And there we go again. The Trump White House by Sarah Sanders said Trump did give his son advice and helped with his statement, contrary that what was said before. Although Sanders stressed that there were no inaccuracies, since the White House has outright lied or mislead the public, I can't take this statement on face value anymore.

So what's next?

Dutchy wrote:

And there we go again. The Trump White House by Sarah Sanders said Trump did give his son advice and helped with his statement, contrary that what was said before. Although Sanders stressed that there were no inaccuracies, since the White House has outright lied or mislead the public, I can't take this statement on face value anymore.

So what's next?

More of the same, almost certainly.

I would like to be proven wrong, but I doubt that Mr. Trump, or his communications spin staff, is capable of changing.

BobPatterson wrote:

I would like to be proven wrong, but I doubt that Mr. Trump, or his communications spin staff, is capable of changing.

And honestly, I'm certain there are people who do NOT want him to change. Just the other day I was talking to my boss and team lead and even though they had their concerns during the election (one is conservative and the other is libertarian but will vote R in order to prevent Democrats from winning), they're happy with Trump because (and I quote) "f*ck the politicians".

At that point, I knew that discussing politics with them would be meaningless because Trump could blow up a nuke in Europe and they'll find a way to justify it (he's altering the political order...). Heck, I brought up Trump's whole "shooting someone on 5th Avenue" and how his supporters would find a way to blame the victim for being in the way, and their explanation was along the lines of "absolutely because you shouldn't get in the way of Trump disturbing the political order in DC" before a nice "f*ck the politicians" was added yet again.

jetero wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

jetero wrote:

For every Trent Franks, there are 2 or 3 other Republicans that are defending Mueller, some even trying to enact legislation to make it difficult for Trump to get rid of him.

So I'm not sure what your point is.

You said it yourself, others are defending Mueller, so here is a contrary voice.

Point made.

That's all.

And your take on it is ... ?

You agree Mueller should be dismissed?

Should investigation be dismissed?

Mueller out. Investigation over. No facts. Just shit or get off the pot.

New investigation of real crimes by Hillary and others in the last Administration....

DIRECTFLT wrote:

jetero wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

You said it yourself, others are defending Mueller, so here is a contrary voice.

Point made.

That's all.

And your take on it is ... ?

You agree Mueller should be dismissed?

Should investigation be dismissed?

Mueller out. Investigation over. No facts. Just shit or get off the pot.

New investigation of real crimes by Hillary and others in the last Administration....

Meuller out, facts and behavior disappears? Interesting, so the criminal investigation is a political process now?

einsteinboricua wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

I would like to be proven wrong, but I doubt that Mr. Trump, or his communications spin staff, is capable of changing.

And honestly, I'm certain there are people who do NOT want him to change. Just the other day I was talking to my boss and team lead and even though they had their concerns during the election (one is conservative and the other is libertarian but will vote R in order to prevent Democrats from winning), they're happy with Trump because (and I quote) "f*ck the politicians".

At that point, I knew that discussing politics with them would be meaningless because Trump could blow up a nuke in Europe and they'll find a way to justify it (he's altering the political order...). Heck, I brought up Trump's whole "shooting someone on 5th Avenue" and how his supporters would find a way to blame the victim for being in the way, and their explanation was along the lines of "absolutely because you shouldn't get in the way of Trump disturbing the political order in DC" before a nice "f*ck the politicians" was added yet again.

It is a fallacy to think it is all about communication. It is the lack of leadership, vision, and skill of Mr. Trump and his administration.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Mueller out. Investigation over. No facts. Just shit or get off the pot.

The investigation hasn´t even seriously started yet ..... good to see how scared you are that your favorite kleptocracy may go down in flames. So, in effect you already know he is guilty and that Mueller will find enough evidence to convict him, otherwise nothing better could happen to Trump than a full exoneration?
The way things are going, He may even end up serving additional time for laundering money for the Russian Mob, and it is so terribly bad that he won´t be able to fire or silence the people in the Netherlands going after that....

New investigation of real crimes by Hillary and others in the last Administration....

More tax payer money wasted on imaginary crimes, right..... splendid. Why don´t you just go and visit a flood museum...

best regards
Thomas

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Mueller out. Investigation over. No facts. Just shit or get off the pot.

How long do you think an investigation should be afforded to complete? A matter of weeks? From the beginning it's been acknowledged that this would take a year at the least. But, I know, Sean Hannity is saying every night, "Where is the evidence"/"There is no evidence" (truly fake news) as if it is standard practice to give daily public updates on investigation findings. Wait, I'm sure you agreed with Donald "Mr I know more about ISIS than the generals" Trump who says only idiots telegraph what they're doing to the adversary before they do it. Just because you don't know what has been found to date doesn't mean there's nothing.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

New investigation of real crimes by Hillary and others in the last Administration....

Naturally. Of course! Makes perfect sense. (How long does this one get?)

tommy1808 wrote:

Why don´t you just go and visit a flood museum...

Oh, c'mon. Do you really want to escalate this from modest pettifogging crimes all the way to crimes against humanity?

You want to put God on trial?

I'd love to watch an atheist prosecute God.

BobPatterson wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Why don´t you just go and visit a flood museum...

Oh, c'mon. Do you really want to escalate this from modest pettifogging crimes all the way to crimes against humanity?

Well... for some republicans it is just politics, for others it is religion. If someone believes Hilary Clinton is a criminal after some 200 Million US$ has been spend trying to find anything usable in court for no results they may very well believe in the flood. It is hard to miss that voting for Trump and thinking Hilary belongs in jail seem to go hand in hand with denying evolution, being scared of vaccines, young earth creationism and what other delusions are out there.

Politics, in facts ideas in general, are like streptococci. Normally beneficial, they can turn into meat eating monsters on occasion, most likely because their procreation math in game theoretical terms changes in a sick body vs. a healthy one. The republican ideas just happens to be in a sick body at the moment and that parasite is eating away and turning the brains of usually good intended average smart and educated people into goo, just in specific fields. Those areas happen to be exactly those that can kill the idea in your head (Trump = good for America dies if you have to accept that he committed treason, either legally or morally). Exactly what parasites do. You can find people whose ideas turned rogue in any area, but usually they don´t spread very far. You can see the same happening with proper religion, which basically has only two strains. One that tries to survive by incorporating what we know about reality, what people would call sophisticated believe systems, and the other strain tries to redefine reality, what we call fundamentalists.

You want to put God on trial?

I'd love to watch an atheist prosecute God.

I think it is still required for a person to exist in order to be on trial. But your legal system is weird, so i don´t know.

If the Christian god existed, or his existence was even plausible, DARPA, and agencies like them, should be busy finding ways to target and kill him. The book of Revelation makes a pretty descent clear and present threat.... war on God would be absolutely justified.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Why don´t you just go and visit a flood museum...

Oh, c'mon. Do you really want to escalate this from modest pettifogging crimes all the way to crimes against humanity?

Well... for some republicans it is just politics, for others it is religion. If someone believes Hilary Clinton is a criminal after some 200 Million US$ has been spend trying to find anything usable in court for no results they may very well believe in the flood. It is hard to miss that voting for Trump and thinking Hilary belongs in jail seem to go hand in hand with denying evolution, being scared of vaccines, young earth creationism and what other delusions are out there.

Politics, in facts ideas in general, are like streptococci. Normally beneficial, they can turn into meat eating monsters on occasion, most likely because their procreation math in game theoretical terms changes in a sick body vs. a healthy one. The republican ideas just happens to be in a sick body at the moment and that parasite is eating away and turning the brains of usually good intended average smart and educated people into goo, just in specific fields. Those areas happen to be exactly those that can kill the idea in your head (Trump = good for America dies if you have to accept that he committed treason, either legally or morally). Exactly what parasites do. You can find people whose ideas turned rogue in any area, but usually they don´t spread very far. You can see the same happening with proper religion, which basically has only two strains. One that tries to survive by incorporating what we know about reality, what people would call sophisticated believe systems, and the other strain tries to redefine reality, what we call fundamentalists.

You want to put God on trial?

I'd love to watch an atheist prosecute God.

I think it is still required for a person to exist in order to be on trial. But your legal system is weird, so i don´t know.

If the Christian god existed, or his existence was even plausible, DARPA, and agencies like them, should be busy finding ways to target and kill him. The book of Revelation makes a pretty descent clear and present threat.... war on God would be absolutely justified.

best regards
Thomas

One of the best posts I've seen on a.net.

I especially liked your formulation "if you have to accept that he committed treason, either legally or morally". I suspect that few people are capable of distinguishing between legal treason which is punishable by law, and moral treason which would probably fail legal tests but nevertheless succeed in an impeachment process.

Thanks, Tommy.

BobPatterson wrote:

One of the best posts I've seen on a.net.

I especially liked your formulation "if you have to accept that he committed treason, either legally or morally". I suspect that few people are capable of distinguishing between legal treason which is punishable by law, and moral treason which would probably fail legal tests but nevertheless succeed in an impeachment process.

Thanks, Tommy.

Thank you. I guess no one foresaw the possibility of a citizen running for high office colluding with a foreign government to manipulate the election process. If anyone had imagines that amount of treason even being possible, they would have codified it.

best regards
Thomas

BobPatterson wrote:

I especially liked your formulation "if you have to accept that he committed treason, either legally or morally". I suspect that few people are capable of distinguishing between legal treason which is punishable by law, and moral treason which would probably fail legal tests but nevertheless succeed in an impeachment process.

Thanks, Tommy.

So you are siding with Trump.

"Well, I don't know if he did or didn't when he said he did, so let's just let it go.."

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

I especially liked your formulation "if you have to accept that he committed treason, either legally or morally". I suspect that few people are capable of distinguishing between legal treason which is punishable by law, and moral treason which would probably fail legal tests but nevertheless succeed in an impeachment process.

Thanks, Tommy.

So you are siding with Trump.

"Well, I don't know if he did or didn't when he said he did, so let's just let it go.."

Except for district where it is close, it should not effect the seat, that is the consequence of "the winner takes" all principle.

CNN reporting Mueller has impaneled a grand jury--for whom and what unknown

jetero wrote:

CNN reporting Mueller has impaneled a grand jury--for whom and what unknown

Special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe heats up
Special counsel Robert Mueller is impaneling a grand jury in the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to The Wall Street Journal.
It's a sign the probe is intensifying and could drag on for months.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/03/special ... ports.html

Dutchy wrote:

jetero wrote:

CNN reporting Mueller has impaneled a grand jury--for whom and what unknown

Special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe heats up
Special counsel Robert Mueller is impaneling a grand jury in the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, according to The Wall Street Journal.
It's a sign the probe is intensifying and could drag on for months.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/03/special ... ports.html

Thanks for the description of what a grand jury actually does!

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

I especially liked your formulation "if you have to accept that he committed treason, either legally or morally". I suspect that few people are capable of distinguishing between legal treason which is punishable by law, and moral treason which would probably fail legal tests but nevertheless succeed in an impeachment process.

Thanks, Tommy.

So you are siding with Trump.

"Well, I don't know if he did or didn't when he said he did, so let's just let it go.."

Claiming that I "side with Trump" is rather a breathtaking assertion. But considering the source of the statement it takes just a single breath.

Congratulations for proving the hypothesis that there are people incapable of making distinctions.

As Mueller closes in, Trump prepares his base for the worst

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... the-worst/


In there...there is a great NYT piece on Trump's lying...interesting read.....oh sorry,....FAKE NEWS

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/us/p ... &smtyp=cur

727LOVER wrote:

As Mueller closes in, Trump prepares his base for the worst

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... the-worst/


In there...there is a great NYT piece on Trump's lying...interesting read.....oh sorry,....FAKE NEWS

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/us/p ... &smtyp=cur

Going to be interesting to watch what will happen to Mr. Meuller and if he will be able to finish his job. And of course what the reaction will be of congress.

Trump's reign to finish any day now. For sure

Freakysh wrote:

Trump's reign to finish any day now. For sure

Based on what evidence?

Please try to be precise in describing your evidence.

Thanks

P.S.: In another thread you wrote: "Thank God I'm not American. It's little wonder trump got voted in. Between the pathetic alternatives and the media so desperately wanting to discredit him, it was a fait accompli. Now that he's in? The same tactic is applied. I can see two terms coming, hell even id vote for him, as a message to the left supporters and the media. You guys are screwed!"

You saw two terms coming, now you see an end as President "any day."

Are you just a bit confused?

BobPatterson wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Trump's reign to finish any day now. For sure

Based on what evidence?

Please try to be precise in describing your evidence.

Thanks

P.S.: In another thread you wrote: "Thank God I'm not American. It's little wonder trump got voted in. Between the pathetic alternatives and the media so desperately wanting to discredit him, it was a fait accompli. Now that he's in? The same tactic is applied. I can see two terms coming, hell even id vote for him, as a message to the left supporters and the media. You guys are screwed!"

You saw two terms coming, now you see an end as President "any day."

Are you just a bit confused?

Sarcasm champ.

Try to keep up.

Freakysh wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Trump's reign to finish any day now. For sure

Based on what evidence?

Please try to be precise in describing your evidence.

Thanks

P.S.: In another thread you wrote: "Thank God I'm not American. It's little wonder trump got voted in. Between the pathetic alternatives and the media so desperately wanting to discredit him, it was a fait accompli. Now that he's in? The same tactic is applied. I can see two terms coming, hell even id vote for him, as a message to the left supporters and the media. You guys are screwed!"

You saw two terms coming, now you see an end as President "any day."

Are you just a bit confused?

Sarcasm champ.

Try to keep up.

What did you consider sarcasm?

"Trump's reign to finish any day now"?

or

"Thank God I'm not American"?

BobPatterson wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Based on what evidence?

Please try to be precise in describing your evidence.

Thanks

P.S.: In another thread you wrote: "Thank God I'm not American. It's little wonder trump got voted in. Between the pathetic alternatives and the media so desperately wanting to discredit him, it was a fait accompli. Now that he's in? The same tactic is applied. I can see two terms coming, hell even id vote for him, as a message to the left supporters and the media. You guys are screwed!"

You saw two terms coming, now you see an end as President "any day."

Are you just a bit confused?

Sarcasm champ.

Try to keep up.

What did you consider sarcasm?

"Trump's reign to finish any day now"?

or

"Thank God I'm not American"?

Seriously? The former.

Looks like Paul Manafort had an unexpected dawn visit from the FBI, courtesy of Mueller:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-exec ... d=49112676

ThePointblank wrote:

Looks like Paul Manafort had an unexpected dawn visit from the FBI, courtesy of Mueller:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-exec ... d=49112676

I guess many of the key players can expect such a visit. Hopefully, they have the coffee ready for a bunch of FBI agents

A draft letter explaining firing of Comey was allegedly rejected by White House Counsel Don McGahn. Letter was drafted by Stephen Miller.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/p ... etter.html

The ineptness of this team is going to be even more blatantly obvious soon enough. I can only guess what "Little 'The Powers of this President Will Not Be Questioned' Stephen" advised writing.

(#FakeNews to a blindingly devoted few, I know.)

jetero wrote:

A draft letter explaining firing of Comey was allegedly rejected by White House Counsel Don McGahn. Letter was drafted by Stephen Miller.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/p ... etter.html

The ineptness of this team is going to be even more blatantly obvious soon enough. I can only guess what "Little 'The Powers of this President Will Not Be Questioned' Stephen" advised writing.

(#FakeNews to a blindingly devoted few, I know.)

It is very interesting to see how the New York Times can write a fairly lengthy story about a draft letter that it has not seen.

This captured my attention:

"The letter, drafted in May, was met with opposition from Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, who believed that its angry, meandering tone was problematic, according to interviews with a dozen administration officials and others briefed on the matter." [my emphasis]

I guess the new White House Chief of Staff is having trouble clamping down on gossip.

Yes and the Post is doing a story on it too. And like you say, there's not much to it on the surface.

I suspect that the Post and the Times know something that they can't put in print yet.

salttee wrote:

Yes and the Post is doing a story on it too. And like you say, there's not much to it on the surface.

I suspect that the Post and the Times know something that they can't put in print yet.

According WSJ headline:

"Before firing FBI director, Trump wrote he should go for not publicly clearing him in Russia probe"

I suspect all of these have been independently confirmed, as none of the articles are sourcing the other papers, saying only the NYT reported on the story first.

I guess there's a good chance each of the papers has their own primary leak source.

Owen Shroyer of InfoWars goes to an anti-Trump protest in Austin seeking specifics on exactly why the protestors want President Trump impeached. Answers to that question are hard to come by....

https://youtu.be/T7Msz5jI_Xc

Imo, the smartest person that talked with Owen, was a Trump Supporter, a young black male...

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Owen Shroyer of InfoWars goes to an anti-Trump protest in Austin seeking specifics on exactly why the protestors want President Trump impeached. Answers to that question are hard to come by....

https://youtu.be/T7Msz5jI_Xc

Imo, the smartest person that talked with Owen, was a Trump Supporter, a young black male...

Looked at it briefly, they were more upset with InfoWars and didn't feel to take to them, which I can understand. So you have a bit of a frame going on there.

The investigations of Trump and those around him by SC Mueller seem to be expanding. They now include working with the IRS and the NY State Attorney General to see if tax dodging and money laundering. The IRS co-operation could mean finally getting Trump and his corporate tax returns properly reviewed for his deals and tax evasion. The NYS AG's involvement could mean NY State criminal charges against Trump and those around him that Trump cannot pardon on and with a Democrat Cuomo as Governor in NYS he won't do it either. There seems to be for now significant targeting Manifort in particular, possibly to flip to Trump and others to save his sorry butt from jail.
Another Trump related investigation is over the possible hacking of computerized voting machines by entities based in Russia with the disclosure of more evidence that was more extensive than previously believed. Most could be by Republican friendly hackers, but Russia seems to be a key player in this. Of course, many Democrats would love to blame Russia for their loss rather than their policies and poor choices in candidates, but it raises critical issues of the integrity of our elections that challenge our countries core values.
Sadly it may take a number of months, likely into early 2018 for any of these investigations to pan out and even then, they may not get anything to stick on Trump Meanwhile Trump continues to be without any doubt the most incompetent President our country has ever had. His daily behaviors, his lack of properly staffing agencies, his pushing policies like ending the 'Dreamers' program, his reactions to North Korea, his in fact support of radical White supremacists are shameful to the office and to most of the American public. He has no real politcal sense or care for the person, only how he looks (even if makes him worse). Look at his visit to Texas earlier this week as to Hurricane Harvey vs that of VP Pence on Friday. Trump saw it as a political rally, only spoke to a few hand picked Republican leaders. Pence spoke directly with victims, dressed for work, visited the hardest hit coastal town from this storm.
The end of Trump as President will be a political decision in part from criminal allegations from the investigations but more about his unacceptable behaviors in office. To me the sooner the better before Trump does more damage to our country, our people and the world.

Yep, Trump is a dead man walking. Any day now.... lol

Freakysh wrote:

Yep, Trump is a dead man walking. Any day now.... lol

Already got my bottle of whiskey from someone here, perhaps there is someone else willing to call you out on this, say Trump will not be in office in 1 year from now

Dutchy wrote:

Freakysh wrote:

Yep, Trump is a dead man walking. Any day now.... lol

Already got my bottle of whiskey from someone here, perhaps there is someone else willing to call you out on this, say Trump will not be in office in 1 year from now

Depends, due to what?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Owen Shroyer of InfoWars goes to an anti-Trump protest in Austin seeking specifics on exactly why the protestors want President Trump impeached. Answers to that question are hard to come by....

https://youtu.be/T7Msz5jI_Xc

Imo, the smartest person that talked with Owen, was a Trump Supporter, a young black male...

So nice they have boots on the ground here on earth with all the liberal child sex trafficking on Mars.

Junior tells Senate Judiciary Committee the 2016 Russia meeting at Trump Tower was about getting dirt on Hillz, not adoption. Quelle surprise!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/p ... -news&_r=0

I'd have to suspect at some opportunistic point in the future Putin will turn on Trump and will embarrass him bigly.

We were too stupid and naive to run a campaign but we advertised ourselves as competent enough to run the United States. It's sad that whoever the mother of this helpless dimwit is she was seduced by the initial grabbing.

I am convinced more and more every day that they did not expect to win...at all.

Elections have consequences, indeed.

einsteinboricua wrote:

I am convinced more and more every day that they did not expect to win...at all..

I can´t recall who on this forum suggested it, but by now it seems to be pretty obvious that the plan was to lose, and turn that loss into a very profitable business.

He is probably just that moody because skimming of the tax payer is much less lucrative.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

I am convinced more and more every day that they did not expect to win...at all..

I can´t recall who on this forum suggested it, but by now it seems to be pretty obvious that the plan was to lose, and turn that loss into a very profitable business.

He is probably just that moody because skimming of the tax payer is much less lucrative.

best regards
Thomas

That might have been me. And check and check. He didn't want the job and he is losing - from his perspective - a lot of money. Now he can't build his Trump tower - Moscow, highest building in the world.

Fundamentally, a country isn't a business and I see a lot of businessmen fail because of this.

This investigation has "heated up" so many times in the last couple of months, I'm surprised it hasn't already combusted

Freakysh wrote:

This investigation has "heated up" so many times in the last couple of months, I'm surprised it hasn't already combusted

The investigation is not to embarrass the President or to generate a few headlines, they have to build a rock solid case for Impeachment and/or criminal charges. Some stuff will come out because journalists stumble across the same as the FBI does, but the simple fact that the investigation is ongoing and appears to have a clear direction down the financial rabbit hole makes it likely that they already know crimes have been committed. In order to make sure a jury can be impartial, they have to keep their findings out of the media as good as they can. They are already working hard to make the prosecution pardon proof by taking it to the states. Which is a fairly good indicator that they think that either the President is guilty of crimes and may try to pardon himself, or that the President is tied to those that are guilty of crimes closely enough that they expect him to prevent justice from being served.

best regards
Thomas

Freakysh wrote:

This investigation has "heated up" so many times in the last couple of months, I'm surprised it hasn't already combusted

Almost as many times as you and your crowd deflect anything and everything by pretending it's not there.

This righty idea that there must be "no evidence" because nothing has been announced yet is laughable. As if you expect prosecutors to give updates on investigations as they are being conducted. Wasn't it Trump who said when it comes to national defense (paraphrasing), "I'm not going to telegraph my plans because only idiots do that"?

Be careful not to choke on sand while your head's down there.

We just had years and years of Republican investigation over the legality of private emails for government use, right? In fact, "lock her up" became a rallying cry and reason as to why Hillary is unfit to serve. So, why not "lock him up" and start investigations against the current administration for DOING THE EXACT SAME THING?

https://thinkprogress.org/voting-commis ... 69440378e/

seb146 wrote:

We just had years and years of Republican investigation over the legality of private emails for government use, right? In fact, "lock her up" became a rallying cry and reason as to why Hillary is unfit to serve. So, why not "lock him up" and start investigations against the current administration for DOING THE EXACT SAME THING?

https://thinkprogress.org/voting-commis ... 69440378e/

The e-mails seb, the e-mails. And the murdering. Don't forget the murdering.

Donald Trump doesn't send e-mails, and he's so rich he hires someone else to do the murdering. So therefore he must be innocent.

Wow. Its all really happening

Best Regards,
Freakysh.