Lol Dwumpf wrote:
just dropping in wrote:Hey libtwats! How's your Russia thing going? What are your new reasons for impeachment today?
God bless you, Mr. President. How you still have these "men" on an emotional bender is beyond me. Now let's get that top tax bracket down while they're basking in emotions and focused on the gays.
He's taking away their insurance in a few months. It's going to be awesome.
Freedom isn't free!!
Okay, President Trump, I'll be fair and stand in your corner for a moment.
Let's assume that the leaks are all "fake news" -- the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc. are all in collusion to make up fake stories. IF they are "fabricated", then sure, something should be done to stem these outlandish stories. But from the sounds of it, the GOP hasn't outright denied the leaks. Instead, they push for "punishing the leakers."
Cornyn, Gowdy, etc. -- none of these hardcore GOP-ers have stated that the "leaks are patently false." So if we're going to go off of the whole "there is no collusion because there's no evidence" that Trumpsters seem to love, then I can answer back with "the leaks are legitimate because there's no evidence that they're false."
It's too huge a conspiracy to be even remotely plausible.
Sources of stories get corroborated by multiple news agencies so you'd need NYT, WaPo, CNN, Reuters et al to coordinate in conspiracy. That's at minimum dozens of people who are in on it and it seems likely that 1 of those people would expose such a massive conspiracy.
Or if the source is a conspiracy of many several bogus leakers they are SO GOOD at fake leaks that they outsmarted professional journalists from all those agencies time and time again, with perfect phoney documents and impeccably coordinated stories.
Neither the Washington Post or the NYT has mentioned that the trump administration tried to trick them with fake leaks at least once as well, but they actually went to verify them.
Therefore you are dishonest or dumb.
Much smarter than u wrote:
Okay, President Trump, I'll be fair and stand in your corner for a moment.
Let's assume that the leaks are all "fake news" -- the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc. are all in collusion to make up fake stories. IF they are "fabricated", then sure, something should be done to stem these outlandish stories. But from the sounds of it, the GOP hasn't outright denied the leaks. Instead, they push for "punishing the leakers."
Cornyn, Gowdy, etc. -- none of these hardcore GOP-ers have stated that the "leaks are patently false." So if we're going to go off of the whole "there is no collusion because there's no evidence" that Trumpsters seem to love, then I can answer back with "the leaks are legitimate because there's no evidence that they're false."
It's too huge a conspiracy to be even remotely plausible.
Sources of stories get corroborated by multiple news agencies so you'd need NYT, WaPo, CNN, Reuters et al to coordinate in conspiracy. That's at minimum dozens of people who are in on it and it seems likely that 1 of those people would expose such a massive conspiracy.
Or if the source is a conspiracy of many several bogus leakers they are SO GOOD at fake leaks that they outsmarted professional journalists from all those agencies time and time again, with perfect phoney documents and impeccably coordinated stories.
Neither the Washington Post or the NYT has mentioned that the trump administration tried to trick them with fake leaks at least once as well, but they actually went to verify them.
Therefore you are dishonest or dumb.
You're an absolute moron
Much smarter than u wrote:
Okay, President Trump, I'll be fair and stand in your corner for a moment.
It's entirely possible, on the exact issue of a Russian back channel, the explanation is possibly correct, "back channels" exist. It's not illegal. Again, we're talking about a President so cunning and simultaneously impulsive and stupid that his own idiocy is the thing that saves him.
However, like Clinton, the issue that starts an investigation will very likely not be the one that ends up defining the investigation.
The explosive revelation will probably be 100s of millions of dollars in financing from Russian oligarchs in the years prior to the election as a normal part of Statecraft.
When the individual then becomes part of an administration, of course they don't want to see 100s of millions of dollars in financing dry up because they spent a couple of years in pubilc service and act accordingly. Something like that is what's going to ruin them.
If we are lucky, Trump is stripped of all of the people he trusts and he's left with the VP drawing Trump into his own impeachment. As long as this takes about 3 years, it's perfect.
Those pesky facts getting in the way of your Nazi narrative again? Want a tissue or something?
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:It's entirely possible, on the exact issue of a Russian back channel, the explanation is possibly correct, "back channels" exist. It's not illegal.
Let's keep this straight.
Back channels are not illegal in and of themselves.
The back channels Kushner and Flynn were asking for are almost definitely illegal. Just asking the Russians for the back channel is probably illegal in this case. If the story is true, they are probably both guilty of a felony under the Espionage Act, the Logan Act, and others depending on the details.
Omitting their Russian contacts on their security clearance forms is also a felony.
Fat hurts wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:It's entirely possible, on the exact issue of a Russian back channel, the explanation is possibly correct, "back channels" exist. It's not illegal.Let's keep this straight.
Back channels are not illegal in and of themselves.
The back channels Kushner and Flynn were asking for are almost definitely illegal. Just asking the Russians for the back channel is probably illegal in this case. If the story is true, they are probably both guilty of a felony under the Espionage Act, the Logan Act, and others depending on the details.
Omitting their Russian contacts on their security clearance forms is also a felony.
The reason all of this may be illegeal is the timing. In order to guarantee smooth transitions of power, there is only one administration at a time in the US. For another administration to begin to negotiate with a foreign power prior to Inauguration Day is illegal. It appears that some members of Trump's team where basically negotiating with Russia prior to Trump's inauguration. While some may view this as a technicality, it is a big deal and it is illegal.
A vast minority feel the way Trump does. He was an embarrassment on the world stage. The result being that most of the countries that have been friendly to the US are now distrustful. Only Russia is on the good channel. Also countries that let Trump build hotels and golf courses--those are friends. Don't let Trump build what he wants on lucrative terms--those are bad enemies.
Well........ wrote:
I don't know if it's a stereotype if it's true. Trump does represent how many Americans act and feel.
Maybe not the majority, but way too many.
The worse show wrote:Trump epitomized the old stereotype of the fat ugly American on his trip abroad. It was plain embarrassing. He rode in a golf cart when other world leaders were able to walk. He pushed himself to the front of a line for his photo op . He shook hands with the French President as if he was an 18 yr old boy who just lost his girlfriend to the boy he was shaking hands with.
He was classless.
Fat hurts wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:It's entirely possible, on the exact issue of a Russian back channel, the explanation is possibly correct, "back channels" exist. It's not illegal.Let's keep this straight.
Back channels are not illegal in and of themselves.
The back channels Kushner and Flynn were asking for are almost definitely illegal. Just asking the Russians for the back channel is probably illegal in this case. If the story is true, they are probably both guilty of a felony under the Espionage Act, the Logan Act, and others depending on the details.
Omitting their Russian contacts on their security clearance forms is also a felony.
I don't disagree. If we are lucky, it's an easy prosecution. But, this is the law and I'm not a lawyer.
What should not happen is this becomes the Left's version of Benghazi and email servers. That would be bad and a huge mistake for everyone.
Pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
What should not happen is this becomes the Left's version of Benghazi and email servers. That would be bad and a huge mistake for everyone.
Excellent point. It has to be done by the book.
I do think that's where the special prosecutor helps out immensely. It also helps that, unlike Benghazi, there is lots of wrongdoing to investigate and ultimately to litigate.
Fat hurts wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:It's entirely possible, on the exact issue of a Russian back channel, the explanation is possibly correct, "back channels" exist. It's not illegal.Let's keep this straight.
Back channels are not illegal in and of themselves.
The back channels Kushner and Flynn were asking for are almost definitely illegal. Just asking the Russians for the back channel is probably illegal in this case. If the story is true, they are probably both guilty of a felony under the Espionage Act, the Logan Act, and others depending on the details.
Omitting their Russian contacts on their security clearance forms is also a felony.
I'm not so sure the backchannel would have been illegal - do you have a serious source who says it would have been?
and also collusion is probably not illegal either, unless it was some sort of conspiracy to commit a crime.
Hacking emails and slander is illegal.
U have a good point wrote:
Hacking emails and slander is illegal.
Trump had Russia hack emails.
The truth is not slander.
Planting false stories to purpose harm is slander.
Being complicit with the completion of a crime is illegal.
These clips of Trump's utterly ridiculous handshakes are very funny.
What wrong with that guy?
The worse show wrote:
Trump epitomized the old stereotype of the fat ugly American on his trip abroad. It was plain embarrassing. He rode in a golf cart when other world leaders were able to walk. He pushed himself to the front of a line for his photo op . He shook hands with the French President as if he was an 18 yr old boy who just lost his girlfriend to the boy he was shaking hands with.
He was classless.
Was?
these clips are funny wrote:
These clips of Trump's utterly ridiculous handshakes are very funny.
What wrong with that guy?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-handshake_us_592adb83e4b0df57cbfc23fd?utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&utm_source=politics_fb&utm_medium=facebook&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013§ion=politics&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
Small hands = small peepee
just dropping in wrote:
Hey libtwats! How's your Russia thing going? What are your new reasons for impeachment today?
Actually, I'm an independent, but thanks for the concern. In terms of the 'Russia thing,' it's going well. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that this isn't going to end well for Trump, Kushner, Flynn, Sessions, Pence, ____, etc.
Unfortunately, this administration has already done incredible damage to the US's reputation with our allies.
I'm comforted by the patriots that will see to Trump's impeachment, but am concerned about what it has done to our country. Regardless of affiliation, it's not good. Beginning of the end or will we be a stronger republic because of Trump?
Country over party. Always.
this is a guy who, after stories that his tweets might have to be filtered because they keep fouling up WH policy, tweets 10 times in one day.
And yeah this is a guy with nuclear weapons. A guy who feels a need to prove he's his own man.
these clips are funny wrote:
These clips of Trump's utterly ridiculous handshakes are very funny.
What wrong with that guy?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-handshake_us_592adb83e4b0df57cbfc23fd?utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&utm_source=politics_fb&utm_medium=facebook&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013§ion=politics&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
Now that politicians know the game Trump plays, can you imagine what a joke future handshakes will be.