I Have A Question For Trump Supporters - Things Are Not Going To End Well For Donald Trump, At What Point Will You Accept That Fact ?
by JR
In addition to all else, which is a lot, we now have three books this year that expose the Trump white house , and the president, as in chaos, in confusion, in denial, of both facts and reality. The Fire and Fury book, the Omarosa book, and Woodward's book "Fear". Michael Wolff's book Fire And Fury and Woodward's book both had extensive co-operation from people within the administration. Many of the allegations in those books haven't even been denied. If a fraction of them , particularly about the president himself, are accurate, Trump is a train wreck of a president. Of course we also know he is a train wreck of a president because of his own statements, tweets and rallies. He would be a train wreck even without these three books and the NYT op-ed written by a "senior administration official" which claims that Trump is an ongoing danger to the American people. And of course there is the widespread belief that Robert Mueller will recommend that Trump be impeached if not criminally indicted.
What I wonder about now, in terms of Trump supporters, is how they think all this is going to end. Before anyone answers, I would just point out one thing, Trump is a known and proven serial and constant liar. Can you think of anyone in such a public profile who has had a 'happy ending' after being exposed as such a corrupt and dishonest individual? This is all not going to end well for Trump, in fact, it is going to end with Trump in eternal disgrace. It may happen "now" , it may happen over the next two years, it may happen in the next presidential election. Most likely this disgrace will be a snowball rolling down a hill picking up speed and mass as it goes along. We can easily surmise this for many reasons, but the most simple and convincing one is because Trump can't stop himself from doing dishonest, foolish, and self serving things, pretty much every day. As they say, this is a feature of "Donald Trump", not a bug.
Donald Trump's popularity has peaked. Latest polls show him going in the wrong direction, from his perspective. He is never going to see the north side of 50% popularity. He is never going to see the north side of 45% popularity. Mainly because he is a pathological liar, - and since he is a malignant narcissist, he can't change that or correct it.
What I am saying is not wishful thinking or partisanship, it is common sense. People who disagree with me have to believe that there can be a pathological liar in the White House, who can't control his mouth, and has people inside his own operation who are working against him, and who is under criminal investigation, who offends the majority of the US population every time he opens his mouth, and yet "somehow" he is going to turn this garbage scow on fire around and become a respected and popular figure , and be re-elected and go off into history as a great man. Never ever ever going to happen. That is not what happens to pathological liars. Pathological liars end in disgrace.
If you are a Trump supporter, do you want to go down with that ship?
Tags
Who is online
114 visitors
I can answer that for them, never. It is a cult of personality at this point. They are invested in some idea of the man rather than the man himself, or his actions. Just give up on them.
Then they will share his disgrace.
Happily so. They are like those who were in the Berlin Bunker.
I think the only way they'd turn on him is if he pulled a Caitlin Jenner. Just like when one of their macho choreographed wrestlers changes their persona to go from hero to villain, the only thing that would alter their view of Trump is if he went full implants, wearing ball gowns and feather boas and started talking with a high voice. They're completely caught up in the image that they can't care less about the substance, so even if the newly sex changed Donalda Trump was cutting taxes and dismantling regulations they would abandon her in droves. I'm sure by then some other Republican bigot would take up the hero cape and pronounce how they will defeat the leftist, liberal transsexual President thus getting the same hateful bigots Trump champions behind them.
I don't know... I may like it
[deleted]
Just remember .. you must call it the "front hole" now. Grab em by the front hole.
Why would I want to do that? I mean the face isn't the place to grab a woman,
Interesting it was deleted as off topic and no value by SP. how was it off topic? It was direct answer to the question. Yet the one by John is still there? If your going to be biased you figure they wouldn't make it so obvious
I did. Was trying to figure out how you message the mods on why something was deletede
That Springsteen "You Never Can Tell" video is one of my most favorite cuts. If you haven't watched it, do yourself a favor and give it a listen.
Then, if you're into Boogie Woogie, listen to Jorg Hegemann tear up a full grand piano with some real classy boogie in the next cut.
(I can't believe that Springsteen video showed up on a NewsTalker thread, this place is starting to show some real class)
Correction: The Springsteen video is not on NewsTalkers. It comes up after you play the James Cagney video. Check it out. Bruce and the E Street horns blow the song away.
Exactly, they'll simply claim the ship was sabotaged by left wing extremists (like Robert Mueller!) and that Trump did nothing wrong, no matter how damning the evidence may be.
Yep, kind of like driving your car down the street and, denying that there is traffic in your way, ya know that can hurt after a while,
Trump has already admitted guilt to both the Russian collusion and obstruction of justice, what else do you want?
Not everyone is as corrupt and leaky as Trump and his minions, Mueller is a professional and shows it every day. Remember, there were no leaks on any of his subpoenas or indictments, you'll find out when he lets you find out.
Mueller has been tight lipped about everything since the beginning, what makes you think he'll stop being tight lipped now?
Trump’s new tweet on Don Jr.’s Trump Tower meeting
getting dirt on a political opponent is not colluding with russia.
collusion looks more like this....
So now you are disputing his own Tweets and video recording? This is why no one takes you seriously, even when faced with video evidence, you pretend it does not exist.
It is when you get the information from a foreign country that is trying to effect our election. But you go right ahead with your claims, those opinions and a penny might get you a gumball.
Donald Trump says collusion is not a crime. That's not right.
but when hillary and the dnc paid russians for that bs dossier that was OK?? (explain this oddity)
how is it ok for hillary and the dnc to do exactly what they accuse trump of doing?
any thoughts on this??
Explain it? Easy. Didn't happen except in some right wing nut's aluminum clad head.
The Free Beacon newspaper paid Fusion GPS, a New York based company for opposition research into Donald Trump. When Trump won the primaries, Fusion GPS shopped the info around to Trump's other opposition, who purchased that information.
Reality check: What about "Clinton collusion"?
Did Hillary Clinton collude with the Russians to get ‘dirt’ on Trump to feed it to the FBI?
the nytimes's is rightwingnut? now that is damn funny
I know things move fast but do try to keep up if possible
the fact that hillary and the dnc paid for the russian bs is not even debatable.
try again.
Did you even bother to read the article you linked?????? It supports what I said, NOT your claim.
My statement:
Title of the article you linked:
Info in the article to support your claim of paying Russia for info:
it is only illegal if trump does it... LOL
cheers
get your eyes checked
Are you trying to change your claim now? You said...
Fusion GPS is an American based, specifically New York based company. Are you really having that hard a time comprehending your own statement????
which payed british spy christopher steele to dig up dirt through his contacts in moscow,
old news... whats your point? are you saying hillary and the dnc are not responsible for what fusion gps does on their behalf?
or maybe fusion is not responsible for what they paid steele to do??
that is an interesting argument... let's take it to court and see how far it gets.
Cheers
Former British spy, and guess what...HE WASN'T RUSSIAN!!!!!
So it is OK with you if a forgiegn agent meddles in our election as long as they are not Russian and/or they are working On behalf of your chosen candidate
What foreign agent?
British spy = British agent
British = citizen of Britain, a foreign country
British spy = foreign agent.
I like how you made a point to ignore the word FORMER. That one word kind of ruins your entire argument, since he is now a private citizen. Not to mention the small fact that you are claiming she paid Russia for it.
How do you keep anything straight with all your spins???
So you don't mind if a foreign citizen meddles with our elections. You are very selective that way.
Oh and when did I say that Hillary paid Russia ? Be specific.
Wow, that is an amazing reach you have there. His actions were as an employee of Fusion GPS, not on behalf of any foreign country.
Amazing, if you are not addressing the subject at hand get the fuck out of the comment thread. If you jump in to defend someone else's comment, you are defending the whole comment not select words that you can pull out at random.
This comment thread is about the claim that Hillary colluded with and paid off Russia, now go away and start your own thread if you want to discuss something else and let 8 ball try to justify his/her own beliefs.
Well, I think any sane person would understand the difference between a citizen of a nation who's been an ally for nearly a century who works together with our government to defend western democracy, and a citizen of the nation that has been our largest enemy and has sought to undermine western democracy for the better part of 60 years. A private company hiring an expert on Russian mobsters who had spent the last two decades investigating them as a British secret agent is very different than meeting with Russian government assets offering illegally obtained dirt on your opponent in exchange for lifting sanctions or repealing the Magnitsky act. If someone can't see that HUGE difference, I feel sorry for them, the Trump blinders they're wearing obviously have prevented any patriotic perspective.
Going to be laughing my tail off and watching the progressive liberal left's heads implode should President Trump make it all the way through his first term, and watch them foaming at the mouth as their virulent hatred of the right drives them further over the edge. But either way, only time will tell.
Most people who are honest with themselves realize that Trump can't tell the truth on an ongoing basis, and really isnt interested in telling the truth. Do you really believe this is all going to end well for him?
Yeah, Ok,
, Trump has told more lies than the two Clintons and, Obama combined and, he's only been president for less than two years.
[deleted] and I dont care if Perrie bans me for saying so. Seriously. Listening to this delusional shit from you people everyday is too much. Let this place go to the dogs.
Maybe you have an affinity for trolls that I never acquired. I don't know what else to tell you BF.
He may indeed find out you are right, but you will never ever see him admit it...
I never said it would or would not end well for him. I did state only time will tell.
It's quite possible he does make it through his first term. Interesting that even you don't predict a second term.
If you truly believe he would go for a 2nd term, you are not a realist. Remember, after firing her, he tried to hire Omarosa for his 2nd term campaign staff. This just means that his campaign "staff" is just a front for him to pay off people that know things about him.
I find it a waste of time predicting things like that. Too many variables involved. I never thought President Obama would get a second term, but he did. As I said, only time will tell.
History will not treat Trump well. His supporters will move on in time to find another 'savior', but, history will long remember the worst President in American history to ever occupy the Oval office.
My OPINION.
You are correct. This period will be looked at as a "what the fuck?" period in American History. Our great grand kids are gonna shit all over us.
[deleted]
If only we could get trump to do that....truth isn't something trump uses, ever.
Yeah. Lets see. "Truth is not truth," Giuliani. "Alternative facts," Kellyanne Conway. "You will bow and kneel to Trump," the Omarosa.
It's not a fact. It's your opinion, and frankly, your strange hope. I will accept it as fact when it happens, and not before.
The fact is people have been talking about impeaching him since before he was even elected . I've posted a lot of links here, but I find the anti-Trump hysteria to be staggering in its scope.
10/12/2016: Want Mike Pence? No problem — elect Trump then impeach him
4/17/2016: Could Trump Be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office?
9/22/2016: University of Utah finds legal case to impeach Donald Trump
10/4/2016: THE CASE FOR A TRUMP IMPEACHMENT
More calls for impeachment arose after the election and before the inauguration.
11/10/2016: What would actually happen if Donald Trump was impeached?
11/16/2016: Professor predicted Trump win, says he will be impeached
11/10/2016: People Are Searching Google for Ways to Impeach Donald Trump
12/20/2016: Remove President Donald Trump (Impeachment)
On Inauguration Day, people were talking about impeachment.
1/20/2017: The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun
1/20/2017: There’s Already a Campaign to Impeach President Donald Trump
There are lots more. Just Google "impeach trump" and set a custom date range for 1/20-1/21/2017. There are pages and pages of search results on impeachment from just Inauguration Day and the day after.
That represents a profound detachment from reality and our concepts of justice and fairness. And the numbers of people prepared to throw out rules of justice and evidence for their political goals is profound! And sad, too, to my mind.
Trump's enemies are the ones who have been denying the facts. If any of these calls for impeachment were legitimately based on facts, as opposed to speculation and innuendo, he would have been impeached already.
I'm not a Trump supporter in particular - at least not as opposed to all other alternatives. I preferred him over Clinton. That's about as far as it goes. He was my last choice of the 17 Republicans running in the primaries. But I don't see how Trump going down would bring down his supporters. They'd just support somebody else. Unless you're one of those people who thinks we should jail or kill Trump or his supporters.
Man arrested after allegedly threatening to kill Trump supporters, GOP lawmaker
15 Stars Who Imagined Violence Against Donald Trump, From Kathy Griffin to Pearl Jam (Photos)
Man who attempted to grab gun at rally wanted 'to kill Trump'
Guest column: What do we do with Trump’s supporters after he’s gone?
Even leading Republicans agree that Trump supporters are traitors. How should Trump's treasonous supporters be punished, firing squad, hanging, incarceration, torture, sterilization, or others?
There is no "anti-Trump hysteria" , there is an understanding that he is unfit for office. He has been unfit for office since the second he came down that escalator in June of '15.
The man is a pathological liar. He lies to the American people numerous times every single day. It isnt going to get better, it's going to get worse. He's not going to get re-elected, he's going to end up disgraced, either through Mueller or through the ballot box. I have been saying for two years that the true enemy right now is not Trump himself, but his delusional dishonest supporters. If they don't change we are headed for big trouble in this country as all this plays out.
There's so much in that is just political feelings. What does "unfit" mean? How is this "understanding" arrived at? Why does it carry any weight? Don't 61 million American disagree with you?
Ok. If he does, he does. Why hope for a thing like that with any president?
Like what kind of trouble?
Here's another opinion …
Paul Manafort appears ready to deal ... his legal fees are for sure an issue …
… but I believe he fears a Democratic takeover of the House and possibly the Senate as of the 2018 midterm elections … which would mean ... no Trump pardons … and if this fear takes hold …
… other dominoes may fall for the same reason … my two cents.
Speaking of a Dem takeover of the House and Senate, the numbers are looking really bad for the GOP and thus really good for America:
It's a shame that the GOP can't learn to act responsibly.
That could mean a lot of things, from declaring that Trump himself was the mastermind of some nefarious Russian alliance to take over America to simply pleading guilty just to get things over with. Either way, even if Trump were impeached and convicted, he can still pardon anyone he wants up until the last moment of his presidency and it's perfectly legal.
I'm not convinced Trump plans to pardon him, though. The things Manafort is charged with don't have anything to do with Trump and even though the prosecution is political, if Manafort legitimately broke a bunch of laws, why should he be pardoned? I think at best, some of the sentences might be commuted.
That's the question, isn't it?
And the answer is... "Yes! Of course!"
They are Trump supporters. That is the essence of who they are. If they do not support Trump - regardless of what he does - then they do not exist.
trump will be re-elected in 2020.
when will you accept that fact?
Kind of hard to get re-elected when you're behind bars.
Do you believe in Unicorns too?
or in them...
[deleted]
I'll let Trump tell you,
If the Republicans lose one house they will see that protecting Trump isn't politically viable for them and, will vote to impeach or, worse will apply Article 25.
When will you get it? It's not tainted nor, is it a witch hunt,
And, just so you know, it isn't all on Mueller, the New York state AG has filed charges against Trump Enterprises and, has indicted its executives.
He sure is finding a lot of witches....
He SHOULD be impeached because he is a fucking retard. I would be astonished if his IQ were in the triple digits. IMO, and this has been my opinion from the start, he is too fucking dumb to be the president. He literally is not intelligent enough to be trusted with the responsibility the office brings.
lol...haven't you guys been fantazing that Trump will be in prison for 2 years.
Mueller...collusion...obstruction...Russia...
Have a drink and forget about it......
It is only the guilty that try to discredit the investigators and, the investigation. If Trump is innocent of conspiracy with Russia or, anyone else then why is he trying to obstruct the investigation? If Trump is innocent of this then why is he trying to discredit not only the Mueller investigation but, HIS justice department.
Better learn how to count Russian Rubles.
Mueller is top notch....he is the best of the best right? Hand picked 15 who specialize in financial crimes, political corruption, national security, organized crime, cyber crime, appellate law. No stone unturned. No crime either.
Guilty of what exactly?
Was it made in Russia?
Let's let the investigation play out but, IMO, I think it will be obstruction of justice, money laundering, interfering with an election, bribery, extortion, just to name a few.
Let's get Buz out first.
yeah let's
But Galen, what does any of it to do with collusion?
Please don't tell me that all of that came out of an investigation that shouldn't have been launched in the first place?
Galen, tell me it ain't so
Prove it.
No it won't, we have three remedies, impeachment, Article 25 and, the vote. Trump won't make it to 2025 as POTUS.
I wouldn't think so. He only can have 2 terms, but it is a nice thought
Not according to Trump,
Found on Twitter: “I (we) are… doing things that nobody thought possible, despite the never ending and corrupt Russia Investigation, which takes tremendous time and focus,” Trump tweeted. “No Collusion or Obstruction (other than I fight back), so now they do the Unthinkable, and RAID a lawyers office for information! BAD!”
It doesn't matter if he was "fighting back" it is obstruction and, he admitted to it.
Only to Trumpbots, the rest of America wants the Mueller investigation to continue.
It's amazing how it's "his" justice department when you all think they're going after someone other than Trump but, it becomes the "deep state" when it's Mueller and, Rosenstein going after the Russia investigation, can't ya'all make up your minds?
Fighting back is not obstruction, as a matter of fact it is essential when the real matter is "IMPEACHMENT". That battle has to be fought in the court of public opinion.
So, the only people talking "collusion" is Trump, Giuliani and, the Trumpbots, everyone else is talking about conspiracy, obstruction of justice, money laundering and, election tampering. Soooo, you don't think that finding out how the Russians interfered in our elections and, preventing it from happening again is worth it? OK, got it, how ya doing Comrade?
Would you agree that Obama was president until January 2017, even though Trump was elected in November of 2016?
When you are the president of the United States and, you are under investigation or, parts of your campaign are under investigation and, you actively try to undermine the investigation that is obstruction of justice and, that is a crime and, that makes it an impeachable offense. Check the Watergate investigation for any other reference.
You forgot when it was liberals who talked "collusion" 24/7? Why did they stop? Because even they now know that it never happened. So now it's on to anything they can get him with. You had an investigation without a criminal pretext. A total fraud that Rosenstein never should have started
Yup. But that has nothing to do with Trump being President until 2025. You made a little boo-boo and i made light of it. NP
Which was initiated without a crime!
and, you actively try to undermine the investigation that is obstruction of justice
There is no evidence to that charge.
that makes it an impeachable offense.
Your opinion of what constitutes obstruction does not make it so. If democrats win the House they will move to impeach, regardless of any charge and the result will be the same as it was for Clinton - a tarnishing of his Presidency and i know the haters will be happy even with only that.
No "boo boo" IF Trump stays in office and, gets re-elected he would be president and, in office until January 2025. The next presidential election is in 2020, the person who wins that will be in office until January 2025.
Because the Mueller people said that they weren't looking at "collusion" they were looking for the crime of conspiracy.
No, conspiracy happened, that is evident in what has been said and, testified to by Cohen, Kushner, Trump Jr and, Eric Trump.
There is plenty to get him on, just ask his accountant.
Trump has no one to blame but, himself, he hired Sessions who recused himself because he was involved in the campaign and, was a possible party to what happened, Trump hired Rosenstein and, advised that another special counsel be set up to look into the Comey firing and, the Russian meddling, Mueller only went were the evidence has lead him, if it leads to the Oval Office then Trump can thank himself for that.
Sorry, there was a crime committed, remember that little thing about a foreign government, (Russia), meddling in our elections, that is a crime and, if you, as an American are complicit then you are as guilty as the Russians are.
I have posted the evidence twice on here today, just because, you want to ignore it isn't my problem.
It's not my opinion, it is what I have learned from the legal wonks on different news story's.
See, this is where I have you, a while back I asked you, I think, if you would accept Trump being impeached if Mueller found evidence on him, you just admitted that you won't accept it, in fact you would still think it a witch hunt.
If Mueller has what I think he has, there won't be any doubt in most Americans minds that Trump is guilty and, you can't tarnish something that has never been polished.
"The battle has to be fought in the court of public opinion." ? ? Really? So now we are a nation of opinions---especially those opinions that are screamed the loudest---and not a nation of law?
Kavanaugh. 'The president is above the law and can not be questioned, indicted or prosecuted.' If this is the case, then the concept of "Divine Right" and the rule of Kings is the new America. And all of this because of Trump? Is he really worth it?
Where did I say that in my post, please show me. Deflection is only good if you are using a repulsor ray, somehow I don't think this guy would like that,
Sure, OK, so, how many unicorns do you have in your backyard? Do you think obstruction of justice is impeachable? It was during the Watergate investigation. Do you think intimidating witness's is impeachable? It was during Watergate. Do you thing bribery and, money laundering are impeachable? They are crimes.
Haven't you guys been fantasizing about locking Hillary up for over 20 years? LMAO!!!
Especially funny? Flynn led chants of, "lock her up!!!", now he is the one that may end up in prison... Gotta love it!
Forty years...
She has been the subject of close scrutiny ever since Whitewater... by both law enforcement and investigatve journalists.
With all that... nothing has been found.
Meanwhile, the Trumpsters are sent to prison, one after the other.
The people who shout "Lock her up!" are ridiculous...
That's what it's down to. The President hasn't broken any laws. You want to charge "obstruction" now, yet you don't know what it is. Look at what Bill Clinton did - witness tampering - that rises to obstruction. No matter democrats will charge the President with "obstruction" if they win the House via impeachment. Impeachment is to be fought publicly as Bill Clinton did. So the game is on.
That is the cover for an investigation of Trump, who did not commit a crime. The special Counsel was appointed to investigate Trump....without a crime.
I have posted the evidence twice on here today, just because, you want to ignore it isn't my problem.
Such trivia could never produce a bill of indictment
It's not my opinion, it is what I have learned from the legal wonks on different news story's.
Legal wonks? Where at CNN?
See, this is where I have you, a while back I asked you, I think, if you would accept Trump being impeached if Mueller found evidence on him, you just admitted that you won't accept it, in fact you would still think it a witch hunt.
And my statement stands. Do you think democrats are going to need a crime or a finding from Mueller to call for impeachment? As I said if they take over the House, they will call for impeachment without any crime at all! Can you comprehend that ???
If Mueller has what I think he has, there won't be any doubt in most Americans minds that Trump is guilty and, you can't tarnish something that has never been polished.
I'm sure you think he's got something, just like Trump was sure he had the biggest inauguration crowd.
I hope they do. Donald Trump is completely unfit to hold the office. The conservatives of America have completely lost their minds in supporting this travesty.
And a left wing radical IS fit to hold the office???
Prove it.
No, it was appointed to investigate Russia meddling in our elections and, to go where the evidence leads them, even if it leads them to the Oval Office.
Sure it could, Trump confessed on national TV that he fired Comey over the "Russia thing" as he put it.
No. I don't watch that channel.
Yes because, I don't think they will have the votes in the Senate without it.
I can comprehend that a REPUBLICAN House would try that with a Democratic president but, the Democrats are smarter, they will vote to impeach only when they have overwhelming evidence in their possession.
Mueller let Popodopolis go without so much as a whimper about his sentence to the judge or, without trying to turn him so, that tells me he doesn't need him to make a case, that should be very troubling to anyone who supports Trump.
It came into existent because Scumbag fired the man who was investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Shortly after that, Scumbag told the American people on TV that he fired that man "because of the Russia thing." So, it's no surprise that as that now special counsel investigation progressed that it began pointing more and more right back to where it began: Scumbag. If you want someone to blame that's the place to start (and will likely end).
I already have. The special Counsel was appointed for no other reason than the firing of the liar & leaker Comey
No, it was appointed to investigate Russia meddling in our elections and, to go where the evidence leads them, even if it leads them to the Oval Office.
then why was the special counsel only appointed after Comey was fired?
Sure it could, Trump confessed on national TV that he fired Comey over the "Russia thing" as he put it.
That statement is open to wide interpretation, don't you think? How about Comey refusing to make public that Trump wasn't under investigation? Would that not be the Russia thing?
Yes because, I don't think they will have the votes in the Senate without it.
You may be one of the very few who believes that
I can comprehend that a REPUBLICAN House would try that with a Democratic president but, the Democrats are smarter, they will vote to impeach only when they have overwhelming evidence in their possession.
Should they flip the House IT WILL be their first order of business
Mueller let Popodopolis go without so much as a whimper about his sentence to the judge or, without trying to turn him so, that tells me he doesn't need him to make a case, that should be very troubling to anyone who supports Trump.
The Mueller team argued for the full sentence. That was their big link remember to "collusion" and their claim that the FBI investigation began with him. What they ended up with was a charge of lying to the FBI about who he knew. The sentence was the Judges view of the charges and the credibility of the prosecution's position that the lie prevented them from interviewing someone who spoke at a State Department sponsored event in Feb 2017.
So what? The investigation would continue without Comey.
BTW democrats were calling for Comey's dismissal and more importantly the IG investigation proved that Comey should have been fired.
No, it wasn't, that is the opinion of Trump and, his bots.
Because, Comey was the one who was investigating the Russia meddling, when he stumbled on Flynn the president realized that Comey might start looking at him and, the other people involved in his campaign, he tried to stop it, as he said in the Lester Holt interview.
No, I don't, Trump was quite clear, he fired Comey because Comey was investigating Russia and, had caught Flynn in a lie.
It would be but, that has nothing to do as to whether Trump was under investigation AT THAT TIME, Comey had found that their were connections between Trumps Campaign and, the Russians meddling in the campaign, now whether that led to Trump was another matter at the time and, Comey couldn't say yes, or, no to whether the president was under suspicion at the time.
I think there are more Democrats who would rather wait and, make sure, than to just jump right in and, try to impeach, that is a Constitutional crisis and, I know of two times that it happened in my life time, it almost happened a third time and, I'm glad it didn't.
I doubt it, they will have other things on their minds at that time.
Yes, they did but, they didn't fight the judges decision which they could have.
What ever they used to pin a perjury charge on Popodopolus must be in writing or, there must be some other evidence of it and, who it links to in the campaign, other wise they would have fought harder for the full sentence.
Yep, and, those people turned out to be Russians, so, it wasn't only who he knew but, who he introduced them to in the campaign and Mueller must have evidence of who he introduced them to in the campaign and, Mueller is looking into them as well.
And, that is probably why he didn't get probation only.
"President hasn't broken any laws?" I sincerely doubt that. The 'dirty money' is going to sting. And that ain't all. I still wonder about Helsinki. Something happened there.
Except it wasn't. What was discussed behind the closed doors is not known.
Why protect Putin? Why?
We don't convict people on your "sincere doubts"
So then you can show where Hillary's been convicted?
Whether or not the Clinton e-mail investigation will ever be re-examined, one thing I'm sure of - history will eventually record it as a bogus, & biased investigation:
"According to Solomon, an early draft of the FBI's statement on the matter, written in early May 2016, said:
"The sheer volume of information that was properly classified as Secret at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the 'up classified' emails) supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information."
The language here is important because " gross negligence " — even absent any intent — is a violation of the law regarding handling of classified material. Yet when then-FBI Director James Comey issued his final statement, "gross negligence" was watered down to "extremely careless," which let Comey claim that no reasonable prosecutor would take this case.
Another oddity: A small group of FBI officials in Washington controlled the investigation and charging decisions.
As Solomon notes: "In normal FBI cases, field offices where crimes are believed to have been committed investigate the evidence and then recommend to bureau hierarchy whether to pursue charges with prosecutors. In this case, the bureau hierarchy controlled both the investigation and the charging decision from Washington, a scenario known in FBI parlance as a 'special,' the lawmakers said."
Also, investigators found that the FBI didn't investigate the destruction of government documents, despite the fact that Clinton clearly didn't keep all her work-related emails, and contrary to claims from Comey that the agency had investigated whether she'd violated the law."
And I know thid has been discussed more times than I care to remember even kmowing you eere there....
Gross negligence is not a criminal term, it's a civil term. "I'm suing you because you let your dog out after being warmed and he bit my dog"
In a criminal sense you get charged with a crime because of your gross negligemce if thete is a victim or injured party.
To prosecute Clinton criminally you habe to show "mens rea" a crimonal intent .
And THAT is why he knew no prosecutor has touched it nor will touch it.
You can twist yourself in knots all over it but that is established law and has been for many years.
West's encyclopedia of American Law:
Hmmmm.....that definitely sounds like obstruction of justice.
Obstruction of Justice: the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process.
Good try. You going to look at the cop and tell him your passenger told you to speed?
You'd have that tied up except he not only told the Russians but all of America in the Lester Holt interview he was handling "that Russian thing" by firing Comey.
The bullshit Clinton thing blew back in your face and now you deflect to Comey...desperate Vic.
Oh, yes, by your logic, of course. Unfortunately, America stands for applying the law equally.
Really?
That's what America stands for?
I thought it was "justice"...
Are you claiming that others have been prosecuted for obstruction of justice but Trump won't be? I agree that would be a problem but Mueller's investigation is not yet complete. The main issue is establishing intent, and thankfully Trump confessed his illegal intent on live TV.
If it's unequal it's unjust
Oh, then it's all over. When will he be removed?
Exactly. Trump made this alleged "admition" months ago, but for some reason, Mueller seems to want to drag it out. If he was a competent prosecutor, he would have brought charges the day after Trump "admitted" to committing a crime.
Wonder why he hasn't.....no I don't.
Then why would Trump rag on Sessions for recusing himself and not firing Rosenstein?
And …
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
And …
The “Loyalty” Dinner
A week after the inauguration, Comey was summoned to the White House for a private dinner with the president. In his June Senate testimony , Comey said Trump started the conversation by asking if he wanted to stay on as FBI director, which Comey found “strange” because they had already discussed the matter twice, and Comey had said he intended to remain in the position. Comey said Trump noted that many people wanted the job, so he assumed the dinner was “at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship.”
Comey said Trump then told him, “I need loyalty — I expect loyalty.” Comey said he did not respond, and Trump circled back to his demand two more times during their conversation, eventually getting a promise of “honest loyalty” from the director.
Trump denies that he asked for Comey’s loyalty, but, if true, this could be interpreted as Trump suggesting that the director should demonstrate fealty by backing off on the Russia probe, and intimating that Comey’s job was on the line.
The timing of the meeting is also an important consideration. It might have been plausible that Trump just set up a dinner because he wanted to get to know his FBI director. However, Comey said he received a call around lunchtime on January 27 inviting him to dinner that night. That just happens to be a day after former acting attorney general Sally Yates met with White House counsel Don McGahn to inform him that Vice-President Pence and other officials had been making public statements about Michael Flynn “that we knew to be untrue.” Yates warned that this opened the national security adviser up to blackmail by the Russians. We now know that Flynn had lied about his conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in an FBI interview days earlier.
Asking Comey to Drop the Flynn Probe
Trump fired Flynn on February 13, ostensibly for lying to Pence. Comey testified that, after an Oval Office meeting with a large number of advisers the next morning, Trump asked everyone but Comey to clear the room. Comey said Trump told him he wanted to talk about Flynn.
“He is a good guy and has been through a lot,” Trump said, according to Comey. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Comey said his only reply was, “He is a good guy.”
Comey said he believed the president was asking him to “drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December.”
This is one of the clearer examples of Trump allegedly trying to influence an investigation, and sending everyone else out of the room could help establish nefarious intent.
Firing Preet Bharara
New presidents usually ask all U.S. attorneys to step down, but Trump demanded their resignations in March after telling Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, in November that he wanted him to stay on. Months later, Marc Kasowitz, Trump’s personal lawyer in the Russia investigation, reportedly bragged that he played a central role in getting Bharara fired, by telling Trump, “This guy is going to get you.” Bharara later hinted that he was investigating some Trump-related matter.
Asking the Director of National Intelligence to Pressure Comey
At the end of a briefing on March 22, Trump reportedly asked everyone to leave the room except director of national intelligence Daniel Coats and CIA director Mike Pompeo. According to the Washington Post , Trump then asked Coats if he could intervene to get Comey to back off from investigating Flynn as part of the FBI’s Russia probe. Later, when testifying before the Senate, Coats refused to confirm or deny this account, but said he didn’t feel pressured to do anything improper.
Asking Intelligence Officials to Push Back Against the FBI’s Collusion Probe
Around the same time, Trump reportedly called Coats and Admiral Michael Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, and asked them to publicly deny that there was any evidence suggesting collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Days earlier, Comey had confirmed for the first time that the Trump–Russia link was under FBI investigation.
They both declined to get into the matter during their Senate testimony in June, with Rogers saying, “I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical, or inappropriate.”
Asking Comey to “Lift the Cloud” of the Russia Investigation
Comey testified that Trump called him on March 30 and complained that the Russia probe was hurting his administration. “He asked what we could do to ‘lift the cloud,’” Comey said, adding that when he reiterated that Trump wasn’t personally under investigation, the president said, “We need to get that fact out.”
Attacking Comey on the Eve of His Senate Testimony
A day before Comey went before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Trump engaged in what could be construed as witness intimidation:
Attacking Sally Yates on the Eve of Her Senate Testimony
Trump made the same move on the eve of his former acting attorney general’s testimony before the same committee:
Following Up on His Request to Comey
Comey says he spoke to Trump for the last time on April 11, when the president called to see what Comey had done to get the word out that Trump wasn’t personally under investigation. “I have been very loyal to you, very loyal; we had that thing, you know,” Trump said, according to Comey. The director added, “I did not reply or ask him what he meant by ‘that thing.’”
The next day, Trump publicly suggested that Comey’s job was on the line, telling Fox’s Maria Bartiromo that it was “not too late” to let him go, adding , “We’ll see what happens. You know, it’s going to be interesting.”
Firing Comey
There are several different elements of Comey’s dismissal that could play into an obstruction charge, but obviously firing the official overseeing investigations into your campaign and your associates is a sign you’re trying to impede those probes.
Concocting a Cover Story for Comey’s Firing
Trump was reportedly infuriated by Comey’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, particularly the director’s comment that he was “mildly nauseous” to think his handling of the Clinton email probe might have swayed the election. With the help of aide Stephen Miller, Trump drafted an “angry, meandering” four-page letter in which he said he was firing Comey for refusing to publicly confirm that he wasn’t personally targeted in the Russia probe.
The letter was never sent, but according to the New York Times , it was passed on to deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who then came up with his own letter, which was used as the administration’s public justification for Comey’s firing. Eliciting help from others in concocting a false story about why Comey was fired could help federal prosecutors show that Trump acted with corrupt intent.
Telling Russian Officials Comey’s Firing Was About the Russia Probe
Trump did a poor job of concealing the real reasons for Comey’s firing. According to a document leaked to the New York Times , in an Oval Office meeting a day after Comey’s firing, Trump told Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak, “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job.” Trump added, “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”
Admitting Comey’s Firing Was About the Russia Probe on National TV
Days after firing Comey, Trump contradicted his administration’s account in an interview with NBC News. He said he was going to fire Comey regardless of what Rosenstein said, and confirmed it was about the Russia investigation.
“And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself — I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won,’” Trump said.
Threatening to Release Tapes of His Talks with Comey
The weekend after firing Comey, Trump made what appeared to be another attempt to threaten Comey. It turns out there were no tapes, and Comey called Trump’s bluff. “Lordy, I hope there are tapes,” he said in his Senate testimony.
Publicly Threatening Mueller
Shortly after Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel on May 17, Trump and his allies began publicly floating the idea that the president might fire him. In a Times interview, Trump seemed to warn that Mueller shouldn’t probe his family’s financial dealings, saying he’d see that as a “violation.” When The Wall Street Journal asked if Mueller’s job was safe, Trump responded , “No, we’re going to see.”
Attacking Attorney General Jeff Sessions for Recusing Himself
In the same Times interview, Trump kicked off what would be weeks of attacks on attorney general Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia probe, which led to Mueller’s appointment. Trump said:
Drafting a Misleading Statement About Don Jr.’s Russia Meeting
Trump may have engaged in a cover-up attempt when he dictated a misleading statement about Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with several Kremlin-connected Russians.
Pressuring Multiple Senators to End Their Russia Probe
Last week the Times reported that Trump called several top GOP senators over the summer and urged them to wrap up the Senate’s Russia probe. Senate Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr confirmed that Trump contacted him, saying “something along the lines of, ‘I hope you can conclude this as quickly as possible.’” Burr said he did not feel there was any “sinister motive” in Trump’s call.
Tweeting That He Knew Flynn Lied to the FBI
The president set off a new round of obstruction talk on Sunday when he sent out a tweet that seemed to imply he knew Flynn had committed a crime by lying to the FBI before he pressured Comey to go easy on him:
Trump’s personal lawyer, John Dowd, then claimed he crafted the sloppy missive on behalf of the president. Unfortunately for Trump, any potential obstruction charge probably won’t hinge on one inarticulate tweet from his lawyer.
I really have to explain that?
We had a Special Counsel investigation appointed without a criminal pretext. Trump thought Sessions wouldn't have done that. I don't think he would have either, but Sessions had to recuse himself because there already was an FBI investigation of the Trump Campaign. We are learning that was also without criminal pretext. So the bottom line is Trump has every right to be upset.
Let me explain some things to you,
The ongoing Special Counsel investigation is a United States law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation of any Russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election , including an investigation of any possible links and/or coordination between Donald Trump 's presidential campaign and the Russian government, "and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." The scope of the investigation reportedly also includes potential obstruction of justice by Trump and others. [1] The investigation, since it began May 17, 2017, has been conducted by the United States Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel , headed by Robert Mueller , a former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Mueller's investigation took over several FBI investigations including those involving former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn , both of which started after the 2016 presidential election. [2]
The investigation has resulted in dozens of indictments for federal crimes. In October 2017, Manafort was indicted on numerous Trump unrelated counts in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia . [3] In February 2018, he was indicted on numerous counts in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [4] and on August 21, 2018, a jury found him guilty on eight felony counts. [5] [6] Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI and became a cooperating witness in December 2017. [7] Mueller further secured guilty pleas from Manafort's business partner Rick Gates , former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos , Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan , [8] and Richard Pinedo, [9] all of whom became cooperating witnesses to the probe. In February 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russian citizens and 3 Russian entities, most notably the Internet Research Agency , [10] and in June 2018 added an indictment of Konstantin Kilimnik , Manafort's business partner. [11] In July 2018, 12 members of the Russian GRU cyber espionage group known as Fancy Bear , responsible for the 2016 DNC email hacking , were indicted. [12] Investigations into Trump's personal lawyer Michael Cohen were referred to the US Attorney's office of the Southern District of New York . [13]
While initially enjoying bipartisan support, [14] the special counsel investigation became subject to criticism by Trump and his surrogates in the conservative media within months, with Sean Hannity eventually proposing a "deep state" conspiracy theory. [15] Several allegations of investigators' misconduct have been raised and were almost immediately debunked, including supposed unlawful wire-tapping of Trump Tower during the campaign, [16] [17] unmasking of Trump associates on intelligence intercepts, [18] FISA court alleged abuse against Carter Page detailed in the Nunes memo , [19] [20] the alleged installation of a mole in the Trump campaign, [21] [22] [23] and the FBI being denied to forensically analyze the DNC servers. [24]
And of course it is an open sentence. We can all interpret it anyway we want. I chose that he meant Comey refused to tell the American public what he kept telling Trump - that Trump was not under investigation! That's the "Russia thing". BTW didn't Rosenstein give reasons for firing Comey? Didn't Trump himself give a few other reasons for firing Comey?
As it turns out Comey was responsible with other top FBI officials of leaking during the early days of the Trump administration.
Comey is now being investigated.
Thanks for all the information (where is the link?). What we really have here is an obvious attempt by the FBI/DOJ (AND THE CIA) under the Obama administration to frame Trump. We are learning more and more every day:
"New text messages between ex-FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page reveal others were "leaking like mad" in the run-up to the Trump-Russia collusion probe, according to new communications between the former lovers obtained exclusively by Fox News.
A lengthy exchange dated Dec. 15, 2016 appears to reveal a potential leak operation for “political” purposes.
“Oh, remind me to tell you tomorrow about the times doing a story about the rnc hacks,” Page texted Strzok.
“And more than they already did? I told you Quinn told me they pulling out all the stops on some story…” Strzok replied.
A source told Fox News “Quinn” could be referring to Richard Quinn, who served as the chief of the Media and Investigative Publicity Section in the Office of Public Affairs. Quinn could not be reached for comment.
Strzok again replied: “Think our sisters have begun leaking like mad. Scorned and worried, and political, they’re kicking into overdrive.”
In one passage, Strzok apparently misreads a reference to "rnc" as "mc," and then, realizing his error, blames "old man eyes."
It is unclear at this point to whom Strzok was referring when he used the term “sisters.”
Retired FBI special agent and former FBI national spokesman John Iannarelli told Fox News it could be a reference to another government agency.
“Sisters is an odd phrase to use,” Iannarelli told Fox News Wednesday. “It could be any intelligence agency or any other federal law enforcement agency. The FBI works with all of them because, post 9/11, it’s all about cooperation and sharing.”
There are 17 agencies in the Intelligence Community, including the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the FBI.
The “leaking like mad” text came on the same day that several news outlets reported that U.S. intelligence officials said they were convinced that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved, and approved Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Days before, The New York Times published an article titled “Russian Hackers Acted to Aid Trump in Election, U.S. Says, ” citing "senior administration officials."
A story published by The New York Times weeks, on Jan. 10, 2017, suggested that Russian hackers “gained limited access” to the Republican National Committee. Jan. 10, 2017 is also the same day BuzzFeed News published the infamous anti-Trump dossier.
Following the text about “sisters leaking,” Strzok wrote to Page:
“And we need to talk more about putting C reporting in our submission. They’re going to declassify all of it…”
Page replied: “I know. But they’re going to declassify their stuff, how do we withhold…”
“We will get extraordinary questions. What we did what we’re doing. Just want to ensure everyone is good with it and has thought thru all implications,” Strzok wrote. “CD should bring it up with the DD.”
A source told Fox News that “C” is likely in reference to classified information, whereas “CD” is Cyber Division, and DD could refer to former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
McCabe was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in March for making an unauthorized disclosure to the news media, and "lacked candor" under oath on multiple occassions.
It is unclear what “submission” Strzok and Page were referring to.
A source told Fox News that the messages were part of a newly released batch of Strzok-Page communications from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, uncovered as part of his investigation into the start of the FBI’s Russia investigation.
A spokesman for the inspector general declined to comment to Fox News.
Strzok and Page were first brought into the spotlight last December, when it was revealed that Horowitz discovered a series of anti-Trump text messages between the two officials, who were romantically involved.
Strzok and Page both served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates in the 2016 presidential election. Page served on the special counsel’s team on a short detail, returning back to the FBI’s Office of General Counsel in July 2017.
The discovery of the anti-Trump messages exchanged with Page ultimately got Strzok booted from Mueller’s team and reassigned last year to the FBI’s office of human resources.
And all the leaked lies are what the FBI used to bolster the Steele Dossier. A fraudulent investigation from the start
FOX NEWS … REALLY?
Here's a full report.
You can "Peter Strzok" us all day long … IT DOES NOT NEGATE THE INDICTMENTS AND CONFESSIONS …
A summary of the fruit of the Mueller investigation, to date:
Yeah well, Clinton's problems started out with a land deal and ended up on sexual indiscretion with a blue dress for proof.
Trump on the other hand, begins with Russians and will end with Russians.
I really wouldn't want to count on it.
No, because, the members of the Obama Administration that met with the Iranians weren't kissing their asses and, saying yes to anything and, everything they wanted. In other words they weren't idiots like Trump is.
Ya know A. Mac, if you put that information to music it would have to be the twelve days of Christmas and, you would have to end it with "A partridge in a pear tree", just for giggles.
"Romney in a landslide!!!!!!!!!"
I predicted obama would be elected and then re-elected (against my wishes)
what I want to happen and what I think will actually happen? not always the same thing.
cheers
Hey, you're stealing my stuff, stop it.
The democrats will keep control of the House of representatives in 2010.
The democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives in 2012.
The democrats will regain control of theHouse of Representatives and will retain control of the Senate in 2014.
The democrats will regain control of both houses of Congress and Hillary Clinton win the Presidency in 2016.
Do you really want to compare election predictions?
Tippicanoe and Tyler too!
Never.....as that is merely the Republicans biggest dream. But, reality has a way of ignoring fantasy. It is fantasy to think that Trump could clean up his less than stellar act, and his incompetent administration, to the point of being able to redeem themselves enough to keep him in the Oval office in the time remaining in his current term.
Thus, your statement of 'fact' is really nothing more than merely your own OPINION, it is not fact. It would only become 'fact' if your OPINION should actually occur. But, until that time comes, it is not a 'fact.'
And until it does actually become 'fact', I will never accept that concept as a given.
Don't worry Raven, you will never have to accept any of the concepts that defend Donald Trump.
ya mean like.... "trump will never be elected
and then
"trump will not last a year in office?
that kind of fantasy??
based on the lefts record of past predictions?? yours is the fantasy
whatever the left says? bet the exact opposite and you will be right more often than not.
a better contrarian indicator cannot be found.
cheers
I am addressing only your immediate statement. Your injecting what has already happened into the conversation has no merit to the your comment at hand, ti is simply a useless diversion from what you have stated here. So unless you are willing to address your immediate statement, there is nothing more to discuss with you.
matters not, what I said stands regardless if you like it or not.
but hey, if my record of past predictions was as bad as the lefts? I would not want to talk about that either.
let me give you a hint here: the left no longer has any credibility. they have been wrong so often there is no reason to expect otherwise in the future.
cheers
You really like to get into self judgement of others personal beliefs, by stating that I am of the 'left'. No...I am NOT. And your self judgement of my political affiliations, and others, are foolish, to say the least.
You can stand on your head for all I care, and say anything you like, but, it does not make it a 'fact' in the manner in which you tried to project it.
Cheers
This is not 2016. I don't think you should take heart that what worked for Scumbag then is still working. It's a whole new ball game. There's no "evil Hillary" to attack and there are a lot of people who regret not voting in 2016. Never mind the polling. Just look at what's happened at the actual polls since 2016.
will that make me forget all of the lefts past bs predictions?
maybe we should re-write the little boy who cried wolf and rename it
The Little Liberal That Cried...
bs... nothing has changed. it is the same left still throwing the same stones. (definition of insanity)
no one believed any of the crap the left spread before 2016
why should they suddenly start believing the left now?
hint: they won't.
with the tax cuts and more jobs than takers, my bet is trump has more support today than the day he was elected.
it always comes down to the economy. the lefts only hope is a deep recession.
cheers
Once again you try to deflect by trying to presume and project your own prejudicial projection of what my party affiliation is, much to your own illusion of who I am both as a person political affiliation. Unfortunately, it is not me who feels it necessary to cast judgement on others based solely on my own erroneous and prejudice judgement.
Cheers
Only on your side. The rest of the country has different ideas.
[deleted]
we’ll go to civil war before we let them have power again
Not always. By Nov. 2010 the economy destroyed by the Bush/Cheney Criminal Syndicate was showing strong signs of recovery under Obama. Going into the 2010 mid-terms Obama was much more popular than Scumbag is now--the average spread between his approval/disapproval was only (-).5%. Scumbag's is in the (-) 12.5%. Rs have a yoooge problem and it's that thing that's desecrating the White House
All above figures from RealClearPolitics.
When exactly did godless Marxists have control of the US?
There it is again. For such a devout Christian you sure love war
So explain to us how Bush destroyed the economy
was it the record tax revenues
was it the unemployment that averaged half of what it was under Hussein Obama
was it the deficit that was only 160 billion in 2007 when the Dems took over Congress
bush was far too liberal but nearly as destructive as Hussein Obama
Whenever Democrats are in power
I don’t love war. But I love liberty and war to defend liberty is preferable t9 being a willing slave of Godless Marxist statist collectivist government
bwah ha ha. buh bye.
The US deficit in 2006 was $390 billion, plus the wars that were off the record.
Go spread the lies somewhere else with your claim of the Democrats being godless Marxists.
crusader mentality
Well since the USA has about 325+ million citizens 'millions of Americans' really is not all that impressive of a claim. Betcha there are way more millions of Americans disgusted with Trump than with the evil Godless Marxist Democrats (and other sorts of demons).
As for ' Godless Democrats ' I am not so sure you have a good handle on the demographics in the USA :
Lots of God- full Democrats (and Republicans) out there.
And then of course per your ' Marxist Democrats ' claim: given you seem to think that 'Marxist' is equivalent to the model of the USSR, you might be extremely hard pressed finding many (D or R or I) in the USA who support brutal authoritarian rule with a command economy.
Your offered an entertaining post; factually confused of course, but entertaining.
You might be disappointed this November. But do not start posting Confederate flags and assembling your firearms just yet. Most of the US citizens are proper members of civil society and will probably not engage in civil war over a predictable mid-term shift of power.
Fy 2006 deficit 248 billion
FY 2007 deficit 160 billion
The wars were not off record. They were supplemental spending and all supplemental spending is included in the annual accounting. You conflate the annual budget proposals do not amount to the entire budget
And you'll just lose again. (It took me a while before I could stop my laughing at your comment in order to respond. Not that I don't think you're capable of believing in something that absurd but that you'd believe you actually represent any kind of numbers that could even begin to bring it off).
Why would I post a confederate flag? I’ve never lived in the South and I’m supporting Abraham Lincoln and the Declaration of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ...
...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
* Lincoln's First Inaugural. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience." -- John Locke, 1690
No my Marxist label is because over 100 years ago the Democrats began embracing and implementing Marx’s steps to transition from capitalism to communism. Most have been implemented as either law or social policy
Did I accidentally wander onto a conspiracy theory site?
Methinks you worry to much:
In all, none of your fears seem to be well placed. What you should worry about is represented by a single word: plutocracy.
Civil war reference. Light hearted.
The rest of your post consisted of quotes. I liked your quotes. The problem is that you see absolute despotism - everywhere - all the time. That is the conspiracy theory reference I made.
John Locke was not anti-tax, despite the libertarian claims.
You are not a slave to the government, so drop the hyperbole.
Please list Marx' steps to transition from capitalism to communism (this is known as socialism) taken place in the last century in the USA (by the D party) so that I know what you have in mind.
Lose again? My family fought and died for the North. None of my family were from the South.
we have registered my than 10 million armed veterans prepared to defend this country from the left. That makes us the world’s largest army
conservative veterans have more than 200 million arms ready to defend liberty
I’ve been fighting against statism since 1960 and will continue as long as I draw breath.
i do what I can personally by keeping a low footprint with society, living in very rural areas, being self sustaining as possible, linking with like minded people, and speaking out against the threat to liberty from BOTH parties
False. Completely and totally false. Using the s upplemental appropriations process to fund Bush/Cheney wars was a way to hide total spending:
And I wonder why you stopped with FY2007--no, I don't. Here's why:
And now we'll turn to what's happened since Obama's last FY and Scumbag first two:
And, knowing that you'll claim these are made-up numbers, I'm getting them from the economics writer, Christopher Chantrill. Here's his brief bio:
Forced collectivism in a statist Government is the enemy of individual liberty. We must choose between them and I choose individualism
Most of Marx's steps to transition from Capitalism to Communism found in Section II, Proletarians and Communists of the Communist Manifesto have already become law and policy (words in parenthesis are my comments)
Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists
The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (eminent domain)
Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (estate tax)
Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Federal Reserve)
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state. (FCC & Dept Of Transportation)
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (AIG, GM, Dept of Agriculture, OSHA, EPA)
Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (unionism)
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. (urbanization)
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc (John Dewey a communist and founder of American Public Schools -Dewey considered "the great task of the school" to be "to counteract and transform those domestic and neighborhood tendencies" which he specifically and accurately identified as "the influence of home and Church." In order for Dewey's "progressive" agenda to advance, the moral authority of "home and Church" would have to be undermined and replaced with the authority of the state.)
“The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. (homosexual marriage, feminism)
“seek to end all religious belief and practice (which is a common sentiment here by the socialists)
U.S. Deficit Increases to $587 Billion, Ending Downward Trend
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration confirmed on Friday that a six-year run of declining annual budget deficits had halted: The shortfall for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 was $587 billion, an increase over last year in dollars and as a percentage of the economy.
The Bush deficit was 481 Billion as of January 2009. At the end of FY 2008 the deficit was 454.8 Billion according to CBO.
Per the US Treasury's month to month data, the deficit as of January 31, 2009 was 481.84 Billion
Control is meaningless if you don't have a super majority to override a veto
"Four years after agreeing to "sequestration" budget cuts, the White House has emphatically told Congress that President Obama will no longer abide by them and will use his veto to insist that lawmakers boost spending on defense and domestic programs alike.
In letters to the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate spending committees, Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan said sequestration "was never intended to take effect" and that it was time to officially end the budget tool, which has brought deficits under control at the expense of deep cuts to many programs.
Mr. Obama has threatened to veto every single spending bill that is working through Congress."
Plus you might not look so ignorant if you had bothered to read The NY Times article
"The uptick, which had been projected last winter by government analysts, largely reflected the revenue loss from expiring tax breaks for businesses and individuals that Congress extended in December. President Obama had proposed to pair the tax cuts with some tax increases on wealthy Americans, to avoid adding to the deficit, but Congress refused.
Yes that is certainly correct by definition.
Only two choices? Forced absolute collectivism or individualism?
Generally societies will blend collectivism and individualism in complex ways. Indeed, the very concept of society requires an element of collectivism. I too favor more individualism over collectivism so I think this might be a point of agreement. Where we disagree, of course, is that I think your framing of things is extreme. For example, referring to the D party as basically godless and Marxist is both ridiculous and extreme. That kind of emotive labeling is what one would expect from a conspiracy theorist.
CBO Outlook 2016-2026
August 23, 2016
"An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2016 to 2026
In fiscal year 2016, the federal budget deficit will increase in relation to economic output for the first time since 2009, CBO estimates. If current laws generally remained unchanged—an assumption underlying CBO’s baseline projections—deficits would continue to mount over the next 10 years, and debt held by the public would rise from its already high level.
CBO’s estimate of the deficit for 2016 has increased since the agency issued its previous estimates in March, primarily because revenues are now expected to be lower than earlier anticipated. In contrast, the cumulative deficit through 2026 is smaller in CBO’s current baseline projections than the shortfall projected in March, chiefly because the agency now projects lower interest rates and thus lower outlays for interest payments on federal debt. Nevertheless, by 2026, the deficit is projected to be considerably larger relative to gross domestic product (GDP) than its average over the past 50 years."
In CBO’s baseline projections, the budget deficit is generally on an upward trend over the next decade, reaching 4.6 percent of GDP in 2026. A slight decline in the deficit over the next two years is largely explained by the shift in the timing of payments from one fiscal year to another because certain scheduled payments fall on weekends. In later years, continued growth in spending—particularly for Social Security, Medicare, and net interest—would outstrip growth in revenues, resulting in larger deficits and increasing debt."
Not extreme at all. Nearly all Democrats in Congress currently belong to the progressive caucus which is an arm of the DSUSA
The Congressional Progressive Caucus, or CPC, which boasts more than 80 members, was founded by the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA.
In the January/February 1998 issue of Chicago DSA’s New Ground , Ron Baiman identified Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts as leaders of the Progressive Caucus in Congress which DSA “helped to organize.”[i]
Until November 2002, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the DSA. Following news reports that drew attention to the congressional website being hosted by the socialist organization, the list of CPC names was moved to the website of Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., an avowed socialist, and eventually to its own site.
The issue of the CPC being hosted on the DSA website rose again in June 2000 in connection with a heated dispute on the House floor between Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) and Democratic Representatives DeFazio and David R. Obey (Wis.) over the “merits of the F-22 fighter plane.”
When Cunningham stood to defend himself, he threw into his argument the fact the DSA website had a link to the CPC, which DeFazio then led.[2]
Read more at
Why is it that the people who are the most statist, highest in the vertical scale of the Political Compass score are also the loudest voices of statism? Those people are the statists. I am almost off the chart at the bottom left, which is borderline anarchist, but I also know that I am part of a very interdependent society and we must work together to survive and thrive. Libertarians such as yourself only see themselves and as such they refuse to see that they are part of an interconnected society where we must cooperate. The cooperation of people in a society is what sets nomadic hunters and gatherers apart from a civilized integrated society.
Your own very conservative religious views seek to limit the private rights of others but strangely you also want to deregulate the economy for the benefit of the rich and corporations. Do you not see how your idea is not in the best interest of the majority of the people because their rights would be trampled by those of the monied elite and corporate interests, or do you not have a problem being a slave to a corporation and having the government work for the benefit of billionaires?
I am a progressive but not once I have supported the DSUSA. The claim that all Democrats in Congress are progressives is laughable. I stopped reading at this point, partly because I was laughing.
Not even Hillary is a progressive. There are maybe 30 progressives in Congress.
Of the items mentioned, the USA does have:
Where we disagree is that you see this as 19th century measures for moving from Capitalism to Communism - this is what you label 'Marxist Statist'. Did you ever consider the possibility that the USA is NOT trying to move to Communism but rather has made the above movements for other reasons?:
The nation is not moving to Communism. Do not worry. And if you see actions taken by the USA and happen to correlate with what Marx' predicted would take place in a nation that he considered to be evolving for the better, that does not mean those actions are in pursuit of Marxism or even that those actions are bad.
My advice is to focus more on the concepts and less on the emotive labels.
The DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) has a long term goal of democratic socialism. However, if you look at what they are doing, it is nothing more than social democracy. No change from capitalism to socialism, but rather support for statism; in particular public programs funded by taxation. That fits well within the long-term philosophy of the D party. The D party clearly is in favor of big 'benevolent' government.
The reason your position is extreme is because you see a false dichotomy: forced collectivism or individualism. Extant socio-economic/political systems (such as ours) are a mix of these concepts. You have lived your entire life in such a mixed nation. Our Constitution defines such a nation. To wit, on what grounds could anyone characterize our Constitution as pure individualism?
Bernie is nothing more than a social democrat who, for inexplicable reasons, calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Go by what he proposes, not by his confused (and strange) labeling.
Didn't your side lose the last one too? Are you expecting a different outcome this time despite your side being a minority of Americans?
Or are you just expecting that Russia will be your ally?
There you go again, declaring war on the United States, how many times is this now? A million?
This is what you remind me of,
Who is this 10 million man army that you speak of?
This is a nonsense number as it represents the deficit for only 4 months of the Fiscal Year which runs Oct 1 through Sep 30. It’s also wrong, from the site you provided, that partial deficit was $607B. I will be using that website for all numbers. The deficit in FY 2009 handed by Bush to Obama was $1.885 Trillion.
The deficit in FY 2017 handed by Obama to Trump was $666B. The expectation was that the deficit would not go over a trillion until 4 years into the Trump presidency. But, as of Sep 13, 2018 the deficit was $1.205T.
Beginning with Reagan, Republican presidencies have always resulted in huge increases in the deficit, just a Democratic presidencies have seen those deficits drop just as precipitously.
the same 10 million that showed up at all those tea party rallies
The same anti-socialists who told Obama not to touch their Social Security and Medicare?
Ah, but... That is rational thought.
Being rational leads inevitably to compromise, since it would be ridiculous to imagine that everyone feels the same about everything.
We may conclude that those who accept no compromise are irrational...
I disagree
Any income tax is tyrannical
Centralization of anything but currency and a justice system is tyrannical
government especially the federal government should not be involved in education. That’s where brainwashing and propaganda flourish
The government has no right to define employment of any kind including child labor
Voluntary collectivism is good. Forced collectivism makes you a subject or slave of the state.
unless the state can compel you to work for a corporation, your statement on being a slave to a corporation is ludicrous
taking fascist controls off of corporations (our current system) is not the equivalent of government “working for the benefit of billionaires”. It’s called FREE ENTERPRISE
Voluntary collectivism is good. Forced collectivism makes you a subject or slave of the state.
unless the state can compel you to work for a corporation, your statement on being a slave to a corporation is ludicrous
taking fascist controls off of corporations (our current system) is not the equivalent of government “working for the benefit of billionaires”. It’s called FREE ENTERPRISE
Problem is that Bush's last FY (2009) didn't end until Sep. 30 of that year at which time the deficit had climbed to:
The rest of your post is just your standard bullshit but that particular attempt to bugger the data needed to highlighted.
Wonder why I consider your positions extreme?
So, off the top of my head, you are thus not in favor of national:
Seems to me you would have made a great anti-federalist (an extreme one at that). Keep all the original states independent ... a loose confederation? Or maybe abolish states altogether (since they are 'government') and have a confederation of small towns?
Logically then you support only home-schooling because anytime you allow any form of government (local, city, state or federal) to educate your kids they might fill their brains with propaganda and brainwashing. Ironically, I observe what you are writing in this post and can only imagine the brainwashing and propaganda that would result from you teaching kids.
Of course not. Let's allow 10 year olds to work in factories rather than go to school. For that matter, why would you hold that the government can make any laws? Just do away with it entirely and go 100% individual. Everyone makes up their own laws.
Our little friend there has quite the vivid fantasy life.
In other words, no laws (or at least no enforcement).
It's beginning to look like you're really someone pretending to be the most ridiculous caricature of an extreme rightwinger you could come up with.
You're trying to have a rational conversation with an irrational conversation partner.
Good luck.
I almost wrote that in my comment. Reminds me of the viner Mean Gene.
Well, honestly, I am simply illustrating the nonsense. I have no expectation of this ever turning into a thoughtful discussion or debate.
What are 5 examples of forced collectivism?
Public education has standards to prevent propaganda and brainwashing from being taught as fact, unlike religious/private schools. In your world, everything is upside down.
If we didn't have workplace safety protections and labor rights then who protects the rights of children and workers from harm and abuse by their employer?
That is a very polite way of stating the concept. Emily Post would not have approved of my version.
Or Valdex'.
At first, I assumed that he supported the much looser Articles of Confederation as a plan to organize the national government but now he has gone over the edge to Ayn Rand territory.
Nope, this one has already been dox'd.
But I do smell Valdex here and is making himself home.
Remember Valdex would make sweeping statements and ask stupid deflective questions...and rarely ever returned with a link while always asking for one?
Now, who here does that?
How long of a list do you want?
Mean Gene has later outed as a trolling personality. Valdex' was merely shockingly stupid.
Well, if you're going to alphabetize then start in the "W's"
I do not even have a label for what he seems to want. It seems like a loose confederation of small towns.
I doubt that many people would want t live like that on a day-to-day basis when nothing can get done because of a lack of central organization. Most people currently see the government as a problem instead of the government helping the people because the Republicans have created a situation to create bureaucracy because when people want to cut the red tape the corporate and religious conservatives benefit from the lack of regulation that they want. That lack of regulation creates long-term problems that the GOP then blames on Democrats. Reagan and Dubya both did it and it appears that Trump is following in their shoes. The US is going backward because of this partisan ploy.
Well, one good example of 'forced collectivism' are the extra charges and fees on the natural gas bills that did not exist before 'conservative deregulation.'
This too. Could be that 'Putin's Puppet' that brought this 'forced collectivism' concept into the discussion is yet another one with 'nowhere to go and all day to get there.'
Deregulation almost never benefits the consumer but conservatives tend to support it, even when it is going to cost them more, usually because they do not understand the finer points of capitalism. It's rare to find a conservative who understands the difference between a market economy and capitalism because the vast majority think the former requires the latter.
i do what I can personally by keeping a low footprint with society, living in very rural areas, being self sustaining as possible, linking with like minded people . ..
I imagine you survive by eating fallen leaves and twigs, and eating Witchity-witchity grubs!
Capitalism is dead. SSE is the card game now.
Supply Side Economics.
TNX
Supply-side economics is a form of capitalism that is been rigged in favor of the wealthy.
Sort of, but not exactly.
SSE has one purpose and one purpose only. Concentrate the wealth/consolidate the power.
If anything serious ever comes out I would call for him gone. Many in the left view that as an extremist viewpoint. However until something solid is exposed it feels like wolf being cried for the past two years.
It was made to seem like papadoplous was going to be some huge thing and he got like 14 days in jail for lying to the FBI.
Russian collusion just seems like a political game talking point by the left to try and drive people away from him for the elections.
If anything ever serious ever came out as I said though...
LOl. He's a pathological liar, a con man and a crook, a fraud, a sexual predator, and an ignoramus. But you are waiting for something "serious". Trumpsters are a trip.
Yet he got elected President and got the economy roaring!
I think i'll drink to him tonight!
BF, Donald trump is a pathological liar who is psychologically afflicted and he is going to come to a bad end, either through impeachment, arrest, forced resignation, or when he is voted out in 2020. This is a given, because someone as recklessly dishonest as he is will fall. It is inevitable. I would get someone warming up in the bullpen who has his economic policies if you think they are that important.
He's a pathological liar. Do you even understand English?
You are comically inept, even when you keep it simple.
It would be more accurate to say no one cares for Donald Trump. Since he became a politician over three years ago, he has never had approval from the majority of Americans. Thus, by pure math it is more likely that more people dont care for him than don't care against him. You make the typical mistake of believing Fox News viewers constitute a majority.
While Wally overstated it by saying 'no one,' the fact is that he and the rest of the Trumpists really do not care that the President is a pathological liar. Our Newstalker brother Wally is not even trying to deny that Trump is a pathological liar, he just doesn't care. Amazing response really...
Oh , I am well aware that Trump has 35-40 % approval, occasionally getting up to 42 or 43%. That is not only a minority it is a distinct minority. Trumpsters regularly claim that "america" is behind Trump. That implies most people. There has never been a day when Trump has had "America" behind him.
I just like it when they come right out and say that they simply do not care how dishonest and corrupt Trump is. We don't even have to call them scumbags because they basically call themselves that!
I do know what you do for a living, you don't see the desperate nature of 0%/72 & 84 mo.?
Plants being furloughed because inventory is high?
And now the tariffs will come in to play...as you and I both know, all the mfr.s are going to get price increases. The good side so-to-speak, is you're fast approaching the bottom of the seven year cycle no?
Question: What do you foresee in the market? I think a serious shake-up is going to happen within your lifetime. More and more mfr.s are looking at "Subscription F&I" and dealing direct with the consumer. Much better for the mfr. because they don't have to carry the inventory load they had to nor the forecasting. I think most dealers will be wiped out and the muti-line dealers will be delivery/service centers only and they will change the format but thrive. People like Autonation will clean up.
Republicans obviously don't care. That speaks to the character of the GOP and of conservatives in general.
If anything serious ever comes out I would call for him gone. Many in the left view that as an extremist viewpoint. However until something solid is exposed it feels like wolf being cried for the past two years.
Below are a few serious "anythings" …
It was made to seem like papadoplous was going to be some huge thing and he got like 14 days in jail for lying to the FBI.
Do you think Papadopolous may have made some sort of tradeoff for his light sentence?
Russian collusion just seems like a political game talking point by the left to try and drive people away from him for the elections.
See the "game" scorecard below.
If anything ever serious ever came out as I said though...
Fair enough … let me help it along.
Papadop didn't have any trade off for his light sentence. If he did it would have been announced at sentencing as part of an agreement. Papadop asked for probabtion. If there was a deal you don't ask the judge for probation.
And for your list.... you have tax fraud, a bunch of Russian companies who posted memes, some Russian officers they know will never see court, stuff from years ago, and maybe one legit person you could tie to the current administration. You went from Russian collusion to tax fraud. That took two years... just wow
Neither you nor I know what charges, if any, Mueller may have dropped in exchange for information (that also, neither of us could know). The judge considered Papadopolous' apparent remorse in the 14 day sentencing.
You mean apart from the fact that he's a cooperating witness and has already told Mueller everything he knows? LOL. The guilty plea and leniency were part of his plea bargain.
No. Any reduced sentence as part of a plea bargain would be public knowledge. Again.. someone with a plea bargain doesn't ask for a reduced sentence like he did m. This is pretty common sense stuffs. Why would you try To ask for a reduced sentence at sentencing if you already knew the conditions of your plea bargain? Stop reaching.
Where did you get that ridiculous idea?
This guy's making up shit almost faster than we can throw it back it him.
How do you figure it's ridiculous? If the prosecution and defense reach a plea agreement...they submit it to the judge. The judge announces whether or not he will accept the deal. That's how it works. Rarely a judge will announce he rejects the deal for various reasons.
Because, as we saw with Papadopolous, the final sentencing does not occur until the prosecutors inform the judge that the defendant has satisfied his agreement of cooperation which, in Manafort's case, could be months from now.
I agree with that! That's part of standard agreement to cooperate. Meaning he answered questions. If prosecution offered a lowered sentence in exchange for witness testimony... that is something different. That would have been stated in the agreement.
Look. I've said elsewhere. I truthfully do not care what the outcome of all of this is. I just don't like the speculation as fact that is going on and has gone on.
"Oh Flynn is turning on trump. Mueller has everything now!" As if the only outcome in all of this is Trump is shown to have a direct line to putin ... especially when the majority of charges so far have been money related from years ago.
Looking for truth is fine... speculating is fine. Twisting the truth to fit a agenda is not looking for the truth.
Manafort charges show he worked with Israel more than any trump person. They were from years ago.
If there is something closely tied to trump... we haven't seen it yet.
Again, with the making up quotes to fit your story. This is what keeps getting you into the quicksand.
Yep....key word, yet. Be patient. It will all be revealed.
The usual sentence is 30 days so it's not a particularly major felony. No one knows, especially you, just how much Papadopolous was worth to Mueller until this is all over.
Actually we know quite a bit about this one since mid aug.
altgough I agree we don't have all the info at times.. which is what I was saying months ago when we went through the usual "this is it!! Papadop is going to jail for years! He is flipping!".... and he got 14 days :/
Again, plea agreements are public record. Even if we didn't know the details of it we would know there was one. They can call for the agreement to be sealed though. If that happens in any of this then you would have reason to suspect something
Just for shits and giggles, I'd love to see try to actually back that invented quote up. (Here's a tip for future reference: the rightwing tactic of making up quotes no liberal ever said is pretty dessicated by age at this point. However, it's still funny to see there's always someone who still tries it).
There were numerous articles and discussion on here that papadop (I like shortening it that) was flipped and going to send trump to jail. That isn't made up. Same with Flynn and others said
you can search his name on here and find comments that he was cooperating and would bring down trump. Let's not pretend that wasn't a belief
So, you've admitted that someone claimed that Papadoplous was going to jail "for years" was a lie. Thank you.
Really? In the link I showed it said he faces 20 years for obstruction .. that was the kind of stuff everyone was parroting. Feel free to go to message boards as well. Reddit is a big one. Look at all the claims of papa and others flipping. I think k the most common was the 1-5 years claim he was going to get. 14 days. If they are already sentenced.. they won't be a witness to anything useful. If you want to focus on someone focus on those that haven't been indicted yet. Those would be the ones you could see being a witness. If they are already sentenced it's because mueller doesn't see them being a useful witness OR a guilty plea is already in the works for anyone he could have testified against
Your reading skills need work. Here's what the article said (emphasis added):
Which may very well have been exactly what they did which is why he agreed to cooperate in order to NOT be charged with that much more serious crime.
Trump will not be impeached and Democrat leadership knows it. Only the most radical leftists cling to this fantasy.
this has been nothing but a political conspiracy by the left, the Establishment in both parties and the goon squad media.
As former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy notes, we’ve yet to find evidence of a crime by the president and those around him related to the farcical Mueller investigation
Andrew McCarthy should be ashamed of himself. He is lending support to a pathologically lying buffoon, all in the name of adherence to ideology.
He has served as an attorney for Rudy Giuliani , and is also a conservative opinion columnist who writes for National Review and Commentary .
You know this how? Proof? Your link is a right wing fake news site with a lot of bias... Nothing they post is true.
So the legal opinions of the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York are fake news? [Removed]
You're absolutely correct! He's going to resign in disgrace.
He's obviously impervious to disgrace. The only way he'd resign is if Republicans had the character, love of country (over power) and the courage (none of which they possess at this time) to abandon him. The only way they'd be willing to summon those qualities would be the prospect of years if not decades of being in the minority again. But I'm not sure they're not delusional enough themselves to think that can't happen.
Or....the state of NY charges the kids and him with fraud in the foundation case
He can't pardon himself or anyone else for that matter. The kids don't have to be impeached to be charged.
He'll make a deal to resign for charges to be dropped plus pardons for everyone in the family.
Ahh. Another delusional article from the left. It must really suck living with TDS of this degree.
President Trump won't be impeached. There are no impeachable offenses. If there were, don't you think Bobbie boy would have found them by now?
Mueller tends to play his cards close to the vest. He's just being thorough and flipping Trumps gang.
"Bobbie boy" isn't the problem that's going to trip him up and force a resignation.
The NYS AG case will. They have Cohen, the CFO of Trump's company and the foundation as well as David Pecker. The latter two making an immunity deal for testifying. Now who'd of thunk those two would their balls in a Federal vise? LOL
He and his kids are wrapped up in that and he has ZERO power to stop it, pardon the kids (who don't have to be impeacjed to be charged) or direct it in amy way.
"Lock him up!" Has such a nice refrain you can hear over and over just like we did...except there's a real possibility of that happening
I love it that you still cling to that ever-thinning thread of desperation, Jer. The reality is that if Mueller hadn't come up with anything by now he would have finished his investigation and cleared the Scumbag.
Anyone that watches the videos of Trump and has any intelligence at all, they can clearly see this man is going downhill mentally.
I have believed from the beginning that Trump has been covering up his health, trying and failing to hide his dementia but there have been too many moments caught on camera that he is declining.
His family knows he isn't mentally well, I think Republicans know it too, but his family doesn't want to get disinherited and Republicans are using Trump as a tool to push an authoritarian agenda of austerity while handing the rich and corporate interests the piggy bank and keys to the country without actually having to govern at all or do anything for the American people.
Just like all old people in decline, there will be a sundowning moment, an event horizon there will be no coming back from and Republicans will try to lie and say they did not know of his health, but Trump is sliding downward.
Whether the law catches up to him first or whether his health and mental decline become more apparent, it doesn't matter because this is not going to end well.
Democrats will not be Trump's downfall, his family, his health and the rule of law will deal with him.
Trump seems far more gone already than Reagan was in 1987 when his chief of staff, Howard Baker, tried to do a layman's evaluation of Reagan's mental health. However even people afflicted with Alzheimer's, Creutzfeldt-Jakob, tertiary syphilis or other such brain-rotting diseases have both good days and bad days.......and unfortunately Reagan was unprofessionally evaluated on one of his few good days:
.
I suspect that Reagan's mental decline actually started long before this. I remember that reporters "joked" that he was senile even when he was campaigning to win the 1976 GOP nomination.
Trump's dad was formally diagnosed with Alzheimer's 6 years before he died, but how long had he really been suffering from the disease? I also wonder if the tendency to be a white supremacist and a sociopath have the same familial patterns as Alzheimer's does? Based just on this one example in the Trump family it would seem so.
From what I understand of Alzheimer's, it can actually start manifesting at a fairly young age (mid 50's to early 60's). I think our boy trump has been suffering for years which would explain the obsession with Obam's birth certificate and the grab ass he likes to play with women.
And I think it can be hereditary, can't it?
The susceptibility to the disease is definitely hereditary (ie the APOE-e4 gene), but there are types which actually are directly inherited.
Visions of Reagans administration come to mind....
I’ve been fighting against statism since 1960 and will continue as long as I draw breath.
i do what I can personally by keeping a low footprint with society, living in very rural areas, being self sustaining as possible, linking with like minded people, and speaking out against the threat to liberty from BOTH parties
I have several wagers (for the American Cancer Society) with NT members that Trump will not finish his present term of office (for reasons other than death); I wager he will be impeached, indicted or resign.Are you in for $25.00?
.
I just doubled my wager with Vic, for 6 month self suspension here, and ive doubled my case of beer wager to two cases, with almost 20 others I interact with socially.
like you, I'm thoroughly convinced Trump will be brought down, sooner, rather than later.
Can't come soon enough
Sucker bets
I'll bring my own case of beer when you win