
REF: https://thinkprogress.org/comey-memos-trump-moscow-ritz-sex-workers-b23f8b2e13dc/
The above fact can be corroborated by several independent news sources that are not liberal nor fake news sources.
For the parts of the so-called fake Dossier where it makes the following three (3) statements:
"— Further evidence of extensive conspiracy between TRUMP's campaign team and Kremlin, sanctioned at highest levels and involving Russian diplomatic staff based in the US
— TRUMP associate admits Kremlin behind recent appearance of DNC e-mails on WikiLeaks, as means of maintaining plausible deniability
— Agreed exchange of information established in both directions. TRUMP's team using moles within DNC and hackers in the US as well as outside in Russia. PUTIN motivated by fear and hatred of Hillary CLINTON. Russians receiving intel from team on Russian oligarchs and their families in US"
Question 16: As for the first statement on Trump's campaign and Russian diplomatic staff based in the US, did Jeff Sessions and Michael Flynn not have extensive communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak? Because of their close ties with the "Russian diplomatic staff based in the US" did it not lead to Sessions recussing himself and Flynn pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian diplomatic staff?
Question 17: As for the second statement on "TRUMP associate admits Kremlin behind recent appearance of DNC e-mails on WikiLeaks", did Roger Stone not make the following tweets and how wold he know this information before the release of the hacked DNC e-mails and private memos?
As reported by the Guardian a self-reportedly "... editorially independent - ... journalism ..free from the influence of billionaire owners or politicians." based out of UK stated:
"The [Mueller] indictment says the Russians, using the persona Guccifer 2.0, wrote to an unnamed person “who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign of Donald J Trump”. On 15 August 2016, according to the indictment, Guccifer 2.0 wrote: “thank u for writing back … do u find anyt(h)ing interesting in the docs i posted?”
Two days later, Guccifer 2.0 added: “please tell me if i can help u anyhow ... it would be a great pleasure to me.”
REF: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ndictments-robert-mueller-vladimir-Poroshenko
As reported from CNBC - a credible non-partisan news source:
"Stone allegedly met with Assange, the Wikileaks founder, in August 2016. In an email leaked to The Wall Street Journal, Stone said, "I dined with my new pal Julian Assange last nite."
Stone has denied that he has met with the Wikileaks founder and said the email was in jest.
During the 2016 campaign, Wikileaks published emails allegedly stolen from the Democratic National Committee's servers by a Russia-linked hacker known as "Guccifer 2.0."
REF: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/03/mue...en-roger-stone-trump-campaign-aide-gates.html
Question 18: Also why did TRUMP know and ask "Russia if your listening please find Hillary Clinton's 35,000 missing emails"? Why would he ask Russia specifically? What if Hillary or I made the following statement: "China if your listening, please find Donald Trump's missing Tax records." Would I be asking a foreign power to interfere and break a law. Would I be baiting and inciting a crime with a actor who has the means, and capability to actually pull it off?
Question 19: With regards to the third statement where it says "Agreed exchange of information established in both directions. ... Russians receiving intel from team on Russian oligarchs and their families in US" - who is the 'team' that is referred to where it says "the Russians are receiving information about Russian oligarchs and their families in the US"?
If Trump has Russians living at his properties along with a vast surveillance system for security purposes to protect the residents, wouldn't this information be of great interest to Russian Intelligence services and do you not think that they would not get it?
Question 20: If the Dossier is so fake, how did Steele accurately report from his sources that Carter Page was in Moscow in 2016 meeting with Putin officials in which he was recorded on Russian news media as given a speech around the same time in addition to the FISA warrant taps US INTEL had on him which also corroborates whom he met with?
The 'so-called fake Dossier' reports the following:
"1. Speaking in July 2016, a Russian source close to Rosneft President, PUTIN close associate and US-sanctioned individual, Igor SECHIN, confided the details of a recent secret meeting between him and visiting Foreign Affairs Advisor to Republican presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, Carter PAGE.
2. According to SECHIN's associate, the Rosneft President (CEO) had raised with PAGE the issues of future bilateral energy cooperation and prospects for an associated move to lift Ukraine-related western sanctions against Russia. PAGE had reacted positively to this demarche by SECHIN but had been generally non-committal in response."
The statements above are Independently corroborated from other sources which report the following:
"It is known that Carter Page was in Moscow to give a speech on July 7, 2016. Thus, the timeline for the alleged secret meetings in Moscow is consistent with Page's known travels.
It was reported on April 19, 2017, that Exxon Mobil applied to the Treasury Department for a waiver to resume its joint venture with Russia's state oil company, Rosneft, despite current U.S. sanctions. This news came exactly a week after Rex Tillerson, the current Secretary of State, had an unscheduled meeting with Putin in Moscow, after leaving behind the U.S. press pool. Tillerson is the former CEO of Exxon and retired January 1, 2017. Tillerson also is a recipient of the Order of Friendship by Putin. Tillerson is a friend of Igor Sechin, the Executive Chairman of Rosneft. In 2011, on behalf of ExxonMobil, Tillerson signed an agreement with Russia for drilling in the Arctic that could be valued up to $300 billion. The company began drilling in the Kara Sea in the summer of 2014 until a round of sanctions against Russia due to the Ukrainian crisis brought the project to a halt."
REF: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/carter-page-russia-trip-trump-corey-lewandowski-235784
There is another serious problem with Trump and the GOP's attacks on the FISA warrant for Carter Page being based on the so-called fake Dossier. The Dossier didn't come out until 2016, and 3 Republican judges all appointed by Trump approved of the FISA warrant but what does Trump and the GOP have to say about the 3 other FISA warrants ordered on Page before Trump even began running for President? If Page wasn't of interest to US INTEL for all of his foreign travel and people he was meeting with why would they need to get FISAs on him in 2013/14.
REF: https://www.justsecurity.org/59837/reports-carter-page-subject-fisa-warrant-2013-2014/
I can go on and on with other serious questions that would make any logical, rationale critical thinking individual have serious reservations about believing the person [i.e. Trump] whom these questions are posed about above.
So far over 75% of the 'so-called fake Dossier' has been found to be credible and that's not bad coming all from Human sources. The report was never meant to be taken literally but was all here-say which had to be independently verified by other intelligence sources such as from wire-taps, and other various means anyway.
But now seriously answer for me, do all of those questions above sound like they are made up and part of a witch-hunt to you?
Again we are speaking rationally here and I know it might make your brain hurt to be using it this much but use it finally for a change instead of believing everything the 'Tele-a-lie-to-your-vision' is relaying to your eyes and ears.
So now to answer your one question as to whether after Mueller's investigation is done, and no collusion with Russians is found will I come back on here to tell everyone how I was wrong and how silly I was for believing all of it - I'll do that once you answer the 20 legitimate and rationale questions I asked above first.
Otherwise stay the hell off this thread with the weak rhetoric and come with hard independently corroborated facts from other than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Devine Nunes, Alex Jones, and Qanon and all them other liars who's info I do read by the way so I know the tin-foil hat BS they are spewing. I'm way more informed than you think I am and you obviously have shown yourself 'NOT' to be.
Three Separate TIME MAG covers from the begging of Trump's presidency, then 1 yr in as up to last week being where he is underwater now:
Last edited:
Hey there @nongolfer - so I told you I would follow-up on your post and I checked out the link you sent which was actually really good and I appreciate you putting me on to that factcheck/bias site as I'll continue to refer to it.
Only one of the sources you showed on the links for 'Real Clear Politics' I actually look it so its the only one I checked out. Interesting to see what the findings reported in which RCP has always been a news aggregator pulling in feeds from both liberal and conservative media sources but I do notice alot of the actual RCP editorial reporting seems to lean right.
I got no problem with RCP as I like the polling data they show. So its slightly biased skewed to the right and I look at RCP everyday so what does that now tell you and say about me?
That I look at right-leaning news sources from RCP is that a good thing in your eyes?
Something else I look at on major news days are Drudge and Fox. I did notice these headlines on the day of both Manafort and Cohen's guilty convictions and pleas respectively:
From CNBC which I also look at daily:
Then from Drudge
So what does that tell you about Fox news and I found this article today interesting also and I give alot of respect to the ******* for standing up and speaking out on how his *******'s name is being commandered for political spin purposes to distract the masses from the real issues that need to be addressed instead of fear baiting and stoking up the ugly side of the base.
REF: https://www.businessinsider.com/mollie-tibbetts-*******-immigration-debate-racism-2018-9
Yeah 52% of the people who voted on the poll on here knew Trump was guilty of Obstruction and Collusion in Year one we don't need to wait 5 yrs like it did for Tricky Dick to get impeached. But time will soon reveal all and prove what we already called from Year one - no biggie.
President Donald Trump's attacks on special counsel Robert Mueller and Attorney General Jeff Sessions don't appear to be sinking in.
Nearly two-thirds of American adults support Mueller's ongoing investigation into Russian interference during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Friday.
A majority of respondents – 52 percent — say they "strongly" support Mueller's probe. Twenty-nine percent said they oppose it.
There's also bad news for Trump's lawyers, who reportedly argued in a memo to Mueller that it's impossible for Trump to illegally obstruct justice, as more than half of Americans disagree.
Fifty-three percent say they think Trump attempted to interfere in Mueller's investigation in a manner that amounted to obstruction of justice.
It's a discouraging poll for Trump, whose regular talking points about the Mueller probe seem to be garnering more opposition than support among majorities of American adults. It also highlights the mounting pressure Trump faces from Democratic candidates hoping to retake the House of Representatives in the November midterm elections. Democrats have maintained a steady lead in generic ballot polls.
That appears to be taking a toll on Trump's overall approval rating, as well. Sixty percent of Americans now disapprove of Trump's job as president, a new high for the poll, according to the Post. Just 36 percent approve of Trump's job performance; 24 percent say they "strongly" approve.
The poll reflects sharp partisan divides over Sessions, the Mueller probe and Trump's handling of the presidency. But independents also tended to back Mueller and Sessions by significant margins.
Recent polling in general also suggests that Mueller has regained the upper hand in the public's perception of Trump's battle with the special counsel. Americans' disapproval of Mueller had been on the rise, but that appears to have reversed following a new wave of revelations about Trump associates – and as the president and his surrogates have beefed up their attacks on Mueller.
The Washington Post-ABC poll, conducted Aug. 26-29 from a random national sample of 1,003 adults, also shows a significant dip in Trump's approval compared with other recent surveys.
Polling from NBC News and The Wall Street Journal published Aug. 26, for instance, showed Trump's approval at 44 percent among registered voters.
That number also showed a decline from previous surveys, but it was largely attributed to legal bombshells relating to former associates in Trump's orbit, including his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who was convicted on tax and bank fraud charges lodged by Mueller.
Political data site RealClearPolitics currently gives Trump an average approval rating of about 43 percent.
Although Trump has regularly berated Sessions for handing the reins of the Russia investigation over to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein by recusing himself, 62 percent of Americans take Sessions' side over Trump's on the issue of Mueller's probe.
Sessions recused himself shortly after failing to disclose in confirmation hearings his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Trump has not fired Sessions, who was among his earliest supporters in Congress during the 2016 campaign, but has instead chosen to repeatedly criticize the top Justice Department official in interviews and on Twitter. He told Bloomberg News on Thursday that Sessions was safe in his job until at least the November elections.
A clear 64 percent majority of Americans believe Trump should not fire Sessions. But surprisingly, far more Democrats than Republicans think Trump should keep Sessions, a former GOP senator, in his job: 75 percent of Democrats say Trump should not fire him, compared with 47 percent of Republicans.
REF: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/31/mos...-mueller-probe-and-ag-jeff-sessions-poll.html
You prove my point exactly. No credible, rationale, brain-cell used with any factual response to provide anything to the contrary against the obstruction to interfere with the investigation into the Trump campaigns Collusion.
I see your silly response and raise you 7 hard-hitting facts in return. Your next silly response will result in your mute on this thread also.
Is that you Robert Mueller?
Lol - well there is an easy way to settle all of this. Trump should just sit down and meet with Mueller to answer all of the special counsel's questions and make sure the transcript is made available to the public with no redactions.
It will all be ok as time will soon reveal all and the light is coming to give back everything that the darkness of Trump's cover-ups, and twisted lies try to burry.
Last edited:
