Tugger wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

"When your own intelligence has proven itself to be a corrupt, lying, biased group against you, would you believe them? Is belief a logical response?"

Two points that you get wrong make your premise fail:
1.) There has been no proof that "our intelligence community" is corrupt, lying and biased against the president. (Some try to pick and choose and look at "Squirrel!!" aspects but there no real evidence let alone proof that our intelligence groups are failing the president.)
2.) Belief isn't required. Information is presented. Vetted information. And sources and reasoning and justification for the data and facts presented is also provided.
Tugg

There is far more evidence that President Obama's intel leaders meddled in the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton than there is of Candidate Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election.

There is also evidence that some of these anti-Trump partisan intel agents participated in the Mueller investigation.

The damage to the reputation of the US intel community by President Obama will last a very long time.

Mike Drop

MikeDrop wrote:

Tugger wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

"When your own intelligence has proven itself to be a corrupt, lying, biased group against you, would you believe them? Is belief a logical response?"

Two points that you get wrong make your premise fail:
1.) There has been no proof that "our intelligence community" is corrupt, lying and biased against the president. (Some try to pick and choose and look at "Squirrel!!" aspects but there no real evidence let alone proof that our intelligence groups are failing the president.)
2.) Belief isn't required. Information is presented. Vetted information. And sources and reasoning and justification for the data and facts presented is also provided.
Tugg

There is far more evidence that President Obama's intel leaders meddled in the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton than there is of Candidate Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election.

There is also evidence that some of these anti-Trump partisan intel agents participated in the Mueller investigation.

The damage to the reputation of the US intel community by President Obama will last a very long time.

Mike Drop

You realize that the FBI Agent in the other thread that the Psycho tin foil hat brigade has targeted was hired while G H.W. Bush was still in office?
This deep state tin foil hat BS is sickening and sad to see.

MikeDrop wrote:

There is far more evidence that President Obama's intel leaders meddled in the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton than there is of Candidate Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election.

There is also evidence that some of these anti-Trump partisan intel agents participated in the Mueller investigation.

The damage to the reputation of the US intel community by President Obama will last a very long time.

Mike Drop

1.) Obama? Really? You fall back to the: It's Obama's fault? OK. Show me the "evidence" you speak of regarding his or his administration's meddling in favor of Hillary. Not hearsay, not conjecture and editorial notes but actual evidence. It should be easy since a devoted foe of Hillary's is in control currently.
2.) There is also evidence that pro-trump partisan intel agents also participated. You would need to review all records of all agents involved to see what if any partisan lean there may be for individual agents (since everyone has some preference). However that still does not mean nor show that the job performed was impacted in a deleterious manner due to any agents political preferences. Left or right.
3.) How much damage do you think Trump is causing to the US intelligence community? And how long do you think it will last?

Tugg

Treason is telling your Russian counterpart you can be more flexible after the election.

trpmb6 wrote:

Treason is telling your Russian counterpart you can be more flexible after the election.

Flexibility in negotiations is a far cry from selling out your military and intelligence services.
I don't think you understand what treason really means.


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/treason

Treason is John Brennan's CIA spying on congress

casinterest wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

It's incredible that so many people are responding to what they see as an authoritarian, anti-democratic menace by screaming TREASON, which is perhaps the most quintessentially authoritarian tactic. Few buy this shtick. Whenever liberals pretend to be flag-wavers for reasons of political expediency, actual flag-wavers can always see right through it.

You know what I find amazing is how few real American Patriots are left that can identify textbook TREASON..

You and I are finally in agreement.

trpmb6 wrote:

Treason is John Brennan's CIA spying on congress

Once again, you do not understand what Treason is.

that was a constitutional breach, and it was a big deal. But good luck with your further trolling sessions.

casinterest wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Treason is John Brennan's CIA spying on congress

Once again, you do not understand what Treason is.

that was a constitutional breach, and it was a big deal. But good luck with your further trolling sessions.

I understand exactly what it is. You can post all the talking heads you want. What you can’t do is show any charges coming from this because they would never hold up.

MikeDrop wrote:

There is far more evidence that President Obama's intel leaders meddled in the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton than there is of Candidate Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election.

Evidence?

MikeDrop wrote:

There is also evidence that some of these anti-Trump partisan intel agents participated in the Mueller investigation.

Evidence that their "partisanship" interfered with the investigation?

RyanairGuru wrote:

Flighty wrote:

The claim is that people in Michigan actually wanted Hillary but were manipulated by Russia to vote Trump. I want to see the measurements of the illegal election meddling and convincing evidence that Michigan actually would have voted Clinton.

Unfortunately the truth is that people in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio liked Trump more than they did Clinton. They thought he did a better job campaigning. He gave better speeches. I find that devastating. That is the scandal here.

This is so, so very true, and I say this as someone who despises Trump with every ounce of my being. I don't doubt for a second that there was Russian interference in the 2016 election, but there has not yet been any conclusive evidence that it swayed the outcome in any of the key swing states.

The reality is that Clinton was a weak candidate that the Democratic establishment ordained as the next president for no reason other than it was 'her turn.' She utterly failed to connect with the average Joe on the street in working America, and here we are.

Until the DNC is willing to confront the role that they played in losing an unloseable election the Democrts will continue to underperform against the odds. I don't believe that Sanders was the answer, but the entire establishment Democrat Party (starting with Biden, but there were other options) sat back and let her progress with their blessing.

So Russia gets a free pass and the Democrats should stand in the corner and think about what they did wrong?

Ludicrous.

VTKillarney wrote:

casinterest wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Treason is John Brennan's CIA spying on congress

Once again, you do not understand what Treason is.

that was a constitutional breach, and it was a big deal. But good luck with your further trolling sessions.

I understand exactly what it is. You can post all the talking heads you want. What you can’t do is show any charges coming from this because they would never hold up.

Of course they won't hold up. We have Fox (Pravda's pet of the west) influencing the GOP held house and senate to not do jack shit.

MikeDrop wrote:

Tugger wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

"When your own intelligence has proven itself to be a corrupt, lying, biased group against you, would you believe them? Is belief a logical response?"

Two points that you get wrong make your premise fail:
1.) There has been no proof that "our intelligence community" is corrupt, lying and biased against the president. (Some try to pick and choose and look at "Squirrel!!" aspects but there no real evidence let alone proof that our intelligence groups are failing the president.)
2.) Belief isn't required. Information is presented. Vetted information. And sources and reasoning and justification for the data and facts presented is also provided.
Tugg

There is far more evidence that President Obama's intel leaders meddled in the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton than there is of Candidate Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election.

There is also evidence that some of these anti-Trump partisan intel agents participated in the Mueller investigation.

The damage to the reputation of the US intel community by President Obama will last a very long time.

Mike Drop

Could you provide links please? I had not heard that and I want to read more. Thank you.

Tugger wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

There is far more evidence that President Obama's intel leaders meddled in the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton than there is of Candidate Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election.

There is also evidence that some of these anti-Trump partisan intel agents participated in the Mueller investigation.

The damage to the reputation of the US intel community by President Obama will last a very long time.

Mike Drop

1.) Obama? Really? You fall back to the: It's Obama's fault? OK. Show me the "evidence" you speak of regarding his or his administration's meddling in favor of Hillary. Not hearsay, not conjecture and editorial notes but actual evidence. It should be easy since a devoted foe of Hillary's is in control currently.
2.) There is also evidence that pro-trump partisan intel agents also participated. You would need to review all records of all agents involved to see what if any partisan lean there may be for individual agents (since everyone has some preference). However that still does not mean nor show that the job performed was impacted in a deleterious manner due to any agents political preferences. Left or right.
3.) How much damage do you think Trump is causing to the US intelligence community? And how long do you think it will last?

Tugg

I really don't get it. In the lead up to the election the FBI said nothing about their ongoing investigation of Trump's ties with Russia but announced a reopening of the Clinton e-mail investigation a week before the election. For some reason Republicans think the FBI is against them.

I seem to recall, in the first six years of the Obama presidency, righties were DEMANDING everyone quit blaming Bush for everything. From the first second Obama was elected, righties kept crying how "the economic collapse is fully under Obama's guide now" and "the Iraq war is fully under Obama's control now" and everything that happened the administration before should just be ignored because it was all Obama's fault. Now, two years into the orange traitor's term, here these same people are still blaming Obama for literally everything.

And, yet, they claim to be the party of personal responsibility.

BTW. where is the Obamacare replacement that was supposed to cost us less and cover more? Where are tRump's tax returns he said he would release if he were elected?

jetero wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

Flighty wrote:

The claim is that people in Michigan actually wanted Hillary but were manipulated by Russia to vote Trump. I want to see the measurements of the illegal election meddling and convincing evidence that Michigan actually would have voted Clinton.

Unfortunately the truth is that people in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio liked Trump more than they did Clinton. They thought he did a better job campaigning. He gave better speeches. I find that devastating. That is the scandal here.

This is so, so very true, and I say this as someone who despises Trump with every ounce of my being. I don't doubt for a second that there was Russian interference in the 2016 election, but there has not yet been any conclusive evidence that it swayed the outcome in any of the key swing states.

The reality is that Clinton was a weak candidate that the Democratic establishment ordained as the next president for no reason other than it was 'her turn.' She utterly failed to connect with the average Joe on the street in working America, and here we are.

Until the DNC is willing to confront the role that they played in losing an unloseable election the Democrts will continue to underperform against the odds. I don't believe that Sanders was the answer, but the entire establishment Democrat Party (starting with Biden, but there were other options) sat back and let her progress with their blessing.

So Russia gets a free pass and the Democrats should stand in the corner and think about what they did wrong?

Ludicrous.

That’s not what I said.

In hindsight it seems likely that Clinton could have lost Michigan and Ohio regardless of Russian interference. While I am not making excuses at all for Russia, and I hope that heads starting rolling soon for illegal collusion, the Democrats would be amiss to believe it is the only reason they lost.

cledaybuck wrote:

I really don't get it. In the lead up to the election the FBI said nothing about their ongoing investigation of Trump's ties with Russia but announced a reopening of the Clinton e-mail investigation a week before the election. For some reason Republicans think the FBI is against them.

Most have publicly noted their difference of opinions on the FBI rank and file (everyone supports) vs FBI leadership (Democrats hated the leadership just before the election, Republicans hated the leadership after the election).

My main disdain is with how Peter Strzok modified Comey's "exoneration" letter in the weeks leading up to the announcement. Changing "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" is clearly something he was coached on - likely by Lisa Page. Many of my colleagues (most of whom all have security clearances and have been explicitly told by their FSO's to NEVER do what Clinton did) all felt Strzok did so because of his bias. It was not Comey's place to say whether or not any prosecutor would reasonably take the case. Another issue with the email server - Either Clinton is really just that dumb and couldn't handle having multiple email accounts on one device (or use multiple devices - which by the way we know she is capable of doing from her own admission) or she was deliberately bypassing the state department's IT systems to hide things from eventual FOIA and congressional oversight requests. She's been in politics a long time. I'm pretty sure she isn't dumb. She knew what she was doing. Just like any of us wouldn't deliberately create an email server, at our own cost, to bypass our company's email system, neither should any elected officials. And this includes Trump's administration - there are reports out there that they may be doing so and they should cease such activity immediately - especially after railing against Clinton about the same issue for so long.

You bet your arse that Comey would have been fired if Clinton had been elected. And rightfully so, he broke chain of command. The IG report supports Rosenthal's recommendation to fire Comey. A lot of people seem to forget that Trump didn't fire Comey until AFTER such recommendation. And it came from Rosenthal, not Sessions.

Not to mention the rampant unmasking requests by Powers and Rice.


About Russia. Democrats are just upset that they were duped and had their dirty laundry aired out. If all Russia had released was squeaky clean stuff nobody would be upset. But instead we learned about Hillary's campaign colluding with CNN to get debate questions early. We learned that DNC/DCCC staffers and John Podesta are really computer inept. But really we didn't learn anything of real consequence. Nothing that would have swayed the election.

I've had some time to think the Russian summit over. In my opinion, the Democrats could have made some legitimate inroads over how the summit was handled. Trump didn't commit treason (when was the last time you saw treason charges brought?), but he should not have taken Putin's side on the Russian interference matter.

But here's the problem. The Democrats are the boy who cried wolf. Ever since the election, they have complained about everything and anything. If Trump uses the wrong toilet paper Rachel Maddow is on television saying that it's the end of the United States as we know it.

So instead of actually making inroads, this is likely to get tuned out by much of the electorate. They will chalk it up to Trump being Trump and the Democrats being Democrats. Since the economy is still good it's easy for them to tune out the Democrats' histrionics.

It's a lesson in picking your battles.

I would encourage everyone to read this Twitter thread by Seth Abramson about the arrest of the alleged Russian “spy”.

I don’t see how Trump supporters can look at themselves in the mirror and not throw up.

(Actually, I’m thinking most are racist, homophobic a-holes, so that explains it.)

And might I point out the last two tweets to see how how deeply embroiled the leadership of the GOP is with Russia? Many of them are compromised already.

https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/1019041395175317505?s=21

johnboy wrote:

I would encourage everyone to read this Twitter thread by Seth Abramson about the arrest of the alleged Russian “spy”.

I don’t see how Trump supporters can look at themselves in the mirror and not throw up.

(Actually, I’m thinking most are racist, homophobic a-holes, so that explains it.)

And might I point out the last two tweets to see how how deeply embroiled the leadership of the GOP is with Russia? Many of them are compromised already.

https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/1019041395175317505?s=21

Here is a video from a 2015 rally of him interacting with the "spy"

https://youtu.be/4Fp1TioaLcg

RyanairGuru wrote:

jetero wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

This is so, so very true, and I say this as someone who despises Trump with every ounce of my being. I don't doubt for a second that there was Russian interference in the 2016 election, but there has not yet been any conclusive evidence that it swayed the outcome in any of the key swing states.

The reality is that Clinton was a weak candidate that the Democratic establishment ordained as the next president for no reason other than it was 'her turn.' She utterly failed to connect with the average Joe on the street in working America, and here we are.

Until the DNC is willing to confront the role that they played in losing an unloseable election the Democrts will continue to underperform against the odds. I don't believe that Sanders was the answer, but the entire establishment Democrat Party (starting with Biden, but there were other options) sat back and let her progress with their blessing.

So Russia gets a free pass and the Democrats should stand in the corner and think about what they did wrong?

Ludicrous.

That’s not what I said.

In hindsight it seems likely that Clinton could have lost Michigan and Ohio regardless of Russian interference. While I am not making excuses at all for Russia, and I hope that heads starting rolling soon for illegal collusion, the Democrats would be amiss to believe it is the only reason they lost.

The election was almost 2 years ago. I don’t think many people are debating the outcome.

The focus is whether the President of the United States is a foreign intelligence asset.

Not quite sure why there’s a vocal contingent on here who so damned intent on shrugging that very real possibility off.

johnboy wrote:

(Actually, I’m thinking most are racist, homophobic a-holes, so that explains it.)

Actually most aren't. But feel free to continue believing as such. You and others who continue to believe such are only doing so because you don't want to accept the real reasons why people in so many states flipped after being reliably democrat for generations.

jetero wrote:

The focus is whether the President of the United States is a foreign intelligence asset.

Not quite sure why there’s a vocal contingent on here who so damned intent on shrugging that very real possibility off.

The left says Trump is a moron. Completely and totally inept.

Oh yeah he's a foreign intelligence asset who completely covered so many tracks that we haven't seen a shred of evidence yet of collusion.

Also the left: Putin has blackmail evidence of Trump pissing on the same bed Obama used in Russia.

Keep throwing stuff at the wall, none of it is sticking.

What will the left do when Mueller finally comes out and says there is no evidence? Just going to go with option #2 above and say he was just too good at covering his tracks? But this would suggest he is far more cunning than the left currently claims.

trpmb6 wrote:

The focus is whether the President of the United States is a foreign intelligence asset.

Not quite sure why there’s a vocal contingent on here who so damned intent on shrugging that very real possibility off.

The left says Trump is a moron. Completely and totally inept.

Oh yeah he's a foreign intelligence asset who completely covered so many tracks that we haven't seen a shred of evidence yet of collusion.

Also the left: Putin has blackmail evidence of Trump pissing on the same bed Obama used in Russia.

Keep throwing stuff at the wall, none of it is sticking.

What will the left do when Mueller finally comes out and says there is no evidence? Just going to go with option #2 above and say he was just too good at covering his tracks? But this would suggest he is far more cunning than the left currently claims.[/quote]

You seem 100% confident hat Mueller has nothing on Trump, and yet he is not finished with his investigation. After just 18 months he's issued some 28 indictments including 6 to people that were part of Trump's campaign or actually leading the effort. And lest you forget, the GOP insisted on investigating the Clinton's for over 10 years and only ever managed to execute an impeachment trial after they sniffed cum on a dress. So just think for a second how far and how long Mueller might go to get his man. He may never get Donnie on tape asking Putin to help him win the election, even I think Trump is just smart enough not to be that stupid. But again, with Bill we went from a decades old real estate deal to a nut-busted gown, so where Mueller ends up with this investigation is anyone's guess. But to casually dismiss 28 indictments thus far and say there's no nothing sauce on this nothing burger is pathetically ignorant at this point. Trump is third rate at best, good for a golf course or idiotic TV show ratings, but he should not EVER have been allowed anywhere near the White House. He's a fucking embarrassment.

You guys he meant to say “‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia [who interfered in the US elections]…sort of a double negative’”...innocent mistake for a totally stable genius. The GOP can go back to pretending it has a backbone that isn't powered by white rage until Trump inevitably shits the bed next.

Dropped one of the quotes in your post there, Wingman.

I'm not 100% confident Mueller says there is no evidence. I'm reasonably confident to near 100%, mainly because, as you noted, (though i wouldn't say "just") 18 months in and we haven't seen any leaks or anything suggesting collusion at the top. At best you have circumstantial evidence with Don Jr. in an il-advised meeting at trump tower that was maybe 20 minutes long.

Keep in mind Mueller's special counsel is restricted in scope. His investigation is not like Ken Starr's. He won't have as much latitude to go down the route Ken Starr did.

I have not casually dismissed 28 indictments. That's you putting words in my mouth. Try to look at this a little more objectively - Washington is notorious for leaking. If Mueller had something at this point we'd know - his team stuffed full of democrats would have let us known by now.

Discuss the topic. The increasing frequency of personal attacks in this forum is beyond ridiculous, and users are going to start being warned and banned more frequently. This site is supposed to be about respectful discussion with other aviation enthusiasts, not political trolling and personal attacks. One way or another, it's going to stop. If you can't discuss the topic without attacking someone else — even if you don't agree with them — then this site isn't for you.

✈️ atcsundevil

Thank you for that ATCSUNDEVIL....

Though I do wonder why my first post in this thread, actually it was the first reply to the OP was deleted when all it said to the question was "I doubt it"

I actually came back to this thread to point out I was wrong, it does look like some of the GOP is actually pushing back, we shall see how long it lasts.

I would also like to say this, especially to trpmb6, thank you for adding to this discussion, I may not agree with all that you post, but at least it seems to be in some way thought out.

atcsundevil wrote:

Discuss the topic. The increasing frequency of personal attacks in this forum is beyond ridiculous, and users are going to start being warned and banned more frequently. This site is supposed to be about respectful discussion with other aviation enthusiasts, not political trolling and personal attacks. One way or another, it's going to stop. If you can't discuss the topic without attacking someone else — even if you don't agree with them — then this site isn't for you.

✈️ atcsundevil

You know full well that banning doesn't work with these people.

Free VPN software and free username registration delays them posting again by about 6 minutes. Two innocuous posts need approval and then its carte blanche. Rinse and repeat.

These throwaway accounts are distracting from the ones they have long established to make them seem "not as bad as those" so they get away with it.

trpmb6 wrote:

I have not casually dismissed 28 indictments. That's you putting words in my mouth. Try to look at this a little more objectively - Washington is notorious for leaking. If Mueller had something at this point we'd know - his team stuffed full of democrats would have let us known by now.

OK, fair enough. But I disagree strenuously when you say Mueller and his team "stuffed full of Democrats". This seems to be taken directly from Trump or Fox, the insinuation..or better yet the direct accusation..that the FBI is some kind of DNC political police deep state machine. It's a ludicrous and very, very stupid thing to say and one only needs to point out the fact that in the run up to the election a Democratic President and his inner circle of Democrats and the FBI and Comey and Stzork and all the rest were somehow capable of keeping dead silent on the Russia/Trump investigation but somehow couldn't keep their mouths shut about the Democratic contender. Why? How?

The statement or belief you echoed simply does not match up with the facts. It's patently and objectively absurd.

MikeDrop wrote:

Tugger wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

"When your own intelligence has proven itself to be a corrupt, lying, biased group against you, would you believe them? Is belief a logical response?"

Two points that you get wrong make your premise fail:
1.) There has been no proof that "our intelligence community" is corrupt, lying and biased against the president. (Some try to pick and choose and look at "Squirrel!!" aspects but there no real evidence let alone proof that our intelligence groups are failing the president.)
2.) Belief isn't required. Information is presented. Vetted information. And sources and reasoning and justification for the data and facts presented is also provided.
Tugg

There is far more evidence that President Obama's intel leaders meddled in the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton than there is of Candidate Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election.

There is also evidence that some of these anti-Trump partisan intel agents participated in the Mueller investigation.

The damage to the reputation of the US intel community by President Obama will last a very long time.

Mike Drop

Why is it that you must lie so often, and so obviously, to try and make a point? Pretty much everything you've said here is a baseless and total lie.

jetwet1 wrote:

Thank you for that ATCSUNDEVIL....

Though I do wonder why my first post in this thread, actually it was the first reply to the OP was deleted when all it said to the question was "I doubt it"

I actually came back to this thread to point out I was wrong, it does look like some of the GOP is actually pushing back, we shall see how long it lasts.

I would also like to say this, especially to trpmb6, thank you for adding to this discussion, I may not agree with all that you post, but at least it seems to be in some way thought out.

I didn't delete anything of yours, but just saying "I doubt it" could be considered to be a low quality post. It's at the moderator's discretion. Basically the post just needed to have more substance.

SpeedJet wrote:

[You know full well that banning doesn't work with these people.

Free VPN software and free username registration delays them posting again by about 6 minutes. Two innocuous posts need approval and then its carte blanche. Rinse and repeat.

These throwaway accounts are distracting from the ones they have long established to make them seem "not as bad as those" so they get away with it.

We know, and unfortunately the powers that be have resisted our efforts to bring back paid memberships. We've discussed various remedies, and we're working on a way to fight back against these types of users.

At this point it’s undeniable that something has happened to compromise this president.

I think most deplorables at this point either stay at home with Fox News with or are so embarrassed they voted for a treasonous president (and consequently Republican Party), that they are digging in heels to prevent their heads exploding from the massive cognitive dissonance.

Check out Orange Turd calling on her at a news conference, posing as a reporter, throwing out a softball question on Putin.

Check out pics of the ARRESTED Russian Gun Queen with members of the GOP at the NRA convention. Hi Bobby Jindal et al.

It’s actually some delicious payback for the NRA — one of the worst out there — looking as if they may have quietly funneled money from the Kremlin to several GOP operatives. Indirectly responsible for murders AND bringing down our beloved democracy? Give me a life time membership!

How does it feel to vote for — and defend! — a treasonous president, just because you hated Hillary so, so much?

trpmb6 wrote:

Dropped one of the quotes in your post there, Wingman.

I'm not 100% confident Mueller says there is no evidence. I'm reasonably confident to near 100%, mainly because, as you noted, (though i wouldn't say "just") 18 months in and we haven't seen any leaks or anything suggesting collusion at the top. At best you have circumstantial evidence with Don Jr. in an il-advised meeting at trump tower that was maybe 20 minutes long.

Keep in mind Mueller's special counsel is restricted in scope. His investigation is not like Ken Starr's. He won't have as much latitude to go down the route Ken Starr did.

I have not casually dismissed 28 indictments. That's you putting words in my mouth. Try to look at this a little more objectively - Washington is notorious for leaking. If Mueller had something at this point we'd know - his team stuffed full of democrats would have let us known by now.

Some of the people indicted have pleaded guilty to a lower charge. These people were connected to Russian hacking somehow, presumably. I mean, why would they plead guilty and be on Mueller's radar for Russian hacking? Perhaps they pleaded guilty and help the investigation because they have information to prosecute tRump? Fingers crossed that is the case!

johnboy wrote:

At this point it’s undeniable that something has happened to compromise this president.

I think most deplorables at this point either stay at home with Fox News with or are so embarrassed they voted for a treasonous president (and consequently Republican Party), that they are digging in heels to prevent their heads exploding from the massive cognitive dissonance.

Check out Orange Turd calling on her at a news conference, posing as a reporter, throwing out a softball question on Putin.

Check out pics of the ARRESTED Russian Gun Queen with members of the GOP at the NRA convention. Hi Bobby Jindal et al.

It’s actually some delicious payback for the NRA — one of the worst out there — looking as if they may have quietly funneled money from the Kremlin to several GOP operatives. Indirectly responsible for murders AND bringing down our beloved democracy? Give me a life time membership!

How does it feel to vote for — and defend! — a treasonous president, just because you hated Hillary so, so much?

There is no credible evidence that Trump has been compromised.

There is no evidence that the NRA funneled money.

cargolex wrote:

MikeDrop wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Two points that you get wrong make your premise fail:
1.) There has been no proof that "our intelligence community" is corrupt, lying and biased against the president. (Some try to pick and choose and look at "Squirrel!!" aspects but there no real evidence let alone proof that our intelligence groups are failing the president.)
2.) Belief isn't required. Information is presented. Vetted information. And sources and reasoning and justification for the data and facts presented is also provided.
Tugg

There is far more evidence that President Obama's intel leaders meddled in the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton than there is of Candidate Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election.

There is also evidence that some of these anti-Trump partisan intel agents participated in the Mueller investigation.

The damage to the reputation of the US intel community by President Obama will last a very long time.

Mike Drop

Why is it that you must lie so often, and so obviously, to try and make a point? Pretty much everything you've said here is a baseless and total lie.

I guess the lie is the in the eye of the beholder.
Nothing in my post is baseless. It has been shown that the FBI had undercover agents within the Trump campaign, which might not be a bad thing. Except that at the same time the FBI was collaborating with Fusion GPS (who was working for the DNC) and foreign spies from the UK and Russia to create and distribute the fake Russian Dossier. The public leaking of this dossier weeks before the election was intended to harm then candidate Trump.

It has also been shown that the FBI used this fake dossier in FISA warrants to collect information about the Trump campaign - (they lied).

These, and many other similar situations are extremely damaging to the public trust of the US intel apparatus and any patriotic American should be outraged.

Trump is correct to be suspicious of any organization like these that worked with the Democrats to defeat him.

Mike Drop

VTKillarney wrote:

There is no credible evidence that Trump has been compromised.

There is no evidence that the NRA funneled money.

None so blind as those who will not see.

So the arrest of Maria Butina is a scapegoat?

MikeDrop wrote:

I guess the lie is the in the eye of the beholder.
Nothing in my post is baseless. It has been shown that the FBI had undercover agents within the Trump campaign, which might not be a bad thing. Except that at the same time the FBI was collaborating with Fusion GPS (who was working for the DNC) and foreign spies from the UK and Russia to create and distribute the fake Russian Dossier. The public leaking of this dossier weeks before the election was intended to harm then candidate Trump.

It has also been shown that the FBI used this fake dossier in FISA warrants to collect information about the Trump campaign - (they lied).

These, and many other similar situations are extremely damaging to the public trust of the US intel apparatus and any patriotic American should be outraged.

Trump is correct to be suspicious of any organization like these that worked with the Democrats to defeat him.

Mike Drop

I guess these are some of those "alternative facts" we've heard so much about.

Since the Trump campaign had several people under suspicion of being Russian Agents, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, etc., it's natural to assume that the FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT might be used to keep tabs on those people, one of whom is now in jail, and ended up there because his bail was revoked for witness tampering and who then had to be moved to a more secure facility for violating even that level of remand.

You're right - Patriotic Americans should be outraged - at Trump and those who support his treasonous fascist regime - and they certainly are.

MSPNWA wrote:

When your own intelligence has proven itself to be a corrupt, lying, biased group against you, would you believe them? Is belief a logical response?

Two possibilities here. One, you have detailed insider knowledge of said corruption/lying. Two, you are just repeating whatever it is you are reading and or hearing from whatever BIASED source you get your "information" from. My money is on two.

einsteinboricua wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

There is no credible evidence that Trump has been compromised.

There is no evidence that the NRA funneled money.

None so blind as those who will not see.

So the arrest of Maria Butina is a scapegoat?

I was scrolling down just now to use those exact words for describing the Republican Party" None so blind as those who will not see" My Wife who I told earlier got a good chuckle for sure. Well said, right on the money.

einsteinboricua wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

There is no credible evidence that Trump has been compromised.

There is no evidence that the NRA funneled money.

None so blind as those who will not see.

So the arrest of Maria Butina is a scapegoat?

Unless I’m mistaken, that indictment does not allege that the NRA funneled money.

VTKillarney wrote:

Unless I’m mistaken, that indictment does not allege that the NRA funneled money.

So I'm guessing the Treasury Department's newly issued directive to not require organizations like the NRA to disclose their big donors is just protecting free speech? Kind of interesting that it was issued shortly after Butina was arrested.

But if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a lion and not a duck.

einsteinboricua wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Unless I’m mistaken, that indictment does not allege that the NRA funneled money.

So I'm guessing the Treasury Department's newly issued directive to not require organizations like the NRA to disclose their big donors is just protecting free speech? Kind of interesting that it was issued shortly after Butina was arrested.

But if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a lion and not a duck.

If you have evidence, I’m all ears. I’m just not willing to emulate Alex Jones.

seb146 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Your orange god just told us that he believes Putin over OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE.

When your own intelligence has proven itself to be a corrupt, lying, biased group against you, would you believe them? Is belief a logical response?

wow.

Even European agencies said that Russia hacked our elections. And, yet, Putin is more trustworthy? Because intelligence agencies are corrupt? Is Putin a saint and no one told us?

Excuse me, what again is the definition of "hacked" in reference to an election?

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

If you want to know what you are talking about, why don't you read the 29 page indictment of the Russians?

That's okay. I'll read the __ page indictment of Hillary instead.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

seb146 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

When your own intelligence has proven itself to be a corrupt, lying, biased group against you, would you believe them? Is belief a logical response?

wow.

Even European agencies said that Russia hacked our elections. And, yet, Putin is more trustworthy? Because intelligence agencies are corrupt? Is Putin a saint and no one told us?

Excuse me, what again is the definition of "hacked" in reference to an election?

I have already provided links. Until you do the same for the many questions I have asked you, I refuse to post those again.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

If you want to know what you are talking about, why don't you read the 29 page indictment of the Russians?

That's okay. I'll read the __ page indictment of Hillary instead.

That blank line you put there? The correct answer is:

ZERO!!!

BOOM

wingman wrote:

Also the left: Putin has blackmail evidence of Trump pissing on the same bed Obama used in Russia..

Not "the left", the Steele dossier. You know, the one that got kicked off by fellow Republicans......

Hilarious idea that one could blackmail Trump with an indecent video, considering that he is a self admitted sexual predator that admitted to actual crimes, something that is somewhat shameful, but not illegal will do nothing. And if that video exists, Trumps first interview about the tape was just about there not being a tape, not once "that didn´t happen" ......

Putin has something on Trump that would make him go to prison for a longer time than he can afford and of enough magnitude that not going to prison no matter what if it ever comes out.

Good bet: Money laundering, The Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 violations would be the obvious choice given Trumps CIS operations. Trump Tower Baku comes to mind, you know the one we have good reason to believe had Iranian Republican Guards money in it.......... and we know the Trump organisation was aware of that fact, never asked a single question about the source of the money, and ended the business relationship only in December 2016. I do think US businesses are legally required to vet foreign sources of money.......

best regards
Thomas

The GOP may have to finally rise up and reign in Donald Trump. The continued circus that is his cabinet is starting to show up in polling on the level of corruption within this GOP.


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/ ... oll-728977


A majority of voters (56 percent) said congressional Republicans are not doing enough oversight of the Trump administration — a number that’s even higher among independents (57 percent).

The polling suggests that the Republican tax cuts — and loopholes tapped by some of the same members who voted for the plan — may be an area ripe for exploitation.

The GOP needs to start finding ways to mitigate the disasters that Trump's Administration keeps bringing. Will they stand up to him more now?

the messaging from Trump on Putin changed in the last 24 hours. Can the GOP get him to change more?

The idea to control Trump seems outlandish. It is like thinking to control a 3 year old child.