"I Don't Do Cover-ups"

  
By:  john-russell  •  one month ago  •  58 comments

"I Don't Do Cover-ups"

President Trump, the great bloviator huffed and puffed his chest in the White House rose garden and took great umbrage at Nancy Pelosi saying he was doing a "cover-up".  "I don't do cover-ups" Trump said, adding , to the media there, "you all know that better than anyone". 

512

Last night Chris Cuomo took a couple minutes to very matter of factly destroy Trump's position.  Trump covered up the purpose of the meeting between his son Don Jr and the Russians at Trump Tower. The Mueller report definitively says this is so. Trump covered up his payments to porn star Stormy Daniels , and during the 2016 campaign Trump covered up his dealings with Russia to build a Trump Tower in Moscow by lying multiple times to the American people about his dealings with Russia.  I'm sure he has covered up many more things and does so on a continuous basis, but Cuomo used these three examples so let's leave it at that at the moment. 

Trump stood in front of the assembled media and the tv viewers yesterday morning and said "I don't do coverups". 

He was lying, again. 

How many times do you Trump supporters have to have your faces rubbed in it?  How complicit are you making yourselves in what is happening at the hands of this president*? 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    one month ago

Why do you love someone who lies to your face, Trumpsters? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

What cover up, you appear to be totally confused. I see no lies, but of course I am not looking for them.

Cleared by both Mueller and the IRS, the beleaguered president forges on against his tormentors, using all his available presidential powers.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    one month ago

I will simplify it for you Greg. 

Trump said "I don't do coverups".

There are numerous known examples of him covering up things that are harmful to him when truthfully revealed. 

Please don't put irrelevant comments on this article. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    one month ago
'Please don't put irrelevant comments on this article.'

Good luck with that one.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1905/22/CPT.01.html
CUOMO: I think we had a breakthrough moment today. Now, here's this state of play. Here's where the Democrats are.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I have Nancy Pelosi go out and say that the President of the United States engaged in a cover-up.
CUOMO: Cover-up, loaded term. Pelosi knows what it communicates, and so does this President. Here's the breakthrough. This will only stop one way. There's no reason for the Democrats to be in all this, you know,
investigative declaration, an impeachment inquiry, impeachment, forget it. Forget about the how. Focus on the who.
You have to hear from Bob Mueller. He is the only person who can say whether there is enough in his report to warrant Congressional follow- up or not.
 If he sells the findings short, if he's ho-hum about the need for political accountability, the only real move for Democrats is to use what's in that report in the election.
But if he puts meat on the bones of the five different bases of potential obstruction in the report that most of you have not read, so they are trying to fire Mueller, trying to get McGahn to lie about wanting to fire Mueller, trying to limit Mueller's scope, trying to mess with Cohen's testimony, and Manafort's cooperation deal, if he puts meat on the bones of those, and says those are legitimate questions that he couldn't pursue, but Congress can, then it's time to put up or shut up for this President, not the Democrats.
They will clearly have to get to the bottom of it. And this President will have to change course from this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I don't do cover-ups. You people know that probably better than anybody.
CUOMO: No. Because you are all about covering up to this point. Fact, POTUS directed Michael Cohen to pay off the women, and tried to cover it up. Those payments were a crime. Cohen is - Cohen is doing time for them right now.
He tried to cover up his son's boneheaded attempt to get dirt from the Russians, dictating a bogus cover story. And I've shown you the proof that the President just flat-out lied when he said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I know nothing about Russia.
I don't deal there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: So, it is time to shift from hiding key witnesses and hiding from the truth to acknowledging what even this President admitted.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If you've done nothing wrong, being transparent is better.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: True. So, even the President knows that if Mueller speaks and says there is a need to look, the President has to stop hiding and selling you poppycock like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well it turns out I'm the most, and I think most of you would agree to this, I'm the most transparent President, probably in the history of this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: Key facts, this President didn't testify like he promised. That's what he needed to do. And I doubt history will treat kindly his 19 versions of don't remember or don't recall in just the written responses from his lawyers that didn't even touch obstruction.
Now, he won't let people who already did testify come forward to stand behind their words. But here's the problem. What if there is no Mueller? He's still at the
Department of Justice. That's troubling. We don't know why. And the pattern of blocking participation by this A.G. and by the White House does not bode well.
If the President blocks Mueller, if he does that, then the only thing that is transparent here is this President's fear of being exposed, and he deserves whatever the Democrats bring his way, next.
This President said the Mueller report is the Bible. He should let its author speak to the American people now.
 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
2  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉    one month ago

The Obama administration spied on his campaign and then began a soft coup attempt after his inauguration. It is the biggest corruption scandal in our history and soon your party is going to look complacent and responsible among independent voters.

Should work out well for 2020. Your party's corruption and stupidity re-elected the Trumpanzee.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @2    one month ago

That nonsense blaming us for that turd getting the 'presidency' because of Hillary?

That's freaking whack!

 
 
 
lib50
2.2  lib50  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @2    one month ago

That sounds like a whole lotta Barrshit bullshit.  Coup?  Propaganda pushed by Putin and his puppets,   Corruption scandal?  Sure, just not Obama in the middle of it, much as conservatives would like to flip that narrative.  How hard is it to ignore Trump lies, corruption, obstruction, ties to Putin while pushing total crap trying to blame Obama spying on him, as opposed to actually looking at said Russian meetings and communications by team Trump.  Another lying narrative from the people who brought you Benghazi and 'her emails'. 

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
2.2.1  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  lib50 @2.2    one month ago

You probably need to pay attention to something other than partisan propaganda news. I'd suggest thehill or the intercept perhaps.

The Russian hoax has been exposed as a soft coup attempt and there is a DOJ investigation that intends to prosecute the responsible parties. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @2.2.1    one month ago

Your hero at The Hill is a discredited partisan hack. 

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
2.2.3  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.2    one month ago

You should probably find out who authored the article i seeded this morning, it's not John Solomon.

Pay Attention.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.4  katrix  replied to  lib50 @2.2    one month ago

It sure does.  Sad that these people don't even know the difference between legal surveillance and spying, and are so indoctrinated that when Trump lies to their faces, they refuse to accept it.  I guess if your main news sources are right-wing propaganda and conspiracy theory sites, your ability to recognize truth and facts gets damaged.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @2    one month ago

What's the difference between a soft, medium, and hard coup?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @2    one month ago

BF, does Trump "do coverups" ? 

The evidence is he does. So why do you accept him lying? 

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
2.4.1  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4    one month ago

The evidence shows that the Russian hoax was concocted to derail a US presidential candidate from winning and then derail his presidency. The victim is the office not just the Trump.

Democrats got caught. Now they have to pay. 

What exactly did he cover up? Your party's fake hoax or coup attempt? 

Ridiculous

 
 
 
katrix
2.4.2  katrix  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @2.4.1    one month ago
the Russian hoax

What an utterly ridiculous comment.  Just because Trump thinks if he repeats lies often enough it makes them true, that's not reality.

You apparently haven't read about all the guilty pleas and indictments - including 12 Russian agents.  But it's all a hoax, don't look behind the curtain, nothing to see here. 

Sheesh.

 
 
 
Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉
2.4.3  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉  replied to  katrix @2.4.2    one month ago

Who was indicted for Russian collusion?

That's right. No one!

 
 
 
katrix
2.4.4  katrix  replied to  Badfish H҉a҉n҉d҉ ҉o҉f҉ ҉D҉o҉o҉m҉ @2.4.3    one month ago

No shit - because collusion isn't a Federal crime.

There was Russian interference with the election.  That is not a hoax.  And Trump at the very least attempted to obstruct justice multiple times. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.4.5  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4    one month ago

Common sense should tell you that if no one has committed an actual crime, there is nothing to cover up. The special counsel was tasked with finding anyone who had committed a certain crime. Other than Russians, he found none. Ergo, there can't be a cover up.

 
 
 
katrix
2.4.6  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @2.4.5    one month ago

Bingo - which is why many people believe that Trump did commit actual crimes.  Otherwise, why is he going to such great lengths to cover up and lie?

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.4.7  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @2.4.6    one month ago
why is he going to such great lengths to cover up and lie?

I don't know what it is you think he is covering up, but I don't fault a guy for complaining about being investigated when he knows he hasn't done anything wrong.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.4.8  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @2.4.2    one month ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.4.9  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @2.4.6    one month ago

'I don't do cover-ups'  'I only do porn stars, playboy models, Ivanka . . . '

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.4.10  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @2.4.5    one month ago
Common sense should tell you that if no one has committed an actual crime, there is nothing to cover up. The special counsel was tasked with finding anyone who had committed a certain crime. Other than Russians, he found none. Ergo, there can't be a cover up.

All incorrect. The idea that there needs to be an underlying crime for obstruction of justice to occur is a myth. You can illegally obstruct an investigation even if the investigation ultimately leads nowhere. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.4.11  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @2.4.7    one month ago
'but I don't fault a guy for complaining about being investigated when he knows he hasn't done anything wrong.'

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

Well then if he has nothing to hide . . .?

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.4.12  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @2.4.6    one month ago
Bingo - which is why many people believe that Trump did commit actual crimes.  Otherwise, why is he going to such great lengths to cover up and lie?

What is the crime?  What has he been charged with?  If there is a cover up, first there needs to be an actual crime.  That is how it works in the sane world.  

What are these great lengths to cover up?

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.4.13  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @2.4.11    one month ago

So we should throw out the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the Constitution, right? After all, if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind if cops stop you and frisk you for no reason. You won't mind if they show up to your house every morning and search the place. You won't mind if they sit you and your family down for a few hours of questioning. You won't need an attorney present. You won't require things like strict rules of evidence or the presence of a lawyer. Right? After all, you have nothing to hide.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.4.14  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4.10    one month ago
You can illegally obstruct an investigation even if the investigation ultimately leads nowhere.

It's possible, but why would you bother? How would that work? It would help if you had some evidence that the investigation was actually obstructed.

It certainly looks like the investigation proceeded adequately. Hundreds of witnesses, search warrants, millions of pages of documents, and so on. They didn't find anything. Do you really think Trump and company are so clever that they managed to thwart such a thorough investigation? They must be the smartest criminals who ever lived. I guess I'd buy that except that we keep hearing from Democrats and the media all about what a moron Trump is and the same is true of everyone around him.

So which is it? Is Trump Gomer Pyle or Lex Luthor? You have to pick one. You don't get to have both.

 
 
 
katrix
2.4.15  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @2.4.12    one month ago

In the sane world, the President lets Congress due their job of oversight without obstructing them.  Investigations are how we determine if a crime has been committed and if so, which crimes.

The New York AG, for example, seems to think that Trump has committed crimes.  We shall see.

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.4.16  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @2.4.15    one month ago

Collusion, obstruction, cover up....The Dems have gone giddy.

The TDS crowd needs to look up the definition of obstruction before they use it.

Trump has not obstructed Congress from anything....they can go to the courts to get what they think they are entitled too.

Again, in the sane world, there is a crime, and you still have not mentioned the crime for the delusional cover up.

 
 
 
katrix
2.4.17  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @2.4.16    one month ago

They shouldn't have to go to the courts to do their jobs.  Maybe they didn't discuss the recently found IRS memo which makes it clear that Mnuchin should have turned over the tax documents on Fox News or Breitbart, or provide any civics lessons on how our branches of government work and what Congress' responsibilities are? 

Obstruction of justice is a crime.  Again, maybe they don't discuss the actual Mueller report on the right wing news sites, but you should try reading it instead of just Barr's take on it. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.4.18  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sunshine @2.4.12    one month ago
What is the crime?  What has he been charged with?  If there is a cover up, first there needs to be an actual crime.  That is how it works in the sane world.

Mueller was tasked with investigating criminal conspiracy with a foreign government. It was proven in the report that the Trump campaign had 127 documented communications with these Russians between July 2015 when the campaign started and November 2016 when it ended, but was unable to prove a conspiracy or illegal agreement between the campaign and the Russians. This was not because criminal conspiracy did not happen, but Mueller was not able to prove it considering everyone around Trump repeatedly lied about their contacts and conversations and changed their testimony multiple times which means even if they did spill the beans, which some appear to have done, Mueller couldn't use uncorroborated testimony from Trump staff to indict the President.

However, the Mueller report refused to exonerate the President when it comes to his attempts to obstruct the investigation into any potential Russian conspiracy. As Fox News contributor Judge Napolitano said, "when the president asked his former advisor and my former colleague at Fox News, KT McFarland, to write an untruthful letter to the file, knowing the government would subpoena it, that's obstruction of justice. When the president asked Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, to get Mueller fired, that is obstruction of justice. When the president asked his then-White House counsel to get Mueller fired and then lie about it, that's obstruction of justice. When the president asked Don McGahn to go back to the special counsel and change his testimony that's obstruction of justice. When he dangled the pardon in front of Michael Cohen in order to prevent Cohen from testifying against him that is obstruction of justice."

Obstruction of justice DOES NOT NEED a proven underlying crime for it itself to be considered a crime. It is illegal to obstruct an investigation, period. It's not just illegal to obstruct an investigation into guilty people, if you knew they were guilty, what's the purpose of an investigation?

What Trump did was the equivalent of having his underlings go around a crime scene wiping fingerprints off everything. We'll likely never know what evidence might have existed that can no longer be pursued due to the contamination of the crime scene, contaminated by liars, thieves and cheats.

So now, Trump is attempting to cover up the evidence Mueller used to detail the blatant obstruction and is also blocking Congresses oversight responsibilities as they try to make sure the President isn't profiting off the Presidency in violation of the emoluments clause or have any potential liabilities by perhaps owing hundreds of millions to Russian oligarchs through illicit Deutsche bank loans.

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.4.19  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @2.4.17    one month ago
They shouldn't have to go to the courts to do their jobs.  

Why not?  Many people have to go to court to do their job.  

Obstruction of justice is a crime.

Again, exactly where is the obstruction and where are the Articles of Impeachment for such crime?

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.4.20  Sunshine  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.4.18    one month ago
So now, Trump is attempting to cover up the evidence Mueller used to detail the blatant obstruction and is also blocking Congresses oversight responsibilities as they try to make sure the President isn't profiting off the Presidency in violation of the emoluments clause or have any potential liabilities by perhaps owing hundreds of millions to Russian oligarchs through illicit Deutsche bank loans.

How can Trump cover up Mueller's evidence?  Trump isn't blocking anything.  Congress can go to court.  You don't have much faith in our judicial process do you?

Surely, the TDS crowd has gone down the rabbit hole. 

 
 
 
katrix
2.4.21  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @2.4.19    one month ago
Why not?  Many people have to go to court to do their job.  

You must be joking.

Again, exactly where is the obstruction and where are the Articles of Impeachment for such crime?

Read the report if you can't understand what DP posted.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.4.22  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sunshine @2.4.20    one month ago
Trump isn't blocking anything.  Congress can go to court.

You realize how incongruous those two statements are don't you?

"President Donald Trump said Thursday that he did not want former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify before Congress about allegations that the president obstructed justice."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/02/trump-mcgahn-should-not-testify-1300071

"President Donald Trump on Sunday said special counsel Robert Mueller should not testify before Congress about his investigation’s findings in the Russia probe."

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/05/trump-says-robert-mueller-should-not-testify-before-congress.html

"President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit Monday against Deutsche Bank and Capital One in an attempt to block congressional subpoenas for his business records, claiming House Democrats are simply attempting to harass him."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-sues-capital-one-deutsche-bank-to-keep-them-from-complying-with-subpoenas

"President Trump asserted executive privilege over special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report Wednesday, his first use of the executive authority in the ongoing constitutional clash with Congress that the courts ultimately may resolve"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/barr-to-trump-invoke-executive-privileged-over-redacted-mueller-materials/2019/05/07/51c52600-713e-11e9-b5ca-3d72a9fa8ff1_story.html?utm_term=.2dda32a543d6

If he wasn't blocking anything, Congress would not have to go to court.

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.4.23  Sunshine  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.4.22    one month ago

Again, tell me how Trump can cover up Mueller's evidence? 

Did he break into the DOJ?  Or hack their computers....oh no another conspiracy theory for the TDS folks.

If he wasn't blocking anything, Congress would not have to go to court.

You can't block something that is still available....Hillary destroyed evidence so that would be blocking and obstruction.

And, where are the Articles of Impeachment?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.4.24  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sunshine @2.4.23    one month ago
Again, tell me how Trump can cover up Mueller's evidence? 

He is fighting congress receiving an unredacted report, he's fighting their request for the underlying evidence, he's fighting their requests to interview administration staff, and he's demanding they stop any and all investigations into obstruction or he's threatening to shut down the legislative process so nothing gets done. I'd say that's a pretty clear attempt to cover up the evidence found in the Mueller investigation.

And just to let you know, only partisan bottom feeders with zero legitimate arguments try to regurgitate and relitigate years old investigations of a retired grandma who has nothing to do with the government or congress.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.4.25  Texan1211  replied to  Sunshine @2.4.23    one month ago
Again, tell me how Trump can cover up Mueller's evidence?

Sheer fantasy on someone's part. Ridiculous to most.

Did he break into the DOJ? Or hack their computers....oh no another conspiracy theory for the TDS folks

Thin we need to start a telethon for TDS? The effects seems to be crippling and growing more intense each day as Trump is still their President.

ou can't block something that is still available....Hillary destroyed evidence so that would be blocking and obstruction.

Shhhh---we aren't supposed to mention her. Whatever she did was fine with most Democrats, the law be damned!

And, where are the Articles of Impeachment?

Nancy is sitting on them. If I were a Democrat, I would be pissed as hell that the Dems haven't started impeachment proceedings. Especially after having crowed about all the illegal things they say Trump has done.

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.4.26  Sunshine  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.4.24    one month ago
He is fighting congress receiving an unredacted report

Because Congress has no right to all of the report....just because they say so, doesn't make it true.

If they feel they do, they can go to court and get a court order.

Trump is not blocking anything...he is following the law.

he's fighting their requests to interview administration staff,

It is executive privilege, Congress has no right to every word uttered in the White House from any President. 

Again, if they feel they do, we have a judicial system that can decide that for them.

Nothing is blocked, all the information is still available.  Congress claims they have a right to oversight, well then they can prove it.

he's threatening to shut down the legislative process so nothing gets done.

Nothing gets done anyways.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  author  JohnRussell    one month ago
[deleted]

 
 
 
Tacos!
4  Tacos!    one month ago

I anticipated something like this. I couldn't believe Pelosi and Schumer would actually set down to get something positive done for this country if it meant Trump might get some credit for it. So, sure enough, in spite of being invited to solve a big problem, Pelosi found a way to completely poison the working relationship right before a big meeting. Politics over country again.

 
 
 
katrix
4.1  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @4    one month ago

Right, because Trump has never insulted either one of them.

The snowflake can dish it out, but his fragile ego can't take it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @4.1    one month ago
Right, because Trump has never insulted either one of them.

Did he ever accuse them of a crime right before an important meeting where they were supposed to be working together?

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @4.1    one month ago
The snowflake can dish it out, but his fragile ego can't take it.

Assuming Pelosi knows that, why would she insult or antagonize him right before sitting down to plan out a national effort on improving infrastructure? Like I said: politics over country.

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.3  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.2    one month ago

So just because Trump is an immature narcissist, Pelosi should cater to him even though he insults her and everyone else?  That's ridiculous. You don't deal with bullies by rolling over.  Trump needs to grow the hell up.

Maybe she assumed he'd act like an adult for once.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @4.1.3    one month ago
So just because Trump is an immature narcissist, Pelosi should cater to him even though he insults her and everyone else?  That's ridiculous.

No that's diplomacy. It's smart. If Trump says something negative about another foreign leader - both enemy and ally - he is attacked for antagonizing that leader and either provoking war or destroying alliances. Why shouldn't we have that same standard for the Speaker of the House?

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.5  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.4    one month ago

You cannot be serious, with all the insults Trump constantly flings.  What Pelosi said was nothing like the insults Trump spews.  She called it a cover up because it clearly is - he is doing his best to keep anyone from testifying to Congress, and trying to prevent Congress from conducting the oversight they are charged with.  She's doing her job, unlike Trump.

Do you have kids?  If so, do you let them use that kind of bullshit illogic to blame someone else when they do something wrong?

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @4.1.5    one month ago

I think you need to reread what I wrote. Also, you don't get to talk about my family.

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.7  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.6    one month ago

I have no idea if you even have a family.  If you do, I was not insulting them - I was making an analogy which apparently went over your head.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.4    one month ago
If Trump says something negative about another foreign leader - both enemy and ally - he is attacked for antagonizing that leader and either provoking war or destroying alliances.

"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime." - DJT

“(Kim Jong Un) wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters, We fell in love.” - DJT

Maybe if the President wasn't either calling them names or kissing their ass, more Americans would respect his foreign policy. Right now his foreign policy appears to vacillate between playground bully and sexually curious teen.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @4    one month ago

With the 'president' it's him/his corrupt gop congress over country - and

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.2    one month ago
With the 'president' it's him/his corrupt gop congress over country - and

No need for '' around president. The fact is Trump IS your President. 

And what?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.1    one month ago
The fact is Trump IS your President

Just as Obama was your President for eight years. So what? None of that changes the fact that Trump has obstructed justice and is prioritizing hiding and defending his corruption and corrupt GOP co-conspirators over doing work for the American people.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.1    one month ago

I will punctuate as I please.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.2    one month ago
Just as Obama was your President for eight years

Very, very good. A fact I never denied. 

None of that changes the fact that Trump has obstructed justice and is prioritizing hiding and defending his corruption and corrupt GOP co-conspirators over doing work for the American people.

Gee, you should write or call your reps and demand that they do exactly what they haven't done ---impeach Trump.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.3    one month ago
I will punctuate as I please.

?T.h&at  I,s  j.u,s:t  g;r'e/a[t.!

 
 
 
lady in black
5  lady in black    one month ago

Moron in chief

'Achomlishments': Photographer snaps look at Trump's notes in Rose Garden news conference

Also misspelled is the word intentionally - intentially

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/23/photo-trump-notes-white-house-news-conference/1203665001/

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online





54 visitors