Over 15, close or very close associates of Donald Trump or his campaign have had contacts with Russia and Russian spies. How can this not be a conspiracy that Trump didn't know about??
- Flynn - National Security Advisor (pleaded guilty)
- Sessions - Former Attorney General (fired by Trump for recusing himself)
- Cohen - Trump's personal lawyer (pleaded guilty, looking at many years in jail)
- Kushner - Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser
- Trump Jr. - Manages the Trump organization
- Manafort - Trump's campaign manager (convicted, in jail)
- Page - Trump campaign foreign policy adviser
- Gates - Trump's deputy campaign manager
- Gordon - Trump campaign foreign policy adviser
- Papadopoulos - Trump campaign foreign policy adviser (pleaded guilty, served time in jail)
- Stone - Trump confidant and outside adviser (probably will be indicted)
- Ivanka - Trump's daughter
- Caputo - Trump campaign aide
- Berkowitz - Long time Kushner associate and White House aide
- Prince - Trump envoy and brother to Education secretary Betsy DeVos
- Scaramucci - Member of Trump transition team and later White House communications director
https://themoscowproject.org/explainers … peratives/
Is this enough smoke to reasonably presume that Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia to throw the election to him?
No conspiracy, no collusion! Just ‘political synergy’ and ‘synergy on a government level’.
Haven't you been keeping up? None of this is evidence of collusion. There is ZERO evidence. None! Not even a tiny shred. Not. One. Iota.
And, even if there were evidence, collusion is not a crime. And, even if it were an impeachable offense, unless Trump is found guilty in a court of law, he is innocent. Pure!
This is nothing but a witch hunt, perpetrated by Democrats and the deep state. Oh, you say Mueller is a Republican appointed by a Republican appointed by Trump? That means zero, nada, nothing. The deep state runs so deep that even Trump's own appointees and the entire FBI are part of the plot. They're all a bunch of lying crooks, out to get Trump. Why? Because he is not a globalist. He is fighting back against not only the U.S. deep state but the entire world!
Do you understand now? If not, you are obviously brainwashed by the lamestream media, college professors, and The View. Get your head out of the sand! Read a blog! Watch a Project Veritas video! Open your eyes!I
No. According to some folks it is, but then their desire to hurt Trump overrides any sense of justice and truth.
ME, do you ever get tired of not being able to fix stupid? Everybody said if Kennedy was elected President, the pope would run the country. We've been afraid that Trump would be Putin's puppet. Now even Putin hates the guy! (i.e., Putin's new pal the Crown Prince and their glaring at Trump.) Can it get more confusing! They say, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Heck, we can't even keep our enemies close, and where did all the friendlies go, long time passing.
Just call me a masochist. It will feel so good when stupid is gone, lol.
I love your last two lines.
As long as we have career politicians, the stupid will never be gone.
IE - Nancy Pelosi - 30 years in Congress, lifelong politician.
I'm seeing a trend here. Nancy Pelosi is replacing Hillary as the liberal conservatives love to hate.
So, I have done some searching (admittedly, not much) to find out precisely what Pelosi has done to rise to the highest pinnacle of liberal boogeyman. My search has not been unsuccessful.
So, here is your chance to tell me what makes Pelosi the worst of the worst. How is she more awful than, say, Bernie Sanders? From what I can see, her policies are less extreme than Bernie's, whose Democratic Socialism runs more counter to conservatism than does Pelosi's run-of-the-mill liberalism.
So, what is it, exactly, that Pelosi has done to warrant this level of right-wing hatred?
Watched a short clip with Trump "negotiating" with 2 Democrats, one of which was Pelosi. He wants 5B for the wall - her response was to say that there will be zero for the wall under any circumstances. And then has the unmitigated gall to claim that she is willing to "compromise".
"My way or no way" at all is the mantra from Democrats, with Pelosi at the head.
lol, the reason WHY there will be NO money for the wall is because Bozo Trump is doing a pretty good job of building the wall even without money for it, at least that's what he claimed in the very same meeting where Nancy "Powerhouse" Pelosi made him look like the idiot he truly is:
I didn't know the wall was already being built and WHY waste tax-payer money for it when progress is being made without financing ??
I must have missed that part. I did watched Trump said my way or I'll shut the government.
Trump must be a Democrat or that mantra is spreading.
And there you are wrong again Wilderness. She is willing to give what is in the budget, 2.6 B, I think.
Also, "My way or no way" was Trump's line at the end of the meeting. "I will OWN the shutdown" he says. Did you miss that part?? He has also said on several occasions that "a shutdown is a good thing".
And I think your thought is completely wrong. She is not willing to build a single foot of wall.
Trump will take responsibility for govt. shutdown. And this points to Pelosi willing to negotiate? Sorry, but that's a line of reasoning I cannot follow.
When well over half of America thinks the wall is a stupid use of taxpayer money, don't you believe Trump should listen and represent America's interests?
Yes Valeant, the great wall in Donald's bloated empty head is a joke and would have been a gigantic waste of tax-payer dollars and everyone knows it: It looks like Donald was just trying to con congress into funding this big pile of useless concrete just so he can try to slap his Drumpfy little name on it just like he apparently according to reports, tried to slap his Drumpfy little name on a Moscow Tower during OUR presidential campaign:
BTW: Turns out all those "illegal Aliens" CONservatives are frightened to death of, are not dangerous at all just like we've said all along, because just like many other American businesses, it looks like Bozo's agents hire them too and apparently aside from their complaints about treatment, we have heard no complaints about them or their work:
lol: UNREAL Hypocrisy: WHO Aside From Hopeless Cultees STILL LISTEN To This Orange Oval Office Circus Clown ????
"New York Times: Trump's Bedminster club hired undocumented immigrants, two workers claim"
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics … index.html
It's no "thought" Wilderness, it is a statement of fact, although the real figure is $1.3 billion now that I have looked. To be sure, this is for border security. But, the border barrier is part of border security.
"Democratic leaders plan to offer President Trump $1.3 billion in funding for a border fence when they meet Tuesday at the White House, a bid that falls far short of the $5 billion Trump is demanding to fund a border wall." - Washington Post, Dec 10
Given the Trump Wall that the Mexican's are going to pay for is a huge waste of time and money (only conservatives and Trump says it isn't), $1.3 billion is a much better deal.
Pundits say, however, the figure will end up around $3.2 billion which is probably needed for REAL border security.
"To be sure, this is for border security. But, the border barrier is part of border security."
Then it is as I said: she is not willing to compromise even an inch on building a border wall. Zero feet of wall is all she will accept.
Isn't that what I said? No compromise at all on the wall?
"Given the Trump Wall that the Mexican's are going to pay for is a huge waste of time and money (only conservatives and Trump says it isn't)"
Which simply means that only conservatives are honest about the project and it's expected results, doesn't it?
Well wilderness, even if congress allocated 500 billion or even a trillion for a useless pile of concrete border wall, it wouldn't be built for many many years if not decades if ever:
Everyone knows the first step is for Bozo Trump's Feds to grab private land from private property owners which won't be easy considering the massive number of law suits which are and would be filed to stop this ridiculous notion:
"Don’t Mess With Texas Landowners on Border Wall, Lawmakers Warn"
Two Texas lawmakers — one Republican, one Democrat — warned Homeland Security Department officials Thursday that it won’t be easy to build President Donald Trump’s border wall in the Lone Star State if private landowners have anything to say about it.
https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/ap … order-wall
What we really need is a gigantic wall between the Trump's and Moscow, but it might be a little too late for that:
Well, the Texans (and other landowners on the border) that I've heard on the matter strongly desire that the illegal traffic going through their land, killing their cows and destroying their farms would quit doing so. Deeding a couple yards of useless land to the govt. isn't even a pimple on what illegals do to them and they know it.
Given what just happened in Syria and Afghanistan, it is clearly too late. Now I am wondering if Trump isn't on ISIS's and al Qaeda's payroll as well.
I would have changed the words honest to dishonest and expected to delusional.
Of course you would. Because we, and the rest of the world, have so much experience with the effectiveness of border walls.
Although...if they don't work, I have to wonder why other countries are building them - perhaps because they are all dishonest and wish to waste money, too?
Like I've said previously, we can cut the number down significantly without building a wall that may, or may not, work.
A 2017 study (http://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-visa … rder-wall/) by the Center for Migration Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, is more helpful to understand a significant issue pertaining to immigration.
That report estimated visa overstays in 2014 accounted for 42 percent of the total undocumented population, or about 4.5 million people. It also projected that overstays made up about two-thirds of the total number of people who became unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. that year.
We could shore up that area with a few more resources that could also target job creation and make the system more accountable by tracking overstays in a better fashion. It would be way cheaper than a wall and would cut the undocumented population down significantly.
And as long as Individual-1 is being investigated for his foundation, transition team, inauguration fund, businesses, and campaign finance violations, I really, really don't trust giving him 5 billion more ways to rip off the American taxpayer.
Why is it that those folks denying the value of a wall never want to discuss whether they actually work elsewhere, and why those walls continue to be built?
You can go off on a tangent about visa's, but that does absolutely nothing to address illegal border crossings. It merely tries to give the impression that such actions are not worthy of our time and do no harm. That's factually untrue, and can be nothing but a red herring to divert attention from the real problem.
If you don't like "Individual-1" being investigated, then suggest you take up the cause to end the fruitless and political process in favor of something worthwhile. We could have built quite a wall for what has been spent to indict people, not for the Russian collusion that was the stated reason, but anything and everything that could be unearthed.
I'm sorry, but I give you data that says overstays are nearly half of the thing you're complaining about, and you call it a tangent?
Now, if you could provide some actual data to back up your point that walls work, instead of just saying it like we should believe it, that might help your case. Because the amount of denial you're in to Trump's transgressions and crimes really doesn't help us believe you are rooted in facts or common sense currently.
And according to sources, Mueller has spent around $25 million so far to achieve significant results. He seized somewhere between $42 to $46 million in cash and property from Manafort's illegal deeds. So if you're really going to have the nerve to complain about the costs of an investigation that is actually making money, it'll just be another reason for us to laugh at your complete lack of common sense.
The topic is not what to do with people already here - that is pretty obvious with enforcing labor laws. That we don't do.
The topic was stopping incoming illegals via a wall. You want to ignore real life experience in favor of "experts" that claim, with no evidential experience, that they don't work. My question was why? Why ignore what the rest of the world does? If they don't work, why are countries (some 65 at last count) still building walls of one kind or another? And you once more deflect onto existing illegals without ever even commenting on world wide walls while complaining of denial of Trump's (unproven) transgressions and crimes. (Have you considered putting the $21M gain from Mueller into the wall?)
Says a lot about the thrust of your "arguments", doesn't it?
The topic is illegal immigration.
The solution from the right is to build a wall. Saying 65 countries have a wall of one kind or another is pretty vague. Because included in that total are countries just like the US that have border fencing. How many actually have a solid wall? You don't even know the answer to your own statement. But the 'experts' agree that a solid wall is the answer. What experts? Where's the data? You're a fountain of theory with no factual evidence to back it up.
I have provided data to back up the fact that we could cut down on illegal immigration, again - the actual thing that seems to have the right riled up, by doing a better job of tracking overstays. We could cut the issue down by 40% without spending billions on something that you still haven't proven works.
If we're looking to save money for a wall, how about we cut back on trips to Mar-a-lago? Mueller's at least turning a profit. Trump's golfing does nothing to help Americans.
Besides Israel and the Iron Curtain, what wall is working ??
The question was why 65 countries continue to build walls if they don't work. Do you have an answer for that, or are they all just fond of wasting money?
Let's attack this logically.
We are already one of the 65 countries to have a border fencing or a wall.
You say that those 65 have something that is effective.
We are part of that group.
Then why do we need to spend 5 billion on something that has been proven to be working in your eyes?
First, I did not say a wall was effective, or that any specific wall in the world was. I asked why they continue to be built if they are NOT effective. There must be a reason - is it because they work or because other countries enjoy wasting money?
Second, our border is some 1900 miles long and we have, what, 10 miles of wall? Is there a reason (experience from other countries, maybe?) to expand our existing one? Sounds like you're trying to say that because our wall does not stop crossings where it doesn't exist we don't need to add to it - is that the case?
Do you build a fenceline on your property to keep your neighbors out or do you do it to let everyone know where the border is? Same premise might exist for countries. You are making the assumptions it's to quell immigration, could just be a territorial marking.
Second, 10 miles? Try 580 miles of barriers. You were so close. But that does leave close to 1400 miles open and considering that 97% of illegal crossings occur on the southern border, it would behoove us to continue to shore up those openings as was actually passed during George W. Bush's time in office.
There can be some middle ground here by building on existing barriers, but not going overboard and spending 25 billion that we don't have in the budget since we're already running a trillion dollar deficit.
Now that is an immigration measure I can get behind. FIX the visa system such that it is very hard for people to overstay.
Since conservatives make up only 1/3 of America, you are calling the other 2/3rd of us dishonest. Is that what you are saying.
Given that the only party guilty of voter fraud is the GOP (NC), I think you are in a glass house.
"Which simply means that only conservatives are honest about the project and it's expected results, doesn't it?"
No. Since it was conservatives who put Trump in office in part on his promise that Mexico would pay for the useless wall, which everyone else said wouldn't happen, it means conservatives were Dishonest about the project and it's expected results.
Was Obama dishonest about Obamacare? Did h not state "you can keep your doctor and your current health care plan". Was this not the same concept? Politicing? Seems you forget all the other mistruths that those that came before Trump has made. I very much doubt many that voted for Trump felt that Mexico would pay for the wall. I was very relieved Trump was willing to tackle immigration reform. So, many before him had promised to tackle immigration reform, but once in office abandoned it. Have you ever seen a politician not make promises they can't keep, and actually have no intention of keeping? I guess you hold Trump to a higher standard than Obama?
Obama held himself to higher standards. Trump and some of hus supporters hold him to NO standards at all.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/excl … 8C11555216
Trump would have just said he never said it even if it's on tape
Mistakes are made, repeatedly and delbertely lying to those you are supposed to serve is a different matter. Then, the supporters state, oh we expect you to lie, it's OK..that is nonsense.
Good post Hard Sun. Let me pass on a few quotes from your reference to make a point about the difference between classy Obama and bully Trump :
"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," he told NBC News in an exclusive interview at the White House.
“Obviously we didn’t do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law," Obama said in the interview Thursday. "And, you know, that’s something I regret. That’s something we’re gonna do everything we can to get fixed ... We’re looking at a range of options.”
“Obviously we didn’t do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law," Obama said in the interview Thursday. "And, you know, that’s something I regret. That’s something we’re gonna do everything we can to get fixed ... We’re looking at a range of options.”
Also forgotten in all of this is that a huge percentage of insured who lost their coverage during the ACA rollout would have lost it anyway because of the large turnover in policies that occur INDEPENDENT of ACA.
And now, people like Obamacare and want to keep it - as may House GOP found out in November.
Actually no, Obama wasn't dishonest about Obamacare. He spoke, like all other politicians, in sound bites using what courts call "puffery". Intelligent people knew that when Obama said "You can keep your doctor" and "and you can keep your healthcare plan" (I am not sure the word 'current' was in it), that those statements weren't 100% true; especially the last statement.
However, I had no problem understanding what he meant, something conservatives apparently have a problem doing. I was well aware that given the free marketplace and that not all insurance plans are identical, then some plans may not have the doctor you were currently using. But, for the vast majority of people, they kept their doctor.
Likewise, it was a GIVEN that some people would lose their insurance IF their insurance company refused to provide the basic coverage that ACA required. Had they, then everyone could have kept their insurance. But, dome of the insurance companies chose to continue to screw their customers. Nevertheless, the vast majority of people were able to keep their insurance, if they wanted to.
Bottom line, keeping your doctor and your insurance was feasible in most cases.
That is Entirely different with Trump promising to get Mexico to pay for his useless wall. He couldn't do it and he knew he couldn't do it. (At least I hope he did as the other alternative makes him very dumb.)
I don't know what the people who voted for Trump thought. Given they believe everything else he says, whether true or not, I suspect they believed this as well.
Actually, that is not true about immigration reform. You can lay the death of that directly at the feet of the radical conservatives who ran the House. On TWO occasions, the Senate passed a bi-partisan immigration plan which either Bush or Obama (depending on which one) would have signed. They didn't sign it because the kind of conservatives that support Trump.
So yes, most of the politicians INTENDED on keeping that promise but one side of the aisle in the House chose to not even bring it up for a vote.
No, I don't hold Trump to a higher standard than Obama. I simply wish Trump had a standard with which to measure from.
"He spoke, like all other politicians, in sound bites using what courts call "puffery"."
You mean LIES, down't you? C'mon now; if we're going to call such idiotic, false and untrue statemens LIES when from one person we should at least try and be consistent, calling the same thing LIES when it comes from another! Or is it only Republicans that LIE?
"I simply wish Trump had a standard with which to measure from."
Apparently, from your own statements, he does. You just don't like it and wish it weren't there because it means that he LIES just like all politicians do.
Actually, no. Remember, at the time he said that, the law wasn't complete. So at worst, it was mostly or partially true since most people were able to keep their doctors and insurance.
What Trump does is knowing LIE about many things and make false statements about many others, 7,500+ and counting in 700 days.
And no, Trump doesn't lie like all(?) other politicians do. Other politicians lie or tell false statements sometimes, like all other human beings including you. Trump takes it several orders of magnitude higher and puts him in a league of his own. No, Trump is like no other politician (or "businessman" except maybe Machiavelli.
Trump is simply dangerously mentally ill and you guys love it.
"So at worst, it was mostly or partially true since most people were able to keep their doctors and insurance."
So he LIED, saying people could keep their own doctors when he knew that most could not. That was LIE, was it not?
I'm not sure; is it "mentally ill" to make unfounded, unproven accusations about other people? As in claiming they are mentally ill when the only examination gave him a clean bill of health - does that make the accuser "mentally ill", maybe in massively egocentric that they know without ever testing?
Lying is willfully telling falsehoods, like Trump does a lot. In Obama's case, since the law wasn't complete, he couldn't have know whether the outcome was going to be true or not. When he found out he couldn't make good on his promise, he apologized ... something Trump will NEVER do...
As to mentally ill, I refer you to my previous answer on the subject. You mean the previous exam by a doctor who he then nominated to be VA secretary and was then found to have major issues?
There's no question as to the veracity of DT's claims....except by his protagonists, that is.
They'll believe any lie coming out of his mouth if it will excuse their voting for him...
The only doctor to conduct an exam, yes. Whatever your opinion of him, lack of a different physician's report does not give the right to make up a diagnosis. Unless, of course, you hate the man to the point that truth is irrelevant and made up stories (LIES) are just fine.
As I said, I can't hate the mentally ill. I feel empathy for them, but for the dangerous ones like Trump, they shouldn't be president.
And as I also said, given the long public record on Trump, the mental health professionals say they don't need a personal examination in order to render a very informed opinion. And their opinion is Trump is dangerously mentally ill. They wrote their book in an attempt to warn the nation. You didn't listen.
The TRUTH is Trump chronically, pathological teller of misleading, mostly false or false statements, many of which qualifies as lies. Rarely does he say thinks that are true or mostly true. This is unlike any politician I have ever seen or read about.
"mental health professionals say they don't need a personal examination in order to render a very informed opinion. "
You mean a few quacks willing to violate the rules of their profession and their oath for political gain. No "mental health professional" would ever render such an opinion.
You would like to think they were quacks, it is the only way your narrative works. No, each of the 27 are highly regarded in their specialties.
I know you don't want your bubble burst but your really try and learn something by reading "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" by Bandy Lee, MD, M.Div who is the Assistant Clinical Professional of Law and Psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine - hardly a "quack", don't you think? Then there are 27 equally qualified mental health professionals who contributed to his book.
Sorry Wildnerness, you lose this one. Trump IS dangerously mentally ill.
Sorry, Esoteric - you lose this one.
Your "highly regard specialists" may have been highly regarded; they lost that standing when they published a diagnosis about someone (against every rule in the book) that they had never examined (again, against every rule in the book). Any high regard they still enjoy comes only from those willing to take any action to accomplish a political goal. No "highly regarded" health professional would ever do such a thing.
It isn't about Donald Trump and his presumed insanity; it is about so-called health professionals willing to set aside their oath and ethics to produce a political goal.
So he LIED as he couldn't know but said it anyway. Right? I mean that's the kind of thing you accuse Trump of LYING about - just takes a little spin to turn it into something it wasn't.
Wrong. To lie, you have to know what you are saying isn't true; you should know that. Since the plan was to keep your own doctor and insurance, Obama was telling the truth as he knew it.
Personally, I would have waffled a little bit and made the statement more complicated and less interesting by saying "almost all of you can keep your doctor" and "unless your insurance company screws you, the vast majority of you can keep your insurance"
But, a more concise, more impactfull way to get that point across is what Obama ended up saying.
That is ENTIRELY different from Trump's statement that he gave the troops their first raise in 10 years (HE didn't give them squat because they get a raise EVERY year) and that he told them to make it 10%, more than 10% (which is it?) in spite of the fact that Congress gave the troops, what was it, 2.9%.
And Mexico will pay for the wall.....another purposeful lie by the Commander-in-Chief!
He's the most dishonest POTUS in history and his voters do not care a whit. Sad...
"To lie, you have to know what you are saying isn't true; you should know that."
I agree. Why then do you and others continue to call Trumps errors a LIE? Because it gives another poke at your hated nemesis?
Geez, wilderness, why don't you just admit you don't care if he lies and be done with it?
In another thread you said you want to kill people who are crossing the border illegally.
Being a Trump defender is dragging you down.
Yes, simply another victim of the Trump Train derailment, PP. The casualties continue to rise....
I guess for the same reason you don't just admit you don't care who lies as long as it isn't Trump?
Suggest you go back to that "other thread" and copy/paste where I said I "want to kill people who are crossing the border illegally." You'll find it impossible to do, making your statement just another lie...exactly as you get so upset about when Trump does the exact same thing. Pretty standard for the Trump haters - their own lies don't count while his every word is spun into a lie.
Did you just try and deny that you said we should collapse tunnels even if there are people inside as a deterrent to illegal immigration? Because many of us saw that post.
When the alternative is to send our people into tunnels to dig out armed forces, yes I did. It was done in the pacific theater in WWII at tremendous cost in American lives and I do not support doing it again however much the bleeding hearts of the country do.
I also support deadly force against illegals shooting at us, which nearly everyone else does, too.
So in that respect I support collapsing tunnels, perhaps tunnels with people in them that are carrying out illegal activities. That's a far cry from claiming I said I "want to kill people who are crossing the border illegally." which of course includes simply shooting any that cross.
How about you find a way to empty those tunnels...without allowing illegal entry, at a reasonable cost and without putting our people in danger? I'd be up for that!
We were discussing using ground penetrating radar to find tunnels. I said "Yeah, OK. That seems reasonable...collapse the tunnels after ensuring no one in them of course."
You said: "Why is it incumbent on US to check those tunnels for occupancy, then? Just collapse them and walk away; both the mules bringing illegals and the drug carriers will soon learn the dangers of using tunnels."
As the conversation was about ground penetrating radar, you fully understood that we don't need to physically send people into said tunnels.
Also, how can "just collapse them and walk away" be interpreted as anything but "kill em, who cares?"
It's bad enough to state this, but at least stand by your statement. That's what I say anyway. It's clear that some Trump supporters are learning from Trump.
"As the conversation was about ground penetrating radar, you fully understood that we don't need to physically send people into said tunnels."
Your solution, then, for tunnels with people in them? I'm not sure that such radar will detect occupants, but if it does, what then? And if it can't, what do you propose to ensure no one gets hurt?
It sounds to me like you're quite willing to send people into tunnels for a pitched battle with drug runners. I'm not.
ME, "Yeah, OK. That seems reasonable...collapse the tunnels after ensuring no one in them of course."
You: Why is it incumbent on US to check those tunnels for occupancy, then? Just collapse them and walk away; both the mules bringing illegals and the drug carriers will soon learn the dangers of using tunnels."
You're just straight being dishonest. You know it. I know it. Everyone reading knows it. What you are doing now is lying. From the rest of the discussion, I'm not sure you are aware of what lying is so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that.
Happy New Year! No reason to continue with this nonsense
"And if we merely close the entrance after making sure it is empty we haven't provided much incentive NOT to simply dig another tunnel. Seems that a better method is to simply collapse the tunnel somewhere in it's length, as far towards Mexico as we can, without concerning ourselves with whether it is empty or not. Do that a few times and there is suddenly an enormous incentive not to dig any more."
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/341 … ost4052404
"A large part of the problem is that there is no real repercussions to border crossers that get caught. They're simply collected and sent home, after feeding them, providing any health care needed, etc.
Why is it incumbent on US to check those tunnels for occupancy, then? Just collapse them and walk away; both the mules bringing illegals and the drug carriers will soon learn the dangers of using tunnels."
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/341 … ost4052441
Your point? That I advocate simply killing all illegal border crossers? Because that's what you implied...
Here is exactly what I said:
"In another thread you said you want to kill people who are crossing the border illegally."
That is the truth. You advocate collapsing tunnels, without concern for who might be in them. I did not say "all" and you know very well the context of my comment.
What is wrong with you, wilderness? If you simply say your rhetoric got away from you and you don't really want to collapse tunnels on human beings, I would accept that.
I hope you never have to have a non-career neurosurgeon work on you one day. It will only be then when it will occur to you how dumb castigating "career politician" is.
There are only a few reasons a politician keeps office.
2. Doing a good job
3. An unengaged electorate
Just to add more gas to the fire:
EVERYONE of the organizations associated with Trump are now under investigation as well as Trump himself.
- Trump Foundation
- Trump Organization
- Trump Inauguration Committee
- Trump Administration
Just to name a few. And guess what, Trump appointed the head of all of the federal investigators
WOW! Looks like Mueller should start asking for indictments... We should get something out of this 30 some million dollar investigation. I just wonder why he is not wrapping this all up, with so much smoke, should be able to prove Trump did something crooked with Russia to win the election.
We have gotten something out of this one. Actual indictments, guilty pleas and $42-46 million in assets from Manafort. Results and he's turning a profit. That's way more than any investigation of a Democrat ever yielded.
What happened to that money? Into the general fund? All to the FBI to expand their power (that's what some police departments do, after all)?
More likely it went to pay for rooms at Trump International, DC. I mean, as long as we're throwing out organizations (FBI) that aren't connected to Mueller's investigation in any way just to be conspiracy theorists, I'll lob out some of Trump's.
Might as well. It makes as much sense as spending millions on a witch hunt, carried out by people with the full might and abilities of the United States behind them but no oversight. It's been a great thing for those that keep a statue of J Edgar on their nightstand to worship each night.
Spent 25, today's figure had the assets secured at 48 million. There you go again trying to make the cost into a negative.
Mueller is a republican, appointed by a republican, to replace a fired republican, to investigate ties between republicans and Russia. There has been oversight, from the DOJ, which is run currently by, you guessed it, republicans.
But it appears that by lack of oversight, you meant lack of partisanship to bury misdeeds.
No, Mueller was hired to find dirt on Trump or anyone connected however remotely to Trump. If it were to investigate ties between Trump and Russia (investigating only ties between republicans and Russia would be too low for even Clinton, let alone the rest of the Democrats) then he would have stuck to that. But most of his findings concern matters completely irrelevant to that charge.
There is no way a decorated veteran like Mueller, an honorable public servant, would have taken a post just to dig up dirt on Trump. The insinuation is insulting and shows just how far down the conspiracy theory wormhole you've gone Dan. The fact that you even make such a claim is why many of us have little to no respect for the opinions you are posting here.
As for the Russia connections, do you think it was going to be strategic for him to unveil his results with a clearly partisan house and senate that did everything possible to protect Trump? Waiting for a Democratic majority in the house assures people will act and not bury the results of his investigation.
Why not? If that's his instructions, why not? If Mueller hates Trump half as much as you, or most liberals, do it might seem a chance made in heaven, to do massive good for the country.
The insult belongs to the people that gave him his marching orders, not Mueller. The fact that you ignore where his "investigation" has led him, and the indictments he has handed down, "is why many of us have little to no respect for the opinions you are posting here".
Now it is YOU insulting Mueller, proposing that he is playing the political game with the law. If Mueller is waiting for the "right" political environment to reveal his findings under the law he deserves every insult anyone can give him. Of course, that does go along with the idea that it is, and was, a political witch hunt to start with, doesn't it?
Clearly you're just making things up now. IF that's his instructions? Have you even read his purview? In it, if he comes across other crimes and criminals unrelated, he has the ability to act on them. And he has, and many of us believe that is good for the country. And some of those charged crimes helps him to get information at the root of his investigation. Cohen is a prime example. He charged him with financial crimes and lying, but confirmed that he gained much towards the primary directive through cooperation. The fact that he hasn't revealed that information yet isn't proof that it doesn't exist, which is what you are trying to falsely convince people of.
The results of his investigation are no game, but to ensure they are taken seriously, waiting for the right political climate is necessary to ensure the right actions will be taken from his conclusions. You may be blind to the fact that politicians such as Nunes and Goodlatte have done everything possible to distract and block the investigations in Congress pertaining to Russia, but I'm certain Mueller has not overlooked those actions. Waiting for a group of people that will act with the nation's best interests in mind is prudent, and no game.
Your party is morally corrupt. You are amazingly brainwashed on the topic and when the charges come down on Trump, I look forward to reminding you of your complete lack of understanding about his crimes.
Yep, I read his instructions. Boiled down it amounts to "Find dirt on Trump or anyone connected to him". It was nothing more, or less, than a political gambit to hurt an opponent. And if you can't see that then that "is why many of us have little to no respect for the opinions you are posting here".
MY party is corrupt? Speaks the one that owes allegiance to the party that clearly fixed their own primary to produce a predetermined result? You have GOT to be kidding!
(Though I WILL say that both parties are about equally corrupt. Limiting it to only one is foolish in the extreme - you desperately need to take your blinders off.)
Considering every person who has been appointed to investigate the Russia interference in the 2016 election is a republican, using the word opponent seems odd.
And you act like there wasn't Russian interference in the election and don't want answers to how deep it went. I, for one, want to know those answers and am glad they are investigating.
If you've ever bothered to read my hubs here, you'll know I was critical of Clinton as a candidate. My preference was to see Kasich against Sanders because both were at least honest people. When it came down to Trump against Clinton, both were doing pay to play (Bondi in Florida for Trump, Clinton Foundation donations for Clinton), but Trump's ties to the oligarchs were a big factor for me. The simple fact that Trump allowed a Russian money laundering operation (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 42851.html) to operate just three floors down from his penthouse suite gave me enough pause to support Clinton. Again, common sense makes it hard to believe that a control freak like Trump wasn't aware of what was happening right under his nose.
The primary shadiness was grimy, I'll concede that fact though. The campaign donations funneled from states to the Clinton campaign was corrupt as well. Neither candidate was law abiding in the last election and I'd be happy if they prosecuted Clinton for her transgressions.
But now on top of the gerrymandering and voter suppression, the GOP is resulting to election fraud (NC), collusion with a foreign enemy (Russia), and changing the law after losing elections to limit the power of incoming Democrats (WI & MI) all going on. Nothing Clinton did comes close to all of that.
"And you act like there wasn't Russian interference in the election and don't want answers to how deep it went."
Aren't you disappointed that none has been found, then? Or at least that no one has been found guilty of colluding to produce those fake FB posts? And aren't you upset that the investigation is producing crimes far removed from that interference?
"Again, common sense makes it hard to believe that a control freak like Trump wasn't aware of what was happening right under his nose."
And it never occurred to you that he doesn't run the towers personally, has almost zero day to day control over what happens there and did not count the Russians in his personal group of friends so would have no idea of what they were doing? Or is that all irrelevant - he should have intimate knowledge of what each tenant in each apartment is doing at all times?
They aren't investigating, they are framing, and covering up.
Come on, we all know this. The Clintons were up to their eyeballs in collusion with the Russians, taking tens if not hundreds of millions from them through various companies that would donate to their 'non-profit'.
The whole Uranium One deal along with all those 'server leaks' that I'm sure provided the Russians with whatever information they needed.
When it became obvious to the criminal cabal (aka the Obama Administration) that Trump could win, could become president, they cooked up this plan to frame him with the very crimes they themselves were doing.
Its pretty clever, the very people who were guilty of conspiring are now running the investigation on Trump and his 'collusion'. And now that they have a majority in the House they can proceed to destroy him and anyone near him with one investigation after another.
The lesson to all: don't fight the establishment, even if you are a billionaire, who becomes President, they will still destroy you.
That the Democrats have already come up with a collection of "investigations", all designed to destroy the presidency, and intend to proceed with them as soon as it is politically possible, says a lot. A stronger statement as to the real intent could not have been made.
And the GOP didn't against Obama? Turnaround is fair play.
Exactly what did that spineless group do to Obama, other than not vote for everything he wanted?
Of course it is. And so useful the country, not to mention showing the population how honest and ethical our lawmakers are, playing "She did it first!" in the sandbox.
So now you're a centrist? Holding both sides to the same standards instead of double standards?
Yep, the most non-biased, non-partisan poster on here.
Promise, that you choose to take complaints about treating Trump as innocent until proven guilty as partisan and Republican does not make them so. Rather, it shows your [/i]own[/i] partisan bias in that you are unable to separate politics from ethics and law.
Trump has made some really good calls on what this country needs and where it should go - as far as I can see you've turned your nose up at every single one. Clear evidence, again, of partisan, biased politics yourself.
17 different investigations into Trump as it appears he tried to run his campaign, transition, and presidency as a cash enterprise.
https://www.wired.com/story/mueller-inv … ete-guide/
I bet you still say O. J. Simpson is innocent, don't you. Our Hitler didn't commit genocide since he was never found guilty in court.
There is a thing called common sense and there comes a point where the public evidence is overwhelming. Only the willfully blind ignore it.
Such is evidence against Trump. He hired criminals and he is one himself yet you still want him as president.
What MAJOR things has Trump done that has helped America and/or the world. While even I can come up with the few minor ones, the best I can tell the net effect of his two years is to drag America down to his level.
This is a fair point, an accurate observation, and a reasonable response... and now lets see the reactions:
You really have to admire the non-stop effort by many to tie Trump to Hitler, directly or indirectly, the arguments never want for it to eventually be brought up.
Valiant +1ned that response, showing he has no problems with the Hitler tie in. Valiant also had his own response to Wildnerness' post:
Lets consider this.
We have so far seen several disgraced FBI and CIA high positioned directors be removed or fired from their positions because of wrongdoing, or inferred wrongdoing.
We have accusations of cover ups for the Clintons, of false/fabricated information being used to start the investigation into Trump and his supporters, lying to judges to get fisa warrants, etc.
We have a President who ran on calling the 'Establishment' a bunch of crooks, a corrupt cabal, he has no allegiance to anyone in D.C., he is there to shake things up and scatter the cockroaches into the sunlight.
Considering this, and so much more I did not mention (IE - Muellers ties to the Clintons, all his 'investigators' being Dem/Liberals) the only thing surprising to me is that they only have 17 investigations going.
"the only thing surprising to me is that they only have 17 investigations going"
As has been done with the IRS and the FBI in the past, the politically powerful are not shy about using the power of America to further their careers and agenda. The only surprising is that there are only 17 "investigations" - I would have expected at least a hundred. Perhaps they've used up the available manpower with only 17.
You seemed to miss that point that evil people can be viewed without a guilty verdict. All you saw was Hitler and got defensive about using him as an example of that.
Actually, no one was fired until Trump obstructed justice when he fired Comey for investigating Russia. Everything after that has been a smokescreen to try and sow doubt into the work being done on that front.
We have a president who is a crook. He has been implicated as Individual-1 in a felony. He broke laws pertaining to the use of foundation funds and just came to a settlement to shut his down and bar him or his three children from serving on the board of any other one for the next ten years.
He has admitted to the obstruction on live tv, his tweets will be used as evidence of witness tampering, and he continued to ask Wikileaks to release the hacked e-mails even after being briefed that it was being done by Russia.
"He has been implicated as Individual-1 in a felony."
LOL He has been "implicated", by people making claims and statements without every seeing evidence, in a thousand different "crimes" starting before he was ever elected. Nothing new there!
Without seeing it? You mean you didn't go online and see the audio tape of Trump directing Cohen how to make the payment for McDougal's story to AMI? Uninformed as always.
No, I've about quit trying to follow the thousands of idiotic claims about Trump. That one sounds about like the one where Trump asked Putin to hack Clinton's emails...and is taken at face value by the haters that will not, under any circumstances use any common sense in their efforts to harm Trump.
So you're on here trying to talk like an expert on Trump being innocent and haven't even heard the public evidence of him telling Cohen how to go about committing the crimes he was paid by Trump to commit on his behalf, the ones Cohen just went to jail for. Or the statement by the NY Attorney General that Trump illegally used his Foundation's assets to assist in the 2016 election.
If clear evidence of guilt is idiocy in your eyes, you really should stop trying to sound informed.
As usual, nothing but exaggeration and fibs. I've never said he was innocent; what I DID say is that he isn't proven guilty in spite of the hundreds of claims from people that say they KNOW he is without ever seeing any evidence and crying out to impeach him (for what they don't know) and put him in prison.
And many of us with eyes and ears have seen and heard that proof of his guilt. Just because he hasn't been tried, doesn't mean he's not guilty as hell. The evidence is all over the place but you fail to do any research to know it and keep claiming that proof doesn't exist. It's comical.
That's exactly correct, when considering the Clintons.
30 years worth of crimes, multiple movies made about them, but their supporters disregard all of it.
I'm not buying this line of argument. I'm not really a Clinton supporter, but, I haven't heard Hillary committing a crime on tape. I never heard Hillary say she could shoot someone and get away with it. There's a pile of evidence that Trump himself is giving us, a multitude of his allies and buddies being convicted, and Trump supporters still think he is innocent of all charges.
Yet, somehow, others are supposed to take the word of "multiple movies" about the Clintons? And, Trump supporters consistently talk about double standards! I cannot even begin to take this type of talk seriously anymore. Many diehard Trump supporters know they support a crook, and a lousy human being, and justify it by stating it's a means to an end but still point the finger at other alleged criminals. So, who cares if any of our politicians are criminals right?
Just because you may like what someone is supposedly trying to do policy wise, should that cloud your judgment when it pertains to serious felonies that may have put our nation at a huge risk?
I’m going to start with Romanian hacker, Marcel Lehel Lazar (known as Guccifer) who successfully gained access to all of the private and government emails of Mrs. Clinton.
Thanks to Guccifer, the world was made aware of Clinton’s criminal involvement in Benghazi, and her involvement in the fall of Libya.
The U.S. State Department sought to delay the release of the 34,000 Clinton emails in U.S. federal Court. It’s worth noting that the SRV, China and Israel were given access to Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
On July 10th 2016, the top U.S. Democratic Party official, Seth Rich, was assassinated. The DNC official was scheduled to testify against Mrs. Clinton on voter fraud.
Seth was a Bernie Sanders supporter. He got wise to the shenanigans of the DNC as they worked to rob the nomination from Bernie so Hillary Clinton would get it.
Seth sent at least 25,000 e-mails with 13,000 attachments to WikiLeaks.
John Ash a former President of the U.N. General Assembly, was killed days before he was set to testify against Mrs. Clinton.
The autopsy report proved that he died due to a crushed windpipe.
Ash was set to testify with his co-defendant NP Lap Seng, a Chinese businessman who illegally funneled millions of dollars to American businessman, Charlie Tree, who then used the money to donate to the DNC during Bill Clinton’s re-election.
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton's approval of a deal to transfer control of 20% of U.S. uranium deposits to a Russian controlled company was a quid pro quo exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from nine individuals associated with Uranium One totaling more than $140 million.
I could keep listing things, rape accusations against Bill, payoffs, but I'm sure none of this matters to you. As an aside I don't know what they are charging Trump with and I could care less, it was a given that they would manufacture whatever was needed, whatever worked with the public, throwing crap against the wall until something stuck, so that they could destroy his credibility with the public. That has always been the goal.
"put our nation at risk".... really funny that. But you keep on believing.
Oh, so you don't want to talk about the President and ALL the real evidence against him. I see.
You see nothing, you regurgitate whatever it is the MSM is feeding you, that's all you are doing.
Do you know about the U.N. Global pact on Immigration?
Do you know what was JUST passed:
Representatives from around 150 countries signed the United Nations migration pact in Morocco on Monday. The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, as the agreement is formally known, aims to create a legal framework to handle growing migration from impoverished third world countries to the Western world — overriding the immigration policies of the individual nation states.
While you whine and bicker over some foolish idiocy the media tells you is important, you have just lost your rights as an American citizen, that's right, if you read what that entails, Immigrants now trump native citizens rights wise. The U.N. now has jurisdiction over enforcing that all migrants get full health, welfare, etc. support from host nations. Its wild stuff, crazy stuff, it essentially means the U.N. will by international court law or by force be running ALL nations from here on out.
That's why I laugh when you type a ludicrous statement like 'Trump is a threat to our nation'. Its funny, because you no longer have a nation, Trump is just the last speed bump along the way to globalization and de-nationalizing the USA, trust me, you no longer have a country, and you'll find that out in the years ahead.
The French I used to consider a feeble sort, but even they have figured out what is going on and are rioting in the streets over it, Americans, not so much.
Whoa, where's the topic? Immigration is being discussed elsewhere. I can't even read a lecture that's not related to the discussion. The thread is Trump and Russia.
Riiight, well pardon me for injecting a little reality into this irrelevant debate.
Person 1: "Excuse me sir, I would like to point out to you that your country has just lost its Sovereignty, its right to put its citizens ahead of all others, it is now required to follow the edicts of the U.N. and whatever they decide is best."
Person #2: "yeah, but what does that have to do with Trump being Putin's puppet?"
"Trump supporters still think he is innocent of all charges"
Some things he IS innocent of, like asking the Russians to hack Clinton's emails. An off the cuff remark that was never serious is not proof of anything...except that Trump haters will go to any lengths to sling mud.
And the rest is unproven at this point, in spite of the haters claiming that it IS proven.
"You really have to admire the non-stop effort by many to tie Trump to Hitler, directly or indirectly, the arguments never want for it to eventually be brought up." - Why are you deflection??
You know perfectly well I wasn't trying to tie Trump to Hitler (although there are a lot of personality similarities). I am sure are astute enough to know I was challenging your "innocent until proven guilty" claim.
Do you care to answer that or will you deflect again.
Comey - fired to obstruct justice
McCabe - firing is being challenged as unjust and wrongful - I agree
Storze - his "disgraceful" transgression is texting the truth about Trump on a gov't phone.
"We have accusations of cover ups for the Clintons, of false/fabricated information being used to start the investigation into Trump and his supporters, lying to judges to get fisa warrants, etc." - actually that is FALSE and you know it.
"We have a President who ran on calling the 'Establishment' a bunch of crooks, a corrupt cabal, he has no allegiance to anyone in D.C., he is there to shake things up and scatter the cockroaches into the sunlight." - And it turns out Trump and family is the "corrupt cabal and crook" which YOU voted into office.
I find it interesting that all of the people proving Trump's crimes are Republicans appointed by - Trump, lol.
Right, the Democrats control EVERYTHING including the White House, Senate, House, FBI, CIA, NSA, the Western alliance, NATO, all media except for Fox News, etc.
If Democrats didn't exist, there would be no investigations!
Your point? That the investigations are for purely political reasons? Because we all already know that!
You forget that the Ds control the Supreme Court as well.
Are you insinuating that the highest court in our country, the one charged with interpreting the law, without personal or party bias, is controlled by a political party? That it is failing along with congress in setting aside bias or personal gain for honesty, ethics and truth in what they do?
Say it isn't so!
As well as all branches of the military and Boy Scouts of America.
But I was worried my list was getting too long.
If you could explain how Clinton managed to vote eight times to approve the Uranium deal, since that's how many separate people it took to approve it, that'd be great.
And I see you put your tinfoil hat back on to come up with that crazy conspiracy theory. Unbelievable that you can actually think this way.
Face it Ken, Trump and his family are going to jail. If the Feds don't get them, the State of NY will.
It is sad you are living in such a fantasy world in order to protect you image of a failing fake-president. All of those things you mentioned about Clinton, if true, the GOP fanatics, e.g. Jordan, Meadows, et al would have nailed her ass to the wall. Just like Benghazi, there is nothing there there.
The opposite is true with Trump, it is ALL there. Fortunately, our justice institutions will be able to withstand the all out war Trump and the GOP are waging against them. Our democracy WILL survive Trump.
Of course he is, I never said he wasn't. Not in that statement or any other.
I have always said, that if he was indeed legit, he would either catch a bullet like Kennedy did, or he would be destroyed in some other fashion, and would not see a second term.
I could be wrong. I'm only wearing my aluminum hat today, I misplaced my tinfoil one, so I can't be 100% certain.
So I am guessing if a special prosecutor had been appointed to investigate Al Capone's crimes you would claim " amounts to "Find dirt on Capone or anyone connected to him"."
Given I see little difference between the two men (other than the number of dead bodies) in terms of morality and ethics.
BTW - I did a search on which party was more correct back in early Obama days. I came up with what you said, roughly equal. I did the same thing a few months ago and the Rs have decidedly moved out in front in terms of corruption.
When an investigator is instructed to find anything (bad) you can about anyone (you can) connect to "X" it is unwarranted.
Are you trying to push that the investigation was limited to investigating Trump? Because it has surely spread far beyond that simple thing long ago.
I understand that you think Trump is identical with Capone, but that's our particular irrationality, not reality.
Not particularly interested in your attempts to vilify all Republicans, either - that you haven't heard of massive dirt on Democrats in the last couple of months is of no interest to me. Your precious party has not suddenly become lily white no matter how hard you try to spin it that way. Neither has the party you love to hate become dead black, no matter how hard you try to spin it that way.
No, I am not. The instructions are the same as those given to any special prosecutor - like Starr of Clinton fame.
It is not a case have "heard", I looked. And I found more on Rs than Ds this time around after Trump took office.
I don't have a party, I am a Republican turned independent. The only reason I vote for Democrats is because they make the most sense and hold many of the same values I do.
Unlike you, I believe government is there, among other things, to help remove artificial obstacles placed in the way of the people who are the government. I believe in Locke's idea that there are people who take unfair advantage of other people and it is the duty of government to put a stop to it.
You, on the other hand, seem to think a Darwinian society is best where only the strong survive by any means, fair or unfair, possible.
Why not? Because he was a private citizen and didn't need to take the job.
Also, Mueller's moral and ethical standards are infinitely higher than Trumps (given Trump has none). Also, also, whatever instructions there are came from an equally well respected Republican Trump appointee, Rosenstein.
Most Ds and Rs agree with that assessment, based on their public comments. ONLY Trump acolytes think different.
BTW, the "right political environment" is when his investigation is finished. Problem is, Trump keeps giving him more things to investigate.
Using the dumb term "witch hunt" at this point in time with all of the outcomes from the Mueller investigation simply proves how blind you can be to reality.
Wrong again, Wilderness. The vast majority of indictments and guilty pleas are directly related to Russian conspiracy by Trump and those in Trump's orbit and campaign.
Why do you remain so blind to reality?
"Russian conspiracy by Trump"
And yet there hasn't been a single shred of any conspiracy by Donald Trump come from 2 years of a truly massive investigation (perhaps the next dozen can produce at least an unpaid speeding ticket somewhere). Why do they promote such obvious lies and insinuations?
...that you know of. Apparently, Mueller knows more than you think as the latest Manafort information that he shared poll data with the Russians was revealed by....Manafort, and not by Mueller. But it seems pretty obvious Mueller was aware of it for the lawyers to be discussing it.
So your theory that Mueller doesn't have instances of conspiracy are undercut by that whole episode of Manafort revealing one such instance.
WOW!!!! Although, based on Trump's words and actions, I am not surprised! I, and others, wondered allowed before Russia handed the Presidency over to Trump whether he was a "Manchurian Candidate".
An ex-CIA analyst (probably Republican as, like with most law enforcement, most are) just said the FBI would have had to have HARD evidence on Trump to open a counter-intelligence investigation.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/11/politics … index.html
The Washington Post is a fabulous source of fact based info but I'm just surprised it took them this long to create the "Bottomless Pinoccio" for this weirdo's habitual fabrications which he either realizes he's telling or perhaps he doesn't which would only add to the dangerous proposition he represents to the USA: His latest tall tale whether he actually realizes he's telling it or not ?? he actually said yesterday in OUR white house that the great useless concrete wall is already being built which of course everyone knows is a bald faced LIE:
Honestly, at this point in our darkest times, where his indictment is looming large, WHO still listens to this horse manure ?? Yeah right, he never even heard of Russia: lol
Yes even the WP gets it right now and then.
"But when it comes to the real barometer of presidential truthfulness — keeping his promises — Trump is a paragon of honesty. For better or worse, since taking office Trump has done exactly what he promised he would."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … c6281ae679
Mexico paying for the wall, repealing Obamacare, quickly balance the federal budget, remove Syrian refugees, even the Medicare trust fund was cut
Then there's this ""I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off.”"
Yes, he has made mistakes, and ys all his campaign promises have not been kept. As all past presidents, he has made promises he can't keep, and many of us knew Mexico would not be paying for a wall... I was pleased to see he was taking up the problem of immigration and had little faith in his ability to get Mexico to pay for a wall. He has got Mexico to help with the current caravan problem by keeping strong keeping out immigrants that don't come in legally. Mexico has offered the immigrants a chance to become Mexican citizens and is currently holding job fairs for these people that had hoped to enter the USA. It ell appears Trump has a good relationship with Mexico.
The article I posted gives examples of some of the positive accomplishments that the president has brought about. We all have strong opinions on his progress or lack of progress. I respect your right to an opinion, please respect mine.
"many of us knew Mexico would not be paying for a wall"
Anyone with a grain of sense knew that, but it makes a great point to scream that "He lied!" or that he didn't keep his political promise.
First, I do respect your opinion, and I have learned a thing or two by reading your perspective. I just pointed out several of the promises that Trump hasn't kept.
Has Trump done anything good? Yes. For example, I like the bipartisan crime bill. As you likely know though, I think he's one of the worst things to ever happen to America. In fact, I don't think he even knows how to put America's interests before his own. He's disrespecting generations of patriots and our ancestors.
I'll never vote for a Democrat in my life. I'm actually interested in the continued health and wealth of the USA.
You've 6 more glorious years of Trump reversing the Obama/globalist agenda ahead of you. Perhaps you should seek the aid of a physician in order to cope with this wonderful thing.
I'm not quite sure a person can run for president of the USA from a prison cell, i'd check on that stipulation if I were you:
I take it you are an enemy of AMI's David Pecker, Trump's good friend. Seems like the Trump campaign official #1 that was in the room with Cohen and Pecker scheme to hide embarrassing facts IN ORDER TO help win the election was - TRUMP HIMSELF, lol..
He is SO screwed. Before this is all over, the Felon Trump will be in jail.
Looks like piece by piece, bit by terrible bit the entire charade is crashing down before our very eyes on national television:
How did his inauguration manage to get over 100 million for a tiny event when President Obama used only half that amount for his enormous unprecedented occasion? Who gave the campaign that much money, where did it come from and where did it go ?? Some reports are fingering guess who ?? Yup, Russians, ya don't say :
"Trump Inauguration Spending Under Criminal Investigation by Federal Prosecutors"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-inau … 1544736455
I just love this thread. When someone from the right points at the massive body of evidence against Clinton.........silence or derision from the left. Poor Hillary, the damned witch hunt. Flip the coin and they go ballistic indignant.
What a hoot.
MyEsocteric- James Comey said "I don't remember" 250 times during his deposition. WOW! Can you think of any issue you've personally been involved in that you could say "I don't know" 250 times? Comey is one of the head hunters trying to frame the president. 15 conspirators? I hardly think so. You've been duped by the liberal media with their leftist agenda who will stop at nothing in trying to destroy a man who is restoring strength and honor to our country.
Can you offer a link from a credible source with Comey saying he doesn't remember 250 times?
Even Fox News said it was only a small fraction of that amoumt.
Is that 250 times in his life time or just in one sitting with a bunch of Angry Republicans? The former seems reasonable and the latter is just wrong or some sort of distortion of reality.
I hope that link has all 250 "I don't know" quotes in it.
you know how a search engine works. use one. if you don't agree with my point no link exists that you would accept.
I obviously did. And I found no link to any source backing up your claim including Fox News.
You know how the truth works. Give it a try.
He obviously just parroted a Fox News talking point, repeated from Trey Gowdy. I linked the actual interview here, doubt he even went back and wondered why Comey might have answered 'I don't know' so many times. He had no rebuttal for the example I laid out to why he did.
if you "obviously did" why didn't you include it in your response? again, you get to decide what's credible, right? so regardless of what site I link you'd disagree with it. stop trying to look open minded. You're not.
You are the one who made the claim of 250 "I don't remember".
All I did was ask you to back up your claim with a link to a credible source. Can you do so or not?
While we're at it, are you Russian or American? If you are Russian, please don't post here anymore. If you are American, please quit repeating Russian propaganda from Facebook.
Interesting- I don't do facebook. Looks like more false accusations just like the people you defend. Interestingly, I posted my real name. Does it look Russian? BTW don't bother asking me NOT to post anywhere unless you're a hubpages moderator. It's not your job to suppress freedom of expression Mr... uhh.. uhh.. oh that's right, you don't post your name. Is it Ivan? BTW- I'm an American veteran. I've earned the right to speak my mind, I even defended your right to do the same while you nit pick people who have actually served their country.
He's not a moderator, and has no more authority here than you do. I also get called a 'Russian bot' twenty times a day by the sad, insecure ones.
I got a nice chuckle one day when someone suggested Wesman was a Russian name.
Saying I can't ask for a link because I'm not a moderator is just plain silly. People constantly post links here to back up facts they post in their comments.
Authority has nothing to do with it. It's simply about speaking the truth.
There is no place on here for propaganda from either side of the issues.
I see. You are a projectionist. You project on others what you are doing yourself. Nobody said you can't ask for a link so stop lying. I said you can't tell me to stop posting. Let me explain something to you. I read the transcript of the Gowdy/Comey interview and Comey repeatedly said things like "I can't speak to that" or "I don't know what Strozk was thinking when he wrote that" and used similar evasive language repeatedly. So in answer to your question he didn't say "I don't know" verbatim- he used euphemisms. Do you understand now? If you're still curious read the transcript yourself. In fact I would think you would've already done that instead of sitting at your computer quibbling over minutia, sheesh make a point already or clam up. Just quit whining.
Still no proof of the 250? I get it. It's OK to admit your post was just propaganda.
Michael Flynn is a veteran too.
The proof is the transcript itself. It's available. Try reading it. Also, try to stop bashing veterans with 5 years of combat service, 30 overall. You risked nothing and get to say anything due to him, and people like him, who've actually contributed more than snide remarks to this country.
What do you think about Mueller? What do you think about Trump disrespecting McCain? How do you know promisem risked nothing? Maybe some respect is in order all the way around here.
All of these shameful attacks just because I asked for a link.
Oh, you counted the times? Why did no media outlet on the entire planet -- even Fox News and Breitbart -- claim the same thing as you?
How was I bashing all veterans? I simply said that Flynn was a veteran in response to a "snide" remark. If anyone bashed him, it was the judge and court that are sending him to jail for selling out his country.
Your attempt to claim that I'm bashing all veterans only because of Flynn is shameful. It dishonors all good veterans and my own friends in the military -- people who respect the Constitution and don't sneer at the rest of us who serve our country in other ways.
Looks like a deliberate attempt to goad him into an angry rant to me.
I think the angry rant already happened. Fun stuff.
No its not, he is being goaded into saying something that will get him banned, by someone who makes a habit of doing just that on these forums.
Leland may have been on Hubpages for 3 years, but I don't recall him having much activity in the forums. He may not be aware that there are people that spend their time here antagonizing and aggravating those they don't agree with.
Sparring with words and information over a topic is one thing, goading a person into a rant that gets them removed from Hubpages is another.
We have differing definitions of angry rants then. Oh well.
An angry rant is fine if it comes from one of Ken's people.
Some folks who post here have been suspended rather than banned for personal attacks. They like to claim they were goaded into bad behavior.
They don't seem to understand the notion of personal responsibility.
Yep, the ranters are totally blameless. They are not responsible at all for the abuse they post.
All of their bad behavior is my fault.
You don't think his angry rant began when I simply asked him for a link?
My military friends, whom I met while working for years near two major military bases, would never use their service to smear civilians.
They have enough brains to know there are good veterans and bad ones.
My friends know bad ones who post propaganda and sell out the country (like Flynn) do dishonor the military.
He's a card carrying member and fulltime supporter of all things anti-Trump. If anything, he thinks the media is too soft, and the Democrats too mild mannered, complacent even.
When Gowdy asks what Strozk meant in his text messages, pretty sure Comey should answer I don't know. Perhaps the GOP should have asked him things that actually pertained to him. You stated 'an issue personally been involved in,' well Comey wasn't involved in those text messages, so why wouldn't he answer he didn't know the intent of them. Plus, Gowdy already asked Strozk directly about those messages and got direct answers. Asking Comey was idiocy. Gowdy was grandstanding and literally beating a dead horse.
But just taking some right-wing talking point about Comey not answering questions without listing the actual questions, gives your point no credibility.
Here's the actual document: https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-tr … committees
I only got to page four before understanding why Comey had to say he didn't know so often.
what you are saying is just untrue. you or I can read what Strozk wrote about HRC becoming president and know exactly what he's talking about. Did you think no one would read the link you provided? (thanks for that btw) Comey was being evasive from the get go and if you can't see that I'm sorry for you. It's obvious what Comey was doing. How can you not see that based on the transcript?
When Gowdy asks Comey, 'What did Strozk mean when he said this?'
I would have said, 'Well, you asked that to Strozk and he told you what he meant, so why are you asking me what someone else meant when he wrote something?'
Comey opted for the polite version of saying 'I don't know.' It's speculation to guess what someone else meant by something they said and one of the first rules of law is that you don't answer speculative questions.
It's a dumb question to ask of another person.
too bad Comey didn't have you for his attorney. I bet he would've sounded better had he.
The point in asking Comey was to determine his position regarding Strozk's attitude. ie, was it one of political neutrality as Comey has alleged in the past? Obviously not, which is why Comey won't answer the question. This is right out of the Clinton playbook. If you say "I don't know" or "I don't remember" you cant be charged with perjury. Comey's a snake, not an idiot.
It sincerely seems there is a faction that will choose Trump over America, and ALL of our institutions, every time. Unfortunately, this cult-like behavior is not surprising.
There really is NO evidence that will ever be enough to convince them that Trump is anything but their savior. Even attempting to have reasonable conversations with that certain faction will render nothing but absurdity. Such is life.
hard sun, the silver lining is this: What's remaining of the Bozo Trump cult base is rapidly shrinking for an infinite number of obvious reasons as this insane quasi-dictatorship and republican party unravels and crashes into the dirt before our very eyes: The total REBUKE of Donald John Trump in our midterms as republicans were trounced in the elections is just one more exhibit of evidence to prove that point which indicates there a far fewer individuals who are still willing to stick their heads in the proverbial sand while this vile, disgusting 72 year old orange blob perched in our white house carries on with his mad insanity, dismantling our once great country bit by bit while practically kissing Vladimir Putin's dirty boots on global television in Helsinki: UNREAL:
Everyone needs to read the SHOCKING statement released by the NY Attorney General yesterday which describes the incredibly vile unlawful actions by the Trump family in regard to the soon to be defunct Trump Foundation where prosecutors say money donated by ordinary people with the intent to help children or veterans or other individuals in need, was used by these unconscionable dregs for self enrichment: DISGUSTING and Unacceptable in the USA:
I guess now we know why FINANCES is where the red line was drawn right?
Shrinking base? Is that like the $5 or $10 gasoline you kept saying we're seeing while the price drops more every week?
To know what is true, pay close attention to moonshine. The opposite of what he says is always true.
Orange Man Bad! LOL
Typical Trump Follower embellishing to distort: I NEVER said I paid $10 per gallon of gas but I did pay $5 just a short time ago which is outrageous, but enough of that nonsense:
Some around here have been asking WHY Bozo Trump hasn't been indicted or impeached yet and we are now discovering the reason why: Because ALL of his and his families despicable unlawful actions must be unearthed and identified first, and so far we have an enormous trove of damning evidence that seems to be growing hourly and of course Donald listed as essentially an un-indicted co-conspirator for felony crime charges in NY which say that he and others conspired to influence our presidential election and now his quote unquote "foundation" where according to prosecutors in NY. he and families members used YOUR Charitable Donations to purchase personal portraits: Let that despicable abomination of a notion sink in for a moment: Money that YOU gave to benefit children or veterans, was reportedly used to buy an inflated priced crappy orange portrait of Bozo: NICE:
And then his last remaining followers wonder WHY this dark, soulless mad 72 year old cretin must be REMOVED from our oval office ASAP and of course WHY he, junior Donald, precious little entitled Ivanika and Eric had better get fitted for orange jump suits that can withstand HELLISH White Hot Heat when the good lord takes them ??
"I NEVER said I paid $10 per gallon of gas but I did pay $5 just a short time ago"
I know you didn't. You didn't pay $5 either, unless you were in Canada or somewhere way off in the sticks where there was no competition.
lol, Not sure how much more wrong you could possibly be with a few short sentences wilderness but WoW:
* First off, you've got the WRONG Topic, this is a discussion about Bozo Trump and Russian Conspiracy for which it could result in Bozo's 3rd indictment, this is not a discussion about gasoline prices skyrocketing under the collapsing administration of the tiny handed orange elderly dude:
* Regardless of your assumptions, I did indeed pay approximately $5 per gallon of gas not too long ago here in Bozo Trump's insane economy so you're wrong on that point as well:
* I certainly don't nor do I desire to ever live in the sticks of Idaho or Wyoming or Alaska nor do I live in the beautiful country of Canada so you're WRONG about that as well which means 3 STRIKES and you're out:
After watching Nancy Pelosi EMASCULATE Donald Trump the other day in our white house which is difficult to do considering his manhood is definitely in question, no worries, when the indictments and convictions have subsided, Nancy Pelosi will make a STRONG, Intelligent Exceptional president who will bring an agenda for we the people, strong against our enemy Vladimir Putin, repairs to our NATO allies, Healthcare for all, minimum wage increases and enhancement to social security and medicare:
"Judge Napolitano: I Expect Donald Trump Jr. to Be Indicted"
https://www.mediaite.com/online/judge-n … -indicted/
Yes. I think you are correct as far as his support, but the want for change and the gullibility of some Americans never surprises me. They poked fun of Obama for the "hopey changey" thing and then voted for Trump, a well-known scumbag, with the hopes that he would change things
I think the financial red line will amount to much more than even the horrific charity/campaign scam. I do think he will be forced to run from the country when he's no longer President.
Your source for this article "the Moscow Project" could hardly be considered unbiased. Your allegations are nothing but humor. Thanks for the laugh and attempt to deceive as if you have provided anything worth reading.
The Moscow Project is an initiative of the Center for American Progress Action Fund
The Center for American Progress (CAP) is a public policy research and advocacy organization which presents a liberal viewpoint on economic and social issues. It has its headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The president and chief executive officer of CAP is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton's campaigns.The first president and CEO was John Podesta, who has served as White House Chief of Staff to U.S. President Bill Clinton and as the chairman of the 2016 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Podesta remained with the organization as chairman of the board until he joined the Obama White House staff in December 2013. Tom Daschle is the current chairman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_fo … n_Progress
The information in their article is all public information at this point taken from investigations. Please, prove any of it false if you find it so laughable. We'll wait, because I seriously doubt you'll be able to.
Oh, there are a few details missing...which makes it nothing more than liberal propaganda. So, that is what makes it funny. Good propaganda that means nothing...except for humor.
The notion that 'progressive' equates to objective progress is false. Progressivism is communism, and communism is the most violent ideology in all of human history. It is also economically illiterate. Why would an intelligent person read something cancerous? They wouldn't.
Vlad Lenin became a good progressive on 21 January 1924
Joseph Stalin became a good progressive on March 5, 1953
Che Guevara became a good progressive on October 9, 1967.
Do you understand?
Progressivism is only communism if you watch Fox News all the time. I know we're all basically just trolling each other now, but that kind of analysis just demonstrates an education based on right-wing media sources.
At it's core, progressives are for change. Conservatives are for the status quo. That's the basic starting point for both political ideologies. They are obviously in conflict based on that.
You're goddamned right we're for the status quo. This is the most prosperous and powerful nation in the history of the world. Progressivism aims to change that.
No, it doesn't. Progressives got women the right to vote. Progressives got gay people the right to get married. Progressives passed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights bills. Progressives got tobacco companies to put warning labels on cancer sticks; etc.
Conservatives fought against all those things.
Communists fight for Communism and against Capitalism, but that is not progressive by definition.
You need to do a little historical research on these topics. You are wrong.
“The Republican Party pioneered the right of women to vote and was consistent in its support throughout the long campaign for acceptance. It was the first major party to advocate equal rights for women and the principle of equal pay for equal work”
“Republicans were generally more unified than Democrats in support of civil rights legislation, as many Southern Democrats voted in opposition.”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/17/ … crats-did/
CIGARETTE WARNING LABLES
The Senate committee was not such a sure thing. The six Republicans were reliable enough, for this was clearly a crucial issue for Senator Thruston B. Morton of Kentucky, second-ranking GOP member of the committee, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and current chairman of the fund-dispensing Senate Republican campaign committee. On the Democratic side, however, the only member whose political life required defense of the tobacco industry was Ross Bass of Tennessee, a freshman. Early in the hearings, Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana, another Democratic committee member, emerged as a tireless cross-examiner of those who opposed the industry's point of view
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar … ss/304762/
Yes. Republicans fought against it.
You need to do the research and understand the definition of words. I did not distinguish between Republicans and Democrats. I distinguished between progressives and conservatives.
And the Republican Party of the 1910's does not resemble the Republican Party of today nor does the Republican Party of the 1960s resemble the Republican Party of today, so I did not use those labels.
We are discussing those who fight for change and those who fight against it. Party is irrelevant, but you can distinguish between those two groups with the labels "progressive" and "conservative".
You go. Way to ignore uncomfortable truths.
I didn't ignore any truths. There's no relationship between the Republican Party of 1920 and today. The southern Dems of the 1960s are the Republicans of today.
However, the definition of progressive and conservative has not changed, fundamentally.
That makes me a progressive, then, for I was for all of those things except the warning labels that did nothing but cost a corporation money. Certainly no one ever read them and took it to heart, quitting smoking because of those silly labels.
Somehow the label doesn't fit well, for there is lots and lots more to being a progressive, starting with massive wealth equalization programs.
This makes about as much sense as a football bat. Trump voters are for the status quo after all the screaming about how the system must be changed? I'm not sure some people even have a grasp on what they think about politics.
If it's the most prosperous and powerful nation in history why MAGA? It makes no sense..none.
"We will make America strong again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And we will make America great again." DJT
That doesn't sound like a guy who likes the status quo.
lol @ Wesman: That's funny, because the only yellow coward I;ve ever seen practically bow down to a communist leader ON GLOBAL Television as the world watched in utter astonishment is Bozo Trump, and thank God, his past is catching up to him and he's finally beginning to pay a hefty price for ALL his past betrayals and corruption:
Thank God, if we still have laws in this country and it appears as if we do, he'll be REMOVED from our oval office very soon but perhaps not soon enough:
Donald Trump sides with our enemy Vladimir Putin against the USA on Global Television: UNREAL:
Nobody is going to look at a link you post. Is there a reason, an intelligent one, for someone to view links you post?
I don't have any proof that you are even a teenager.
I'm willing to give credit where credit is due.You, Sir, make a fine word salad. I've never, in all my days, encountered a word salad man who could even be deemed worthy to tie your shoes.
Look, I think Jake is a troll, but that link is a completely factual one. It's merely a video of the Trump/Putin press conference, showing Trump throwing his intelligence services under the bus and taking Putin's word for things.
NOPE, I'm certainly not a troll crankalicious and everyone around here including you know that for a fact, it's just that my truth about Bozo Trump and his repugnankins frightens the alt righters to tears:
I just read a post in here where Wesman was commenting about communists and whatever, and decided to show him and everyone else a relatively recent film clip of his orange false idol practically kissing the boots of the number one communist in the world on global television and here it is again, a SHOCKINGLY Astounding encore performance of his pathetic betrayal of the USA:
Oh and by the way, the Trump foundation appears to be on its way to DEFUNCT-Town because NY prosecutors say the Trump de Dumps used charitable contributions which should have been used to help children or veterans, was actually used FOR PERSONAL Benefit:
At this point, according to my teachings, I guess it's safe to say whomever STILL follows and worships this charlatan after ALL his abominations, shall receive the same punishment as he in the Christian after life:
And you're a Trump supporter speaking against word salads. Huh. Trump can't tie his shoes.
Any "ism" is whatever people want to make them out to be. The reality is that systems don't work inside the neat little ism boxes.
Meanwhile, we have a very stable genius. He is all we need.
Jake, you missed Obama pledge to Vladimir on national television. I will say as far as the Ukraine, President Donald Trump has been a true help providing offensive weapon systems so it can defend itself. Obama let the Russians have Crimea and worse.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama … ty-russia/
That's just another ridiculous false comparison but yet still no real defense for Bozo Trump and his betrayals of the USA because here in the land of truth, there is no defense and even his last remaining followers know that:
Almost every day on his little twitter rant machine or when he pollutes our national air-waves, Bozo Trump proves to the world that he can do ANYTHING and say anything to his dwindling group of followers with impunity, but fortunately for this nation, his base of followers is rapidly shrinking:
Trust me, the Republicans in the 1910s and the 1960s was far more conservative than the Republicans of today. At those times there were no such things at RINOs. Did you know that there was a civil rights act in the 1950s signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower? You can't get any more conservative than Eisenhower.
http://crdl.usg.edu/events/civil_rights … 7/?Welcome
You really got my attention with that one Ken, I hopped on my Googlecycle to check it out.
I admit I stopped after less than a dozen links, but I think I had the gist of it by then. I just couldn't find the catastrophe you spoke of.
I apologize ahead of time for the link-dropping, (and maybe the flip tone), but I wanted to be sure you could check what I found.
First, from the UN Secretary General's Congratulatory Statement regarding the signing:
"The Compact is a non-legally binding agreement that reaffirms the foundational principles of our global community, including national sovereignty and universal human rights, while pointing the way toward humane and sensible action to benefit countries of origin, transit and destination as well as migrants themselves."
It's a compact not a law. Comparable to our our legislative 'Resolutions', maybe?
Then, there are 29 to 33 non-signatory nations which do not recognize the validity of compact -- even as a non-binding thing.
"The US pulled out at the negotiating stage, and 28 other countries decided not to sign the non-binding pact.
New UN compact for migration falls short on health
And that heath care requirement doesn't seem as drastic either:
“The Compact forms a frame of reference for our advocacy,” says Younous Arbaoui from Morocco’s Platform Nationale Protection Migrants. “It is true that this pact is not binding, but Morocco and other countries have a moral obligation to respect its commitments. Already we are integrating aspects of the Compact to demand access to services for migrants in Morocco.”
Reactions on the Ground to the Global Compact for Migration
The Brookings Institute linked to the text of Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, and had this to say:
The Global Compact on Migration: Dead on arrival?
"Curiously, relatively few statements favoring or opposing the compact have emerged from prominent foreign policy experts in the United States. One reason for this silence may be that the Compact does not have the"status of a treaty; it is not binding on countries that commit to it.
After that Seth Richards affirmation in one of your comments I was hoping this one had more substance.
Well done GA, and well researched, however you did not dig deep enough, nor did you consider how 'government agencies' truly work.
Allow me to provide some additional info (found in the links below):
Angela Merkel explains [when this was brought up to her just days ago] on the tape that when two-thirds of the U.N. members agree to the pact, it’s binding. A total of 164 nations have signed it.
It’s binding even for states that didn’t sign.
“That’s how majority decision-making works,” Merkel said on the tape.
A FRENCH REVOLT OVER MACRON’S TREASON
A group of French military generals wrote an open letter to President Emmanuel Macron accusing him of committing “treason” by signing the U.N. migration pact.
The pact was said to not be legally binding at the time of the letter, but, it calls for unlimited migration as a human right and criticism of it to be treated as hate speech.
The letter written by General Antoine Martinez and signed by ten other generals, an admiral and a colonel, as well as former French Minister of Defense Charles Millon, warns Macron that the move strips France of sovereignty and provides an additional reason for “an already battered people” to “revolt”.
The letter accuses Macron of being “guilty of a denial of democracy or treason against the nation” for signing the pact without putting it to the people.
“The French state is late in coming to realize the impossibility of integrating too many people, in addition to totally different cultures, who have regrouped in the last forty years in areas that no longer submit to the laws of the Republic,” states the letter, adding that mass immigration is erasing France’s “civilizational landmarks”.
It is treason and it is not a human right to invade another country at will.
British MEP Janice Atkinson said the UN pact would lead to Europe being flooded with 59 million new migrants within the next 6 years.
The pact will destroy the culture and laws of each nation. Why would the U.N. do it except to destroy what exists?
The hate speech laws could even lead to the term ‘illegal immigrants’ being made labeled hate speech.
That is already happening in the United States. I had a post removed from facebook for using the legal term ‘illegal aliens’. It was deemed too offensive.
Macron’s approval rating is at 18%. Who are the 18% who support him and what’s wrong with them?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/ … vereignty/
https://www.independentsentinel.com/un- … er-states/
https://www.lifezette.com/2018/12/criti … obal-pact/
I have written articles in the past on this, how Obama ceded many of our Nation's sovereign rights over to the U.N. (or the W.B. or the W.T.O) so that their authority would supercede America's authority and their courts and rulings would supercede our Nation in the way that the Federal Government and the Supreme Court is superior to State courts.
This is just one more step toward that U.N. control. It is a 'wolf dressed as a sheep' type of pact.
Funny, I thought the United States was a mix of cultures already. So how do you ruin that by adding more to the mix? Or do you prescribe to the Tucker Carlson and David Duke theory that we are founded as a European culture and should remain that way? Not insinuating anything with the Duke reference, asking a serious question of your philosophy.
Ken, It is not that I think this Compact is harmless, I don't. I see it as just as dangerous as I saw the various UN organizations support for the Mexican caravans to be. It is an impetus for advocating open borders internationally.
But, I still don't see it as the legally binding and damaging "law" that you claim it is.
From your first link, the National Review, the article ended with this:
"Encouraging more mass migrations will only lead to more suffering. Sadly, that is exactly what this non-binding global compact is most likely to do."
Your second link, from the Independent Sentinel, quoted from the National Review article, so it seems safe to assume the author felt the Review article was authoritative - and I have already noted how that author concluded it.
Also, when referring to that two-thirds makes it binding thing, the author quoted Merkel in a german-speaking tape -- noting he didn't have a full transcript to verify the on-screen translations. But even taking those as truthful, the author got it wrong -- or maybe I am a victim of semantics -- when he said she said it was binding. What she actually said was that it would be "valid." I think there is a difference.
That same author then sows more hints of doubt when he says: "Even if it is non-binding, nations will be pressured to abide by it. "
And again when speaking of "the general's" letter to Macron: "The pact was said to not be legally binding at the time of the letter,.."
Which is it? The article misquotes Merkel to reach a conclusion, and then offers hints of doubt that the conclusion is correct.
Unfortunately, from my perspective, that second link went further downhill when it concluded with statements like this: "The pact, formed by socialists, will destroy the culture and laws of each nation. Why would the U.N. do it except to destroy what exists?"
Your third link, Lifezette, didn't seem very helpful for your contention either. Not much substance there. Notably, it's declaration that:
"...if ratified, would actually threaten national sovereignty, criminalize anti-migration speech, thwart freedom of the press, and maybe even establish a problematic legal framework."
Is kind of diluted by its following explanation that nations are "asked" to do things. Not compelled or required, but "asked."
At this point, I will stick with the understanding that my first Google cruise found, and which two of your three links also concluded, (or hinted): the agreement is a non-binding compact. No more compelling, (or legally binding), than a Senate or House resolution.
However, to be sure I am not missing something, and am not completely wrong, I will dive into the text of the document itself and get back to you tomorrow.
You and I both know how such pacts and laws work. We have a couple hundred years of history to look back upon to see.
We created a Centralized bank, years later it was abolished, and then created again, and then abolished, until finally we had the Federal Reserve and it stuck.
We had the Income Tax, and then years later it was abolished, and then created again, and then abolished, until finally the IRS and the Income tax stuck.
We had the League of Nations, it was abolished, and then we created the United Nations, and it stuck.
The United Nations created a 'non-binding action plan' known as Agenda 21 in 1992, an action agenda for the UN and other international organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels. It has been affirmed and had a few modifications at subsequent UN conferences. Since 2015, Sustainable Development Goals are included in the Agenda 2030.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/c … %20web.pdf
"We reaffirm the outcomes of all major United Nations conferences and summits which have laid a solid foundation for sustainable development and have helped to shape the new Agenda.
These include [Agenda 21], the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the World Summit for Social Development, the Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, the Beijing Platform for Action and the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.
We also reaffirm the follow up to these conferences, including the outcomes of the Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, the third International Conference on Small Island Developing States, the second United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries and the Third United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction."
Its a lot to read through, all of those conference agendas and pacts, but it is clear the agenda is to eradicate nation states, there is a lot more of course, but the primary point I am making is that with the Global Compact for Migration, it is the beginning, the first step forward, toward a one-world government and the eradication of National Sovereignty.
There is no Nation State that can absorb tens of millions of immigrants in a very short span and have its social and cultural norms survive, the welfare states will collapse, National governments will collapse and its citizens become uncontrollable (we see the beginnings of this in France now)… which will lead to the next phase, an international military under the control of the United Nations, which will be used to put down revolts within nation states during the coming century of transition from Nations to International control.
When a Nation can no longer keep control of its populace, when it can no longer feed them, when order is lost and chaos reigns, there will have to be an International power that comes to the rescue... at the cost of that nation's sovereignty, of course.
The populations of France, America, etc. would never give away their National Identity, their independence, willingly. But when faced with anarchy and starvation they will gladly hand over their independence and their sovereignty for order and peace. The way to get them to that point is to overwhelm them with tens of millions of new mouths to feed that don't identify with that nation, or that society and its beliefs.
I don't believe the people in the U.N. making these decisions want the chaos, in fact I suspect plenty of them believe this type of transition can be made peacefully, there are always fools totally out of touch with reality, and those are quite often the ones making the decisions the 'masses' have to then contend with.
I do know it will never work the way they want it to without violence, without massive upheaval, and without a powerful military presence forcing it upon nations that don't want it.
How about the Syrian withdrawal and sanctions lifting. This isn't consistent with being a hawk on Russia:
"Trump's decision to ditch US leverage in Syria, which fulfills one of Russian President Vladimir Putin's goals, will spark fresh speculation about Trump's motives as his relationship with Russia comes under increasing scrutiny.
In another win for Moscow, the administration on Wednesday told Congress it was lifting sanctions on two Russian firms. But reflecting the strange duality of US policy on Russia, Washington announced sanctions against 15 members of Moscow's GRU intelligence service and four entities over election interference, an assassination attempt in Britain and other "malign activities."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/politics … index.html
Fresh speculation? Are you serious? All there has been is fresh speculation and that's all there will be with the democrats. Their objective is to unseat Trump which means they will be providing informational fodder to smear him until he is re-elected. As for brining the troops home- I trust his judgment. Bring them home. I'm a veteran and I'm tired of seeing our guys getting killed and maimed over there. Bring them home.
Speaking of speculation, you mentioned earlier:
The only sources I can find for that information are right-wing blogs or tabloid sites, which I don't consider reliable sources.
Did you personally count every occurrence in the transcript and arrive at that figure? If not, please provide the source, so people can decide how reliable it is.
I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if you've answered this already.
If there is no reliable source, then you're presenting potentially false and misleading information, which I'm sure you wouldn't deliberately want to do, not least because that would make criticizing others for speculating somewhat ironic.
Read the transcript for yourself. That's the only source that matters. On p.24 alone Comey says "I don't know, I don't remember" 10 times. He answered "I don't know" to questions he wasn't even asked! He offered pre-emptive "I don't know" and "I don't remember" responses. Until you have read the transcript you really shouldn't even comment. I didn't visit any right wing blog or site period. I did happen to hear Hannity interviewing one of the committee members who confirmed the number with one caveat: Hannity said, "is it true that Comey said "I don't know" 250 times?" The committee member replied, "No, it was more like 200, but he responded similiarly with phrases such as "I don't remember" or "I can't speak to that" for a total of some 250 times." Then I went and read the manuscript from Comey's interview and was surprised it wasn't more than 250. I don't think Comey gave a straight answer other than affirming his name. The point all of this leads to is that Comey is dishonest, duplicitous, and deceitful. If you want an exact count all you can do is go to the site (provided by valeant in this thread) and count it for yourself. Until you do that and can confirm or rebut it what point is there in disputing it at all? Besides, it'll give you something constructive to do for the next hour or so.
Page 24 was fun, it was where Gowdy believes that every investigation started by the FBI has to be approved by the Director of the FBI. When Comey says investigations are started below the directorial level, Gowdy seems stunned. Just another example by Leland of providing no context to his foolish point about Comey's answers.
Thanks for clarifying the initial source of your claim was Sean Hannity and (I assume) a Republican Committee member, via (I assume) Fox News.
If those assumptions are correct, I don't consider any of those reliable sources of information, so I'm glad you went to a primary source, the transcript.
I did too.
The words "I don't remember" don't appear 250 times, or even 200. They appear exactly 73 times.
The phrase "I can't speak to that", which you directly quoted from the Committee member, doesn't appear at all. "I can't speak to . . ." appears twice.
In total, comments that could reasonably be described as synonymous or similar to "I don't remember" are made roughly 94 times across the nearly seven-hour session(1).
The claim that Comey said "I don't remember" (or similar) 250 times, is therefore demonstrably false.
If you'd like me to check any other sources of information for you, I'd be more than happy to.
(1) https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/ … cted-1.pdf
An exceptional and factual answer.
I await the denials and evasions, claims that your glasses are foggy, how dare you dispute Hannity, etc.
Your glasses must be foggy.
Who are you to dispute Hannity.
"In total, comments that could reasonably be described as synonymous or similar to "I don't remember" are made roughly 94 times across the nearly seven-hour session(1)."
It seems quite a lot to me, I guess it depends on the context of the questions, which I admit, I can't be othered with.
I do commend you, or whoever it was who took the time to sift through and count them, its not something I would do willingly.
"I do commend you, or whoever it was who took the time to sift through and count them, its not something I would do willingly."
Pull up the transcript and press Cntrl F. It will find every instance of the phrase you input, count them and report that total along with where they are. Chrome (and others as well) is your friend in this.
Ah, I hope I remember that, it might come in handy some day.
not a bad idea, but it has a flaw. there are instances when Gowdy or other committee members as Comey a leading question prefaced with "Do you recall.." wherein Comey answers simply, "no." I don't think a search like the one you suggest would capture every instance of Comey's misleading behavior.
I just stopped counting on page 40 and Comey had answered "I don't know, I can't answer, I wont answer, I don't remember" etc 35 times. Of course you don't consider Hannity a credible source. You've under represented the numbers demonstrating the fact that Comey answered this committte's questions evasively. That's the whole point. To nit pick and strain out gnats is something the left does in an attempt to distract from the truth. That's what Don W did. For any who doubt, just read the transcript for yourself. Sheesh.
It's not evading to say you don't know to questions that don't pertain to your knowledge of a subject. There were so many ridiculous questions posed by the GOP, as usual. That should have been the real headline. GOP asks Comey stuff that he wouldn't know the answer to, story at 5.
And Don literally went through the entire transcript, I'd trust him over your incomplete tally and false reporting.
you trust him because you agree with him. how long have you known "Don?" How many times have you met him?
The following is an excerpt from the interview. Remember, Comey is an attorney.
Mr. Gowdy. When you say "lying," I generally think of an
intent to deceive as opposed to someone just uttering a false
Mr. Comey. Sure.
Mr. Gowdy. Is it possible to utter a false statement
without it being lying?
Mr. Comey. I can't answer -- that's a philosophical
question I can't answer.
Mr. Gowdy. No, I mean, if I said, "Hey, look, I hope you
had a great day yesterday on Tuesday," that's demonstrably false.
Mr. Comey. That's an expression of opinion.
Mr. Gowdy. No, it's a fact that yesterday was --
Mr. Comey. You hope I have a great day --
Mr. Gowdy. No, no, no, yesterday was not Tuesday.
Mr. Comey. Oh, see, I didn't even know that. Yeah.
Mr. Gowdy. So is it possible to make a false statement
without having the intent to deceive?
Mr. Comey. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. All right. Is making a false statement without
the intent to deceive a crime?
Mr. Comey. I don't know. I can't answer that without
thinking better about it.
Here's more of Comey's testimony from p. 24.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you recall who drafted the FBI's initiation
document for that late July 2016 Russia investigation?
Mr. Comey. I do not.
Mr. Gowdy. Would you disagree that it was Peter Strzok?
Mr. Comey. I don't know one way or the other.
Mr. Gowdy. Do you know who approved that draft of an
initial plan for the Russia investigation in late July 2016?
Mr. Comey. I don't.
Mr. Gowdy. Would you disagree that it was Peter Strzok?
Mr. Comey. That Peter Strzok approved? I don't know one
way or the other.
Mr. Gowdy. Drafted and approved it.
Mr. Comey. I don't know one way or the other.
Mr. Gowdy. Have you read that initiation document?
Mr. Comey. I don't think so. I don't remember ever seeing
Mr. Comey. Do you recall seeing the phrase "Trump
campaign" in that initiation document?
Mr. Comey. Well, I don't remember seeing it, ever seeing
it, so certainly don't remember any portion of it, because I don't
remember ever seeing it.
Mr. Gowdy. If it said Trump campaign, do you still have
the same answer you had when I asked you whether or not it involved
that's about 8 "I don't know,can't recall, etc" on a single page.
Yeah, because Gowdy has no clue about how investigations are started at the FBI. To believe they are all created at the director level is both idiotic and false. So he just sounds like a moron in asking Comey who drafted the initiation document.
And it's ok for you to say, 'sorry, I posted something that was demonstrated to be false information.' If you aren't going to check your facts when trying to make a point before posting, don't expect people to take you very serious.
So what is your point as long as they were all truthful. It just means Gowdy, et al, asked question Comey didn't know the answer to (and they probably knew it)
BTW - I am surprised this hasn't come up yet (maybe it has in such a long thread). Why aren't you going through the roof from your supreme leaders over 6,000 lies, false, and mostly false statements has uttered???? The difference between that claim and Hannity's lie is EACH ONE is documented and in context.
Of course, this was another great waste of time because the answers are a given.
To "Mr. Gowdy. All right. Is making a false statement without
the intent to deceive a crime?
Mr. Comey. I don't know. I can't answer that without
thinking better about it."
Which is the only relevant, but still stupid, question. While Comey's answer is truthful (the important point) I think a better answer would be something along the lines of "All lies are false statements. Some false statements are lies. Until I know the context, I can't answer that."
What is the difference? A lie is a knowingly false statement. A false statement is an untrue claim without researching the facts beforehand and just winging it to fit your narrative. Sort of like Comey said "I don't know" or similar things 250 times.
Since he did the counting and you didn't and have an obvious, obsessive bias against anyone who questions Trump, yes, I believe Don. (I also verified a few of his numbers myself. You should try real research sometime? But then again you oppose any science._
So following several clarifications, as a result of your comments being challenged by several people, your view can now more accurately be summarized as:
"Sean Hannity and a Committee member reported that Comey said 'I don't remember' or something similar 250 times in his deposition. I don't know if that's true, but after reading the first 40 pages of the transcript, many of Comey's replies seemed evasive in my opinion".
Can you see the difference between that and . . .
"Comey said I don't know 250 times. WOW!"(1)
Granted, the former is not as dramatic or exciting as the latter, but, it's not misleading, even if I do disagree with it.
Having an expectation that people will be honest about when they guess something is true and what they know it is, is not nitpicking. It's the basis of civil discourse, and I think the minimum we should be able to expect from each other.
So the issue is not whether Comey said 'I don't remember' 250 times. We know he didn't. The issue is that your comments are misleading. Essentially you tried to make your opinion seem factual with a spurious "fact" from an unreliable source, and Hannity is an unreliable source(2). But by engaging in such shenanigans you do yourself a disservice.
Even if it were true that the majority of Comey's replies were in the negative (and I have no reason to doubt that's the case). It's still a matter of opinion whether that's dishonesty, or if it's because the questions were idiotic, and Comey answered them to the best of his ability and recollection (while also doing as much as he legally could to make it clear that he believes the whole exercise is a political stunt). I think it's the latter.
Sadly I have no dramatic or exciting "WOW!" statements to go with that. It's my opinion, based on what I've read of the transcript, my understanding of current events, and the social and political context in which the events are happening. And I know this may seem shocking, but it's also very likely Sean Hannity doesn't agree with me.
To put in perspective and how you assert a fact (like Hannity did and Don repeats) that while true on the face of it, because there is no context leads to a very wrong analysis. Did you know Comey said "I do" 382 times in that same transcript? (WOW!!)
Problem is - Sometime it had the words "Yes," in front and a "sir" after. Other times it was followed by "not" when he didn't know the answer (like will the sun come up tomorrow?) or wasn't allowed to by the Justice Department.
Silly isn't it. But that is what Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh deal in.
Gowdy - In the course of human history, has anyone won
an election 100 million to zero, to your knowledge?
Mr. Comey. In the United States?
Mr. Gowdy. Anywhere.
Mr. Comey. I don't mean to be facetious. I can't speak
to Stalin's reelection or Mao Tse-tung reelection campaigns.
Gee, there is one of the 250. What else was Comey supposed to answer to such a stupid question. And most of the other 250 times were in response to similarly stupid questions.
It wasn't a stupid question. Gowdy was using hyperbole to expose how evasive Comey is. He asked Comey an incredibly obvious question to make a point and Comey responded in typical Clintonesque speech. He started talking about the elections of Mao and Stalin. Gowdy was pointing out the fact that two of Comey's subordinate alledgely "a-political" agents were anything but. The agents had just exchanged texts saying Trump should lose by 100 million votes. Thats the context. Gowdy wasn't asking a random question. It was specifically aimed at showing the fact that Comey's agents were not "a-political."
It was grandstanding and a waste of time, especially since Strozk had been questioned by Congress and there wasn't one action that they could point to that he took in his official role that was considered biased. This according to the Inspector General report that was already issued. So Gowdy was trying to raise issues already investigated and concluded, by the GOP. Like the answers were going to change. Like I said, it was a waste of time going down this avenue of questioning again since conclusions had already been reached by more thorough investigations.
It was a stupid, rhetorical question. Gowdy already knew Comey couldn't answer yet he asked it anyway in order to get Comey to say "I don't know."
Leland - when did you stop beating your mother? It is that type of unanswerable question (unless, of course, you really did beat your mother).
I am curious, what do you see as our reasons for wanting to escalate the conflict in Syria?
What has been the benefit of turning Syria into a broken state?
What was the benefit of turning Libya into a broken state?
How have those nations faired since our interference?
How many millions have suffered, how many lives lost, for what purpose?
My point relates to the comments about being a Russian hawk. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/worl … syria.html
My full report on the other matters will be submitted to the State Department. Oh, they have experts there already.
Besides, leaving troops there is somehow escalating the matter?
For 35 cents a word I will provide a full report on Syria right here on HubPages comments.
I don't care what the NYTimes has to say about what Putin says, Russia has had relations with Syria going back to when it was the U.S.S.R.
In fact, it is no coincidence that since the fall of the U.S.S.R. we have targeted every former ally that they had, and have put extreme pressure on Russia.
Whether we are sanctioning Russia, overthrowing their allies and installing a puppet government (Ukraine), toppling them militarily (Libya, Iraq, Syria) our press on Russia and its allies has been non-stop for a couple of decades now.
America has done nothing to make Iraq, Libya, or Syria more stable or safer, those countries are decimated because of our interference and all the citizens of those nations far worse off for it.
Just keeping it real with you. I know why we did what we did, and I know who benefited. But do you?
Because it wasn't the people who lived there, or who live there still.
Keeping it real until it's time to allow them refugee status in our country for the interference we caused. Guess there's the line of culpability you're willing to go down.
I don't think you really know much about the matter at all. I don't think any Americans not involved in the decision making process know much. However, I bet we still understand more than Trump. I can speculate all day about why and who benefited. Should we have ever been there? Maybe not. Is this type of abrupt withdrawal good for anyone involved? Likely not.
"n fact, it is no coincidence that since the fall of the U.S.S.R. we have targeted every former ally that they had, and have put extreme pressure on Russia."
Yeah? So? Do you think the Russians aren't attempting to do everything they can to take down the US after the collapse of the Soviet Union? We are not exactly on good terms with the Russians but I'm on America's side every time.
I know more than most, and more than anyone who wasn't privy to TS information at that time.
Nope, they are not, nor are they in any position to attempt to do so.
Oh, ok. Putin is a weak helpless KGB guy who likes that the US helped take down the Soviet Union. I was around before the right wing alternate reality hit.
You know nothing, Ken Burgess! (you watch GOT?)
Anyway, funny how Republicans are sounding like dove-ish Dems and Dems are sounding like hawkish Republicans.
The irony is not lost on me either. I don't think Dems are exactly advocating to escalate matters in Syria, but pulling troops so quickly just seems illogical. However, The irony is even more salient after all the right wing clamoring of how weak Obama was on ISIS, etc.
It's as though many people just state "If Trump does it, then it must be good." That's just outrageous, and horrible for our country,
Absolutely right, Ken. Russian advisors were on the Syrian border when Syria and Egypt launched the six day war against Israel. Russia (then USSR) supplied armor for both Arab nations.
" it is no coincidence that since the fall of the U.S.S.R. we have targeted every former ally that they had, and have put extreme pressure on Russia." -does this mean you are Russia's friend and want to see them prosper in order to cause more harm to America??
Why are in such a rush to surrender the battle field to ISIS, Russia, and Iran?? That is what he is doing. He is giving them carte blanche to do what they want in the Middle while Trump picks his nose and tweets.
Also, why are you in such a rush to see tens of thousands of Syrian Kurds, American's allies but obviously not Trumps, murdered by Turkey. They are just itching to kill them and they make no bones about it.
Why are you so eager to simply turn tale and run like Trump is. ISIS IS NOT DEFEATED. Nobody with access to the facts says they are defeated. Of course, being a Trumpette, you don't believe anything our intelligence service or military says.
Our guys have been over there for nearly 20 years. When will ISIS be defeated? What does victory over a terrorist group look like? PLO, Hamas, IRA, ad infinitim. Everytime we beat one group another pops up to take its place. Should we just have troops everywhere in the world? Aren't you tired of seeing our guys killed and maimed? Don't you think its about time Iraqi's and Afghani's start providing their own security? Seriously, how long should we stay over there? You tell me. were you so against our troops coming home when Obama implemented staged withdrawls? I'm tired of our troops coming home with PTSD as well as physical wounds, and worst of all in coffins. If our presence hasn't established democracies in the ME what is the point of us remaining? Just state a reason.
How about keeping our enemies (you know Russia, Iran) from getting 100% control of a critical part of the world.
Or how about keeping the Taliban and al Qaeda from setting up bases from which to attack America - Again.
Why don't you think those are important??
(and yes, I was opposed to Obama's staged withdrawals, it was dumber than dirt)
Not sure if you realize ISIS is all but annihilated in Syria and Iraq? Trump totally untied the military hands the moment he came into office. Just not sure how you could come to the conclusion he is on ISIS payroll? That sounds very foolish. Time to move on from this kind of rhetoric.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 … -isis.html
A betrayal of the USA in broad daylight is still a betrayal of the USA and once again, nobody on this planet believes Trump's lie that ISIS is defeated and once again, the only person who seems to approve of his insane action of unilaterally withdrawing our troops apparently without notice to our once close allies, is of course the puppet master, Vladimir Putin: I wonder WHY ??
"Russia's Putin hails Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor … 373305002/
So you believe Trump when he says ISIS is defeated. Why is it then that zero military agree with him or you?
Please offer a reference to back your statement. ISIS has been defeated in Syria and Iraq, and ys they may open up shop in other countries around the world, but the Pentagon has made the claim that we will support the defeat of ISIS wherever they pop up. Not sure why you don't believe that ISIS has been defeated in Syria and Iraq? I have not hard anyone dispute that ISIS is no longer in Syria or Iraq?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/p … rawal.html
I didn't say "Please offer a reference to back your statement. ISIS has been defeated in Syria and Iraq,' I said ISIS has NOT been defeated.
Presuming that is what you meant, the headline on your source says something like "Trump declares ISIS is defeated." But everyone knows that Trump is a liar and prone to make at least 10 false statements a day. Further, the story goes on to contradict the idea that ISIS is defeated.
They control several small towns and 10s of thousands of fighters left, according to military reports I heard.
Your previous Military Times reference only says that "Mattis was empowered to Annihilate ISIS"; not that he did it. Try this Military Times story instead.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2018 … -in-syria/
My understanding is most of the illegal drugs coming into the country is through legal entry points or on huge container ships in the ports. How will a wall fix this?
Why are you trying to divert attention from the primary purpose of the wall - to slow illegal entry? Is it because it would work but you don't want anything proposed by your president?
Just FYI wilderness, immigration is at a multi decade low: If immigrants enter the USA any slower you'll be paying $15.99 for a small basket of fresh blueberries, $2.50 is about what I pay now and that's as high as I want to pay so we need a reasonable flow of undocumented immigrants to achieve a fine balance while keeping a lid on fruit and vegetable prices:
"Trump Claims Border Crisis Amid 46-Year Low in Crossings"
https://immigrationforum.org/article/tr … crossings/
Oh, and by the way:
"Russian operative Maria Butina pleads guilty to conspiracy"
https://immigrationforum.org/article/tr … crossings/
Not my idea of a POTUS in any shape or form, Dan. YOU and a minority of voters decided he was fit for the job, so don't blame me for your mistake.
And here they are in vivid living color: If we still accept Fact Based Data, it appears as if CONSPIRACY has already been proven from public evidence alone, just wait until the criminal investigations conclude:
And now it has come out that much of the "Dossier" has been proven true. Further, I don't believe any of the findings have been shown to be false. That increases the likelihood that the rest of it is true.
From my research you are correct My Esoteric, many components of the dossier have been verified and some have yet to be confirmed, facts which apparently Sean Hammity has yet to understand:
The recent Manifort criminal court filing where his lawyers neglected to redact is just another astounding mega-bombshell to corroborate the "Trump Campaign Criminal Conspiracy": All the pieces seem to falling into place, it appears as if Trump relaxes sanctions for Vladimir Putin in exchange for espionage, data gathering, online social manipulation from foreign lands and perhaps even voting machine modification performed by Russian Spies to help Donald illegally and illegitimately infiltrate our oval office:
Very logical assumption and theory and the evidence to support this Earth Shattering treasonous conglomerate is growing fast: Impeachment and Indictment
The republican platform suddenly and without great publicity, morphed into a much more favorable stance for Vladimir Putin at the GOP Convention, an act which logic says Donald Trump himself must have approved before it was announced:
This one might leave a bit of a mark...clearly Trump campaign colluding with the Russians here by both Manafort and Gates.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/p … imnik.html
Yes indeed, a bruise colored green, yellow, and especially blue!
So, lets directly address some facts from the NYT Article.
“Paul Manafort shared political polling data with a business associate tied to Russian intelligence”
Polling data? So he saved the Russian a few bucks so he didn't have to purchase polling data like everyone else. Polling data is quite available on the open market.
“The document also revealed that during the campaign, Mr. Manafort and his Russian associate, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, discussed a plan for peace in Ukraine.”
Discussed a plan for peace? This upset you? Discussion about ending a war? I hope those discussions were successful. Over 10,000 people have died in the war in the Ukraine.
“the now-famous meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan with a Russian lawyer promising damaging information on Hillary Clinton.”
1.They didn't discuss Hillary Clinton. They talked about the Magnitsky Act
2. Hillary Clinton paid money from her campaign to a foreign agent for a fake dossier about Donald Trump. So, where is the outrage about this?
"Steele was paid $160,000 to create the Trump dossier for Fusion GPS. The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and Democratic National Committee financed the work. So the FBI and Justice Department used opposition research from a presidential campaign to launch an investigation into that campaign's political opponent — a likely illegal use of federal government surveillance for political purposes."
https://www.investors.com/politics/edit … -on-trump/
“For Russia, trying to influence the incoming Trump administration’s policy on Ukraine was of paramount importance.”
Guess what? All countries have lobbyists who work on their behalf and speak with members of congress. Israel does this, Spain does this as well as every other country with an embassy in Washington DC. How do people at the New York Times not know this?
“In one previously reported case, for instance, an obscure Ukrainian lawmaker, Andrii V. Artemenko, worked with two associates of Mr. Trump’s, Felix Sater and Michael D. Cohen, to deliver one Ukraine “peace plan” to the White House.”
I hope they develop a good peace plan. If they are successful, trust me, there will be many very happy Ukrainians.
Collusion = Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
Sharing polling data? Discussing peace in a war-torn country? Discussing the Magnitsky Act? If this is all you have...you have absolutely nothing.
Mike, you just wrote a long comment based on a wrong fact. You said "Polling data? So he saved the Russian a few bucks so he didn't have to purchase polling data like everyone else. " --- well you left out a word either on purpose or because you didn't read the report properly.
The polling data that was shared was "INTERNAL" polling data KNOWN ONLY to the Trump Campaign. So, NO, YOU can't purchase this data.
So what? Internal polling data? You ever work on a campaign? Money is paid to a company by a campaign for this polling data. Internal polling data is often shared with the media, companies and donors. It's often used as a way to encourage donations from followers. It's not a big secret...it's just a tool. A campaign donor could have just as easily given a Russian internal polling data. I hope you realize internal polling data is NOT classified information. In many cases, it could be very inaccurate information. Trust me...I've seen internal polling data that was WAY off.
Again...it is a NOTHING burger.
This burger may have some "special sauce" on it, Mike!
How do you know, Mike, that this internal polling data was in the public domain? Did you see it reported by media or see the raw numbers in a Trump donation ad?
Never said it was in the public domain. "Internal polling data is often shared with the media, companies and donors." This is what often happens with internal polling data. I've gotten dolor letters with "Our internal polling data shows X,Y,Z." A company who does this agrees to release its findings only to the campaign. It is often polling designed by the campaign for the polling company to carry out. It is not a state secret. Again, internal polling can be very wrong, I'm sure the Hillary Clinton campaign had some very faulty internal polling results.
Never said it was in the public domain. "Internal polling data is often shared with the media, companies and donors." This is what often happens with internal polling data. I've gotten donor letters with "Our internal polling data shows X,Y,Z." A company who does this agrees to release its findings only to the campaign. It is often polling designed by the campaign for the polling company to carry out. It is not a state secret. Again, internal polling can be very wrong, I'm sure the Hillary Clinton campaign had some very faulty internal polling results.
We could ask the Russians about Clinton's internal polling results, they hacked them and had those too. So when they targeted certain states, they had both Clinton's and Trump polling data. And Manafort willingly coordinated with Russia to get them the Trump side of the info. Why would he insist the data go to a Kremlin source unless he knew it was going to be used to help his campaign?
Maybe he was trying to save the Russians the cost of paying for their own polling data. If they followed Hillary Clinton's polling numbers, boy did they get a shock.
Polling data is no big deal.
"The New York Times reported Tuesday that while most of the polling data that Manafort shared with Kilimnik was public, “some of it was developed by a private polling firm working for the [Trump] campaign.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/10/trump-i … n-spy.html
The point is that by illegally hacking Clinton and then voluntarily getting the data from Manafort, Russia was able to specifically target American voters to promote the campaign of Donald Trump. That's definitely colluding.
1. Russia has been accused, but not proven.
"However, the indictment does not allege that Trump campaign associates were involved in the hacking efforts or that any American was knowingly in contact with Russian intelligence officers.
The indictment also does not allege that any vote tallies were altered by hacking."
"The Russian defendants are not in custody, and it is not clear they will ever appear in a US court although the Justice Department has recently seen value in indicting foreign hackers in absentia as public deterrence."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-14/ … on/9993804
You say..."Russia was able to specifically target American voters to promote the campaign of Donald Trump."
You have NO proof. Should no make such an allegation unless you can back it up. Sure is easy to try people in absentia. Probably would be different if the accused were able to defend themselves at a trial.
I have plenty of proof and here are the two reports submitted to Congress on the issue:
https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/i … arization/
https://disinformationreport.blob.core. … epaper.pdf
The article you linked to is from seven months ago. Time to update your thinking with the latest information available.
Looked at both of your links.
1. Russia ran some ads on social media and posted stuff on it. Okay, that is a given.
2. It neither link you provided is there any accusation the Trump campaign or anyone with the Trump campaign was involved.
3. Russia really did nothing worse than what the Obama administration did to try and influence elections in Israel. Did you know about that one? Obama used taxpayer money to try and influence the election in Israel.
https://aclj.org/israel/aclj-unearths-e … i-election
Please watch on Feb. 7 when Cohen testifies before Congress about Trump's dealings with Russia, Mike. It's gonna be a hoot....but you may not like it!
The links prove Russia interfered. When Manafort gave campaign polling data, he colluded to help them be more effective in doing so. Conspiracy.
Collusion. It's why Trump just hired 17 more lawyers, because he knows he needs to suppress the findings Mueller will be releasing.
If Israel has laws against what Obama did, let them prosecute him. We're talking about our laws here, but again, nice whataboutism try.
Valeant, I'm sure that is an argument someone will try to make.
In a legal sense, Collusion is secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
Polling data isn't really secret. Much of it was public. Some of it was "developed" by a private polling firm. Anyone could have hired the same polling firm and probably gotten the same information. It was nothing secret or illegal.
"The New York Times reported Tuesday that while most of the polling data that Manafort shared with Kilimnik was public, “some of it was developed by a private polling firm working for the [Trump] campaign.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/10/trump-i … n-spy.html
Do I detect double standards? I will be upset if Russia tries to interfere with our elections, but I'm okay if my government tries to influence the elections in another country? That doesn't seem right.
Cool! Two wrongs DO make a right. Glad someone cleared that up. You ARE a genius Mike....but you're still behind Jack.
Really, you don't seem too upset about it. In fact, you seem like you're in complete denial that Russia interfered in our elections.
And yes, perhaps there is a double standard there because we may not have the level of intelligence data our politicians possess about certain other countries. It's the same way we trust that the CIA is doing good work and putting unknown stars on a board when something tragic happens to one of our patriots.
But again, that's just a distraction because comparing Obama's actions in Israel is not the same as if Obama had accepted help from, say, North Korea, to get elected. Your whataboutisms continue to compare apples to oranges just to take a dig at the opposition party.
Randy, do I have to provide you with a way to research the term "Double Standard?" I can't do all of your research for you. I think you need to prove your point on your own.
If you want me to teach you how to do research to prove your point...I think you need to provide fair compensation. As a Democrat, I know you believe in such a thing. It's time to prove it.
It was a simple comment Mike, but apparently not simple enough for you to understand. Are you, or are you not, okay with Trump, or his minions, dealing secretly with the Russians to have them assist in helping win the election?
Can't make it any simpler, Dude!
I'm not too worried about it because nothing has been proven. Now, if you are really upset about collusion, are you upset about the Hillary Clinton campaign paying an agent from foreign country for a false dossier about President Donald Trump's campaign? That was clear collusion. So, if you are not upset about has been proven about Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, I have no idea why you'd be upset about the unproven allegations about President Donald Trump. Again, double standards and until that stops I can't pay attention to what you say.
"Steele was paid $160,000 to create the Trump dossier for Fusion GPS. The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and Democratic National Committee financed the work. So the FBI and Justice Department used opposition research from a presidential campaign to launch an investigation into that campaign's political opponent — a likely illegal use of federal government surveillance for political purposes."
If this doesn't upset you, I have no idea why the unproven allegations against the Trump campaign would bother you. This is far more serious than giving someone a copy of polling data they could have gotten if they paid the same company for it.
https://www.investors.com/politics/edit … -on-trump/
You said so many falsehoods in this post I seriously worry where you get your information from. Yes, the Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research. Fusion GPS is an American company. Fusion GPS subcontracted out to Steele. To say Clinton hired Steele is an outright lie by you.
The dossier has been proven time and time again to not have been linked to the start of the investigation into Russian interference. Papadopoulous bragging to the Australians about the hacked e-mails and Carter Page's trip to Russia while working for the Trump campaign were the two big events that led to the FBI determining an investigation was more than warranted. These are undisputed facts that you simply ignore.
And if you have an issue with the FBI investigating when Russia hacks the DNC as Trump aides brag about knowledge of that or travel to Russia while working for the campaign, I'm more worried about what you think national security should look like.
Much of the "fake" dossier has been proven, Mike. You need to get a better source for your claims, dude!
Really, would you happen to have a respectable source to back up your statement? I actually can't find any information on proving even one of the allegations in the dossier?
Really Shar, it was reported on all the major networks several times lately. Of course, Fox probably didn't report it as the Dossier is a major talking point of Hannity and Limbaugh. Naturally, they're still calling it fake despite much of it being proven true with none of it shown to be false at this point in time.
Sharlee01, there are MANY reputable and respected sources like CNN and MSNBC which have already documented the fact that many aspects of the Trump Dossier have already been proven but I'm highly confident even though Chris Wallace of Fox DESTROYED Sarah Huckleberry's Blatant LIES about terrorists he other day and good for him, you won't see them on Fox Foney Channel nor on Rush Limpy's daily montage of slobby snowflakey anti-American grumbles, crying, whining an sobbing about everything American:
Interested in finding out what parts of the Trump Dossier have been proven? READ this for a SHOCKER *****: Prison Awaits and it must happen ASAP:
"WHAT’S TRUE IN TRUMP-RUSSIA DOSSIER? KEY PARTS PROVED OVER LAST YEAR"
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-d … ven-929839
Thanks Jake, I doubt Shar will believe the article though!
Jake's article is from 5/17/18. Here is an article from USA Today from 12/18/18, which makes it a bit more current.
“When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there's good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 347833002/
So, those of you who support the Steele dossier must believe in collusion with a foreign government to influence an election. This is how the Steele dossier was created. So, why are you so supportive of Hillary Clinton AND the Democratic party paying for such research from a foreign government? It was clearly meant to influence an election. If there are any liberals who are NOT hypocrites please reveal yourselves.
Are you seriously equating the Steele Dossier with Manafort's colluding with the Russians, Mike? Steele was a former British agent who our intelligence agencies depended on many times in the past for his veracity in reporting.
As Jake pointed out, GPS is an American company. And your article doesn't say none of the reporting is true. All of the reporting in the link Jake linked shows some of the Dossier was correct.
Randy, Manafort is accused of giving some polling data that was mostly public.
Now, I don't believe you grasp the concept of what is collusion.
"Steele was a former British agent who our intelligence agencies depended on many times in the past for his veracity in reporting." Means nothing.
Hillary Clinton and the Democrat party PAID for information from a BRITISH agent.
Manafort gave some polling data that was mostly public.
Are you able to see the difference?
Collusion is the secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
I would say paying a British agent for fake information on a candidate qualifies.
I would also say providing polling information that is mostly public is not.
I can't make it any more clear. Either you understand it or you don't.
"mostly public". How about you finding the data if it's so easy, Mike? You don't care if Manafort colluded with foreign powers to help Trump win, do you?
mike doesn't seem to understand the Trump Dossier, much of which has been proven to be correct, is just a tiny fraction of the public evidence that already would convict Donald Trump of several serious felony crimes and we've yet to see what the covert Trump Campaign Criminal Investigations have unearthed:
But it's still a good thing for the last remaining Trump followers to "Pretend" the facts don't exist, I guess they're practicing "Reality Denial" for when Bozo Trump is finally thrown behind bars which must come soon of we are still a land of laws:
Mike, you forgot, I wonder why, to include this quote along with your other one.
""Steele was clearly onto something" in his probe into the campaign's Russian connection but evidence has not surfaced to support some of his specific assertions.
Steele was correct to suspect "that there was a major Kremlin effort to interfere in our elections, that they were trying to help Trump's campaign, and that there were multiple contacts between various Russian figures close to the government and various people in the Trump campaign,""
You also forgot to mention that Cohen DID go to Prague to meet Russians as the dossier said.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/ … ussia.html
Again, no specific claim in the dossier has been proven false after two years of searching by Trump acolytes.
Nothing has been proven true after two years of searching by Democrats and the main stream media.
"Cohen DID go to Prague to meet Russians" So? Any evidence of what they discussed? Facts are more powerful than allegations.
So! You can't see the forest for the trees, Mike. When Mueller releases his report you'll be left with nothing but embarrassment for ever thinking Trump was on the up and up.
Come on Mike, you must be smarter than you write. The dossier said Cohen went to Prague to discuss stuff with Russians. Cohen DID go to Prague to discuss stuff with Russians. Any intelligent mind would draw the conclusion that Steele got that one right.
I have been a skeptic of the Steele dossier. I have done the same Google searches others have done, and found no proof that any of the dossier's claims have been proven.
Proven, that is the key. But, if this McClatchy article. (which supports your statement My Esoteric), is true, then that one proven claim opens the door for honest consideration of many of the other claims.
(according to promisem, we should be able to trust mcclatchydc.com, and at this point, I agree)
Interesting, thanks GA. Here is some things from https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-doss … rospective
From the Dossier - "Over the period March-September 2016 a company called [redacted] and its affiliates had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct “altering operations” against the Democratic Party leadership. Entities linked to one [redacted] were involved and he and another hacking expert, both recruited under duress by the FSB, [redacted] were significant players in this operation."
Additionally, it reports:
"the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing email messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to the Wikileaks platform. The reason for using Wikileaks was "plausible deniability" and the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team."
This was corroborated with the indictment of 12 officers of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (GRU) corroborates these allegations from Steele’s sources. (See article for details)
Another tid-bit -
"Another report in the dossier adds a layer: “The Kremlin’s cultivation operation on Trump also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business deals in Russia, especially in relation to the ongoing 2018 World Cup soccer tournament. However, so far, for reasons unknown, Trump had not taken up any of these.”
And we have "That leads us to the material in the criminal information and sentencing memorandum for Michael Cohen—Trump’s former attorney—filed by the Special Counsel’s Office in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These documents relate to Cohen’s false statements to Congress regarding attempted Trump Organization business dealings in Russia. The details buttress Steele’s reporting to some extent, ..."
There is more.
Again, Mike, stop lying about who Clinton paid. She paid GPS Fusion, an American company. THAT company subcontracted out to Steele. How many times will your twisted brain ignore those proven facts?
Yes, some of the sensational allegations, like hookers peeing in a hotel room, may never be proven.
But your same article goes on to say the following:
“During the campaign, Trump had encouraged Russia’s hacking and dumping – of which he was the chief beneficiary,” the book concludes. “Whether or not the investigations would ever turn up hard evidence of direct collusion, Trump’s actions – his adamant and consistent denial of any Russian role – had provided Putin cover. In that sense, he had aided and abetted Moscow’s attack on American democracy.”
That's information that was definitely alluded to in the dossier.
"She paid GPS Fusion, an American company. THAT company subcontracted out to Steele."
Okay, so, indirectly, Hillary Clinton paid for opposition research that was provided by a foreign agent.
It has been labeled as "A private intelligence report comprising memos written between June and December 2016 by Christopher Steele."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018 … mp-dossier
Again, THIS fits the legal definition of collusion.
Collusion is a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
A private intelligence report. I still wonder why the Hillary Clinton campaign is not under investigation for collusion.
"That's information that was definitely alluded to in the dossier." No proof, just allegations.
Ok, by your definition, if Manafort gave some private campaign polling data to the Russians and Trump paid him, Trump colluded. I doubt you'd be willing to concede that about Trump, so have the same standard for Clinton's campaign who paid an American company.
Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you. The polling given was mostly public. No money changed hands.
So, if the Hillary Clinton campaign was subject to the same level of scrutiny the President Donald Trump campaign was given, I wonder what would be discovered?
It's obvious she paid for a private intelligence report provided by a foreign agent for the sole purpose of influencing an election.
My point is...if you're okay with what Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party did with paying for the dossier against President Donald Trump...giving some polling data should not even get a whisper of attention.
'Mostly.' Like I was mostly innocent so I shouldn't be charged with that crime? I was mostly under the speed limit officer, please do not ticket me. Let me know how that works out for you.
Manafort owed money to these oligarchs. The information given was to pay off that debt, so I'm going to disagree with payment. And given the fact that Trump's campaign changed their platform to be pro-Russia in regards to Ukraine shortly after giving the data and getting the hacked e-mails released, it's fairly obvious they were working in conjunction with the Russians.
I'm not sure how many other ways we can say that her campaign paid an American company. If you'd care to go check the testimony from GPS Fusion to Congress, you'd find out her campaign wasn't even aware GPS had hired Steele. Your collusion points fall apart with those facts.
"changed their platform to be pro-Russia in regards to Ukraine"
Whoa, whoa, whoa...hold on to everything here. The Ukraine is very near and dear to my heart and my relatives who live there. President Donald Trump has provided the most modern versions of offensive weapons for the Ukraine military. These are weapons designed to destroy tanks and airplanes. These many weapons he provided are probably THE only reason Russia hasn't invaded the Ukraine from Crimea. Trust me, Russia was furious Ukraine got these weapons from the Trump administration. So, if you don't believe me, read the Kyiv Post.
You need to realize collusion does not require payment to a company. Here is the legal definition.
Collusion is a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
I will still state a private secret intelligence PROVIDED by a foreign agent qualifies as collusion.
"Manafort owed money to these oligarchs. The information given was to pay off that debt"
Who pays off a debt with polling data that is mostly public?
Probably wasn't much of a debt.
I agree that nothing has been proven and that many people are drawing conclusions that aren't proven by the evidence.
However, it amazes me that you continue to be so unconcerned given that Trump and pretty much everybody else has always denied all these meeting, contacts, etc. which are now coming to light.
Trump denied that Manafort had any of these contacts while he worked as his campaign chairman, yet now it's been revealed that these contact DID happen while Manafort was Trump's campaign chairman.
You've heard the phrase "where there's smoke, there's fire?"
I will say, I've seen nothing yet to prove that Trump knew about any of this, but given the similarities between Manafort's situation and Trump's situation (being beholden to Russians in some way or having business ties or generally wanting their cooperation), it suggests we should continue to look into it and given everything that's come out already (lies, contacts, corruption, crimes), the revelations suggest strongly that there could be more to this story.
Based on the definition you provided of collusion, there seems to be plenty to suggest that Manafort worked with people secretly and illegally toward some goal to manipulate and/or change the outcome of the election. Or, in other words, worked with these people to help Trump win, people normally considered to be enemies of the U.S.
plenty to "suggest." Key word. A suggestion is not proof or evidence.
So, there is plenty to suggest that Hillary Clinton did what? Her paying for an unsubstantiated dossier is a proven fact. It being used for a FISA warrant is a fact. The FBI agents who used it to get the unproven dossier failed to tell the judge the information had been paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. So, I'm amazed that people continue to ignore that act of blatant collusion.
Since the FBI had to mislead the FISA court to get a warrant...what would that "suggest?"
https://www.investors.com/politics/edit … e-wiretap/
What is Investor's Business Daily? Some kind of conspiracy site?
And why are we talking about Hillary Clinton? If she purchased the dossier, doing so is not collusion. When you consider the dossier was produced by a respected intelligence official, that doesn't seem like collusion either. It seems like normal, opposition research. However, given how the DNC and Clinton campaign reported those payments, they should be appropriately charged with campaign finance violations.
Interestingly, has anything in the Steele dossier been proven wrong?
And why are you more concerned with how it came into existence rather than the veracity of what's in it? Especially given the veracity of what's in it seems to be slowly proven correct, to some degree?
"What is Investor's Business Daily? Some kind of conspiracy site?" I'll let that go and honor your research skills if you want to know more.
"Why are we talking about Hillary Clinton purchasing a dossier?"
Do I have to put up the legal definition of collusion a 4th time? Please go back and read my previous posts.
This may be the first time opposition research has been used to obtain a FISA warrant.
Nothing in the Steele dossier has been proven true. I am concerned about how it came into existence because much of it hasn't been or won't be verified. I'm sure you've heard of USA Today.
“When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there's good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 347833002/
So what would a dossier filled with unsubstantiated information about a candidate, paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, that is falsely used to obtain a FISA warrant (the FBI failed to tell the FISA judge the dossier had been paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. In the legal world this fact WOULD change everything.) Suggest?
When you add in the texts by FBI Agents Lisa Page and Peter Strozk, and they are public record, especially the ones where they text about being contacted by the White House, what does that suggest?
Was there collusion between the White House and the Hillary Clinton Campaign, as well as the DNC, to use false intelligence to influence an election?
It's just a suggestion. But I think the evidence is stronger than anything against President Donald Trump.
The FBI didn't mislead the FISA courts, Mike. The Dossier was used to back up already discovered info about Page and others. Just because Sean And Limbaugh make this claim proves they're simply making excuses for the cretin.
"plenty to "suggest." Key word. A suggestion is not proof or evidence."
By that logic, Mike, you agree that;
- OJ didn't kill anyone
- Al Capone was not a crime boss and murdered many people
- God doesn't exist.
What was illegal about the Clinton campaign paying GPS Fusion to do opposition research? Now if there were laws about GPS Fusion being limited in who they hired, you'd have a case. Or if GPS Fusion disclosed to the Clinton campaign that they were subcontracting out to a foreign agent, you might have a case there too. Or if you want to say someone conspired with a foreign agent to provide tangible information used in an election, that criminal would be GPS Fusion, who contracted with Steele. Not Clinton's campaign, who was unaware where the dossier information originated, according to GPS Fusion's CEO's Congressional testimony.
The word “collusion” has been a terrible one to use in the Trump-Russia saga, since it doesn’t accurately describe either the criminal or counterintelligence aspects of what we know. On the criminal side, the word that would best describe an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia to commit any number of crimes (say, election fraud) would be “conspiracy.”
On the counterintelligence side, collusion is best described by the word “recruitment.” The aim of a foreign intelligence service is to find and convince individuals to help them achieve intelligence objectives. In the case of the election, the question is whether Russia was able to recruit American citizens, including people in the Trump campaign, to help them sway the outcome in Donald Trump’s favor.
But we have some clues that Russia may have been successful, such as Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn officially registering as foreign agents under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, or reports of a FISA order against Carter Page, which could only be obtained by showing a court that he was “knowingly engaged in foreign intelligence activities” on behalf of a foreign power.
Manafort clearly falls into this category. With no direct link between Clinton and Steele, that example does not.
To have conspiracy, you have to have a crime they are conspiring to do. Getting oppo information is not a crime, even using a foreign agent, therefore no conspiracy.
Feeding confidential polling data to the Russians to help influence the election in your favor IS a crime - it is called Defrauding the Government of the United States. A crime of which a couple of Trump associates have already pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of.
I'd say you need to check the definition of "defraud" as well.
illegally obtain money from (someone) by deception.
So far no one has obtained money from the government by deception in the astounding, shocking matter of Russian collusion. Not even by fixing the election.
Cute, Wilderness - https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-res … defraud-us
An attempt to change the outcome of a federal election (probably successful now that a lot more info is known) easily fits the definition.
Then you didn't Google it, did you Sharlee? Try one of your own favorite sources - Fox
https://fox4kc.com/2018/12/15/fbi-relea … n-dossier/
a media who hates Trump because he defeated their beloved Hillary, a combination of left and right wing politicians who despise him because they comprise the swamp he promised to drain, bitter members of the electorate, and liberal judges combine to create an atmosphere where very LITTLE evidence has to be present to start an investigation. If there is so much evidence and it's so revealing, why does it continue to drag on and on? The left can't beat Trump, the media can't outsmart him, so they use their power of media to try and persuade the masses that he's a criminal. Yesterday I heard a montage of some 20 democrat politicians giving soundbytes about Trump's border speech. They uniformly used the phrase "manufactured crisis" over and over and over again. Talk about collusion! They couldn't even come up with a decent synonym. Trump has already achieved so much. 40 year low unemployment rates, 20 year low gas prices due to allowing oil companies to drill and produce, Kim Jong Un ceasing testing of nuclear weapons program, release of hostages in N. Korea. It's such a shame that democrats are doing everything they can to slow down our progress just as we were emerging as the mightiest super power on earth- the one that does the most for humanitarian causes and responds to the needs of billions around the world. Democrats aren't just hurting the US, they are a bane to the world at large. It's such a needless, tragic, shame.
"a media who hates Trump because he defeated their beloved Hillary" = a falsehood
"a combination of left and right wing politicians who despise him because they comprise the swamp he promised to drain" = Trump brought the swamp (and mafia) with him.
"combine to create an atmosphere where very LITTLE evidence has to be present to start an investigation" - falsehood; there is lots of evidence, you just ignore it.
"why does it continue to drag on and on?" - 1) because Mueller's investigation is short when compared to others and 2) there is so much to go through it takes lots of time to do a thorough job.
"persuade the masses that he's a criminal" - they only REPORT what Trump does and says.
"They uniformly used the phrase "manufactured crisis" over and over and over again" - that is because it is true. Do you want the media to lie like Trump does almost all of the time?
"40 year low unemployment rates," - a continuation of Obama's record
"20 year low gas prices " = False again, they were lower under Obama
"due to allowing oil companies to drill and produce" = False - that happened under Obama, not Trump
"Kim Jong Un ceasing testing of nuclear weapons program" - 1) after he increased them a lot (including missiles) in response to Trump's war rhetoric and 2) Un was done testing; it wasn't from anything Trump did.
"It's such a shame that democrats are doing everything they can to slow down our progress just as we were emerging as the mightiest super power on earth" - 1) LOL and 2) America WAS the greatest superpower on earth, now Trump has destroyed that mantle.
"Democrats aren't just hurting the US, they are a bane to the world at large. It's such a needless, tragic, shame." - FALSE - that title goes to you and those who think like you.
by Scott Belford 3 weeks ago
There can be know doubt that the Trump Jr. meeting with various Russians connected with Putin was collusion. It is not important that the those on the Russian side ended up only talking about influencing Donald Trump to end a set of 2012 sanctions against Russia. What is important is that...
by Scott Belford 3 weeks ago
All of the available evidence seems to say so.Here is a workable definition of a coups d'état as an "organized effort to effect sudden and irregular (e.g., illegal or extra-legal) removal of the incumbent executive authority of a national government, or to displace the authority of the highest...
by ga anderson 4 years ago
This should be a hot one. The much anticipated Special Counsel's first indictments have been unsealed - and they aren't about Pres. Trump and Russian election collusion, (yet???)But like a lyric from a song; 'whoo eee, whoo eee babyyy...' It sure paints an ugly picture. And one that seems to be a...
by Readmikenow 3 months ago
Some journalists, Republican lawmakers, and other notable public figures responded to an explosive report from over the weekend involving Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe by saying that the Trump White House was spied on.Durham said in the court filing...
by Randy Godwin 4 years ago
Today Sen. Diane Feinstein released the transcripts of the Richard Steele interview against the wishes of Republican committee members. Steel was worried about Trump being possibly blackmailed if he became POTUS and contacted the FBI as he should have. This was before the election and before the...
by ptosis 5 years ago
http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu … o-congress18 minutes from now. For those who are interested.FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency head Adm. Michael Rogers on Monday will break their public silence in the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|