Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Cheerful Spring

batgoat wrote: »

The judge concluded there was not enough detail in terms of fox collaborating against his parents. The judge specifically states that the story was baseless and sensational.

The case was thrown out because there was no evidence Fox News misquoted Wheeler about finding evidence Wikileaks was in contact with Seth Rich.

Julian Assange even hinted that Rich was a source for them and his murder was suspicious. I going to trust Wikileaks who sole aim is to reveal the truth to people

prawnsambo

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The case was thrown out because there was no evidence Fox News misquoted Wheeler about finding evidence Wikileaks was in contact with Seth Rich.

Julian Assange even hinted that Rich was a source for them and his murder was suspicious. I going to trust Wikileaks who sole aim is to reveal the truth to people

Wikileaks, the publication arm of Russian state sponsored hacking? That Wikileaks?

batgoat

prawnsambo wrote: »

Wikileaks, the publication arm of Russian state sponsored hacking? That Wikileaks?

I'm still waiting on the actual proof... So far it seems to be a contested quote as the entire basis of Cheerful's view.

Cheerful Spring

prawnsambo wrote: »

Wikileaks, the publication arm of Russian state sponsored hacking? That Wikileaks?

oh god really is that what you believe? You guys are repeating the same mistakes of the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism



WikiLeaks (/ˈwɪkiliːks/) is an international non-profit organisation that publishes secret information, news leaks and classified media provided by anonymous sources.]ts website, initiated in 2006 in Iceland by the organisation Sunshine Press, claims a database of 10 million documents in 10 years since its launch Julian Assange, an Australian Internet activist, is generally described as its founder and director. Kristinn Hrafnsson is its editor-in-chief.

FrostyJack

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

oh god really is that what you believe? You guys are repeating the same mistakes of the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism



WikiLeaks (/ˈwɪkiliːks/) is an international non-profit organisation that publishes secret information, news leaks and classified media provided by anonymous sources.]ts website, initiated in 2006 in Iceland by the organisation Sunshine Press, claims a database of 10 million documents in 10 years since its launch Julian Assange, an Australian Internet activist, is generally described as its founder and director. Kristinn Hrafnsson is its editor-in-chief.

So the group that are so great at truth released all those damning GOP mails from the server that was also hacked? On no wait they just released the Democrats side, which favoured Trump and Russia. Funny that.

Christy42

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

oh god really is that what you believe? You guys are repeating the same mistakes of the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism



WikiLeaks (/ˈwɪkiliːks/) is an international non-profit organisation that publishes secret information, news leaks and classified media provided by anonymous sources.]ts website, initiated in 2006 in Iceland by the organisation Sunshine Press, claims a database of 10 million documents in 10 years since its launch Julian Assange, an Australian Internet activist, is generally described as its founder and director. Kristinn Hrafnsson is its editor-in-chief.

That is not a counter. We know Assange is from Australia. This says nothing about who he works with. Nor does it say he doesn't have an agenda outside of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Stop using some poor dead man's name to peddle conspiracy theories. It is shameful.

Assange very intentionally used Rich's death to try and deflect from his actual sources (which he does not reveal). Hence the reward and hence the hints during the interview on the man's birthday.

everlast75

A stark contrast.

And the republican party, the party of law and order, think Obama was the anti-christ...

https://twitter.com/Mikel_Jollett/status/1088820759990956032?s=19

Quin_Dub

##Mod Note##

OK - The Seth Rich side show is over.

Next poster to bring it up gets a holiday from the forum.

Move on.

mattser

Quin_Dub wrote: »

##Mod Note##

OK - The Seth Rich side show is over.

Next poster to bring it up gets a holiday from the forum.

Move on.

That's a better holiday than a Caribbean Cruise ffs

elli21

Jeez a mate just showed me a link..can't post from this phone ..Rodger Stone being interviewed by John Humprys...Hope someome can post it ..

He was treated as a victim...Humpry never mentioned Stone's racist , homophobic..antisematic views...He just let him ramble with his infowar ****.

We complain in Ireland about how are licence fee is spent....And I agree

But why in the name that all is sacred is Rodger Stone being intervied by the BBC...and none is challenging him about his views...

BabyCheeses

PropJoe10 wrote: »

He's talking absolute drivel about "smart walls" now.

At this rate the wall is going to end up being a single camera and speaker being watched by a Mexican man who says no if anyone shows up on the screen.

Leroy42

A massive climbdown by Trump.

He has had many poor weeks, but this ranks right up there as this hits him directly.

HE had this deal before the shutdown and refused, because he could do better. He then made the 800k, and all those outside of that directly effected such as contractors, so that he could end up exactly where he started.

And instead of accepting the defeat, he openly threatens to do it all again in 3 weeks unless he gets his way!

For all the faults of Obama, he managed to get Obamacare through a partisan house. Healthcare is one of the most divisive subjects in American politics. Trump couldn't even manage to get a wall through. Not when he had the numbers, and now Pelosi, I call her Nancy, has wiped the floor with him.

What an embarrassment of a speech. To have his staff clapping and cheering as if he had actually achieved anything was beyond ridiculous. 18 minutes to try and dig himself out of the whole he had dug. 18 minutes to try to find a way to say that he had messed up, failed and had to agree that he lost. 18 minutes of a man, who up to this point felt that he could never be wrong, having to confront reality.

So according to Trump, unless he gets the 5.7bn in the next 3 weeks he will shutdown again. Instead of taking the defeat on the chin he has now created another deadline to be defeated on. Why would the Dems fold this time? Does he think America will change its mind about who is to blame?

In terms of importance of the subject it isn't (whether the wall is built or not isn't going to make any difference) but in terms of politics I would guess that this is one of the biggest and most public defeats of a POTUS for quite a while.

He has made this uniquely about him. He sent out all those tweets about the GOP being the most united ever etc. So this defeat is very much a personal defeat for him. Can he regather any credibility after that. I would say no, but then I don't think he has any credibility anyway but it will be interesting to see how this plays out to his supporters. It turns out the man hasn't got a plan, doesn't know what he is doing, and isn't the man to get things done.

The only brief positive was that it took the media attention away from Roger Stone arrest and the fallout from that. But even then Pelosi was quick to tweet out that the Russia investigation is still very much to the fore.

If Trump had people advising him to undertake this shutdown then they should be fired immediately. If it was his own decision then those around him should be putting in place measures to remove him from decision in the future as he has shown himself to be a liability to himself, his office and the GOP as a whole.

Professor Moriarty

A fortuitous bonus in this climbdown by The Donald is that conservative right wing commentators and websites are furious with him. Coulter, Cernovich, The Drudge Report and Breitbart, among others, tore into The Donald. 'Trump caves', 'Broken Man' and 'Wimp' are a just a few of the comments they made. So his base is being told he is damaged goods. This is great.

Midlife

I really thunk he messed up in his speech.

He went totally offsctipt - 'we never promised and don't need a wall'

The walls we are building are not medieval walls. They are smart walls designed to meet the needs of frontline border agents and are operationally effective. These barriers are made of steel, have see-through visibility, which is very important, and are equipped with sensors, monitors and cutting-edge technology, including state-of-the-art drones. We do not need 2000 miles of concrete wall from sea to shining sea. We never did. We never proposed that. We never wanted that because we have barriers at the border where our natural structures are as good as anything that we can build. They're already there. They've been there for millions of years.

Back to the script:

As commander-in-chief, my highest priority is the defense of our great country. We cannot surrender operational control over the nation's borders to foreign cartels, traffickers, and smugglers. We want future Americans to come to our country legally and through a system based on merit. We need people to come to our country. We have great companies moving back into the United States and we have the lowest employment and the best employment numbers that we've ever had.

which is well written and sounds reasonable..

Back off script (facepalm for the script writers):

We cannot protect and deliver these blessings without a strong and secure border. I believe that crime in this country can go down by a massive percentage if we have great security on our Southern border. I believe drugs, large percentages of which come through the Southern border, will be cut by a number nobody will believe.

So let me be very clear, we really have no choice but to build a powerful wall or steel barrier. If we don't get a fair deal from Congress, the government will either shut down on February 15 again or I will use the powers afforded to me under the laws in the Constitution of the United States to address this emergency.

You can see that the on-script part is well thought out and tries to justify a position.

But the off-script part goes from...

'we don't need a wall, never did, natural defences etc'

to...

'we really have no choice but to build a powerful wall or steel barrier'

And then he's ALREADY promised another shutdown in 15 days and ALREADY claimed responsibility for it.

So he basically capitulated and then set himself up again.

Regardless of his stance on things which people may disagree with, he is a terrible terrible politician.

Brian?

Tucker Carlson really going off the deep end about the Roger Stone arrest.

My favourite part is that he's minimising the crimes Stone is charged with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SH2z_B6ikE

Captain Obvious

I took a dive into the depths of r/the_donald this morning to try and understand how this spin is working. As far as I can tell, Trump is a genius because he has tricked Pelosi into letting him have a State of the Union to address the nation about the wall. In three weeks he will shut down the government again if he does not get his wall funding and build it by declaring a national emergency and it will be all on the Democrats. The last part seems to be absent some logic though.

Also interesting to see Seth Rich on their front page. There must have been a memo. They are also pushing the "no collusion" line very heavily for Stone.

alchemist33

Pelosi has decided to stick the knife in a little deeper:

"The indictment of Roger Stone makes clear that there was a deliberate, coordinated attempt by top Trump campaign officials to influence the 2016 election and subvert the will of the American people. It is staggering that the President has chosen to surround himself with people who violated the integrity of our democracy and lied to the FBI and Congress about it.

In the face of 37 indictments, the President's continued actions to undermine the Special Counsel investigation raises the questions: what does Putin have on the President, politically, personally or financially? Why has the Trump Administration continued to discuss pulling the U.S. out of NATO, which would be a massive victory for Putin?

Lying to Congress and witness tampering constitute grave crimes. All who commit these illegal acts should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. We cannot allow any effort to intimidate witnesses or prevent them from appearing before Congress.

The Special Counsel investigation is working, and the House will continue to exercise our constitutional oversight responsibility and ensure that the Special Counsel investigation can continue free from interference from the White House."

everlast75

alchemist33 wrote: »

Pelosi has decided to stick the knife in a little deeper:

"The indictment of Roger Stone makes clear that there was a deliberate, coordinated attempt by top Trump campaign officials to influence the 2016 election and subvert the will of the American people. It is staggering that the President has chosen to surround himself with people who violated the integrity of our democracy and lied to the FBI and Congress about it.

In the face of 37 indictments, the President's continued actions to undermine the Special Counsel investigation raises the questions: what does Putin have on the President, politically, personally or financially? Why has the Trump Administration continued to discuss pulling the U.S. out of NATO, which would be a massive victory for Putin?

Lying to Congress and witness tampering constitute grave crimes. All who commit these illegal acts should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. We cannot allow any effort to intimidate witnesses or prevent them from appearing before Congress.

The Special Counsel investigation is working, and the House will continue to exercise our constitutional oversight responsibility and ensure that the Special Counsel investigation can continue free from interference from the White House."

Cannot argue with any one thing she said.



Btw - see the absolute gulf in quality between her as a speaker/politician and Trump?

FreudianSlippers

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't think he is guilty of anything. He wanted information about Hilary dealings.

It is about Wikileaks Hilary emails and what Stone knew and who he told in Trump campaign. Why else would they go after Roger stone?

So wait... lifelong Republican Mueller is suddenly so in love with Hillary that he decides to flip and make all this **** up is your story?

Cheerful Spring

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So wait... lifelong Republican Mueller is suddenly so in love with Hillary that he decides to flip and make all this **** up is your story?

Mueller is desperate and has no evidence of Russian collusion if his trying to flip Stone to turn on Trump. You can tell Mueller is finding it difficult to find anyone with a big name to turn on Trump.

Stone is guilty of trolling the democrats that about it. It not a crime to discuss leaks with your political friends. This is the insanity we live in today.

Hilary deleted thousands of emails from her server, during an investigation. She should be in Jail for destroying evidence.

I bet you money now Stone will walk free and this will be just another failure to prove Russian collusion.

Captain Obvious

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Mueller is desperate and has no evidence of Russian collusion if his trying to flip Stone to turn on Trump. You can tell Mueller is finding it difficult to find anyone with a big name to turn on Trump.

Stone is guilty of trolling the democrats that about it. It not a crime to discuss leaks with your political friends. This is the insanity we live in today.

Hilary deleted thousands of emails from her server, during an investigation. She should be in Jail for destroying evidence.

I bet you money now Stone will walk free and this will be just another failure to prove Russian collusion.

Is it a crime to induce someone to give false testimony or to threaten someone for giving true testimony?

Gbear

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Is it a crime to induce someone to give false testimony or to threaten someone for giving true testimony?

That's what the Buzzfeed story claimed of Trump with respect to Cohen's false statements.

It's called subornment.

Christy42

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So wait... lifelong Republican Mueller is suddenly so in love with Hillary that he decides to flip and make all this **** up is your story?

Mueller is desperate and has no evidence of Russian collusion if his trying to flip Stone to turn on Trump. You can tell Mueller is finding it difficult to find anyone with a big name to turn on Trump.

Stone is guilty of trolling the democrats that about it. It not a crime to discuss leaks with your political friends. This is the insanity we live in today.

Hilary deleted thousands of emails from her server, during an investigation. She should be in Jail for destroying evidence.

I bet you money now Stone will walk free and this will be just another failure to prove Russian collusion.

Cohen is not a big name apparently.

Mueller has managed a lot of guilty admissions over the last while.

He has brought the discussion from there was never any connection with Russia to Trump's lawyer essentially admitting top campaign officials did have contact with Russia (but not Trump who didn't know what his campaign was doing apparently).

We already have collusion. The missing piece is Trump's direct involvement.

Cheerful Spring

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Is it a crime to induce someone to give false testimony or to threaten someone for giving true testimony?

You entitled to speak your mind if you see someone telling lies about what you did. Stone is alleged to have done this and lied to Congress. Not yet shown to be true.

It amazing with all the resources Mueller has to carry out an investigation, he not been able to tie Trump win to the Russian GRU or Putin. If truly was something there leaks would be happening by now.

Muller investigation is about Hilary. What do you think the Democrats push this Russian collusion fake story non stop?

FreudianSlippers

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Mueller is desperate and has no evidence of Russian collusion if his trying to flip Stone to turn on Trump. You can tell Mueller is finding it difficult to find anyone with a big name to turn on Trump.

Mueller has literally convicted multiple people.

Stone is guilty of trolling the democrats that about it. It not a crime to discuss leaks with your political friends. This is the insanity we live in today.

That's actually not what he's charged with though is it?

Hilary [sic] deleted thousands of emails from her server, during an investigation. She should be in Jail for destroying evidence.

Investigated by a Republican Justice Department and found no evidence of any crime.

I bet you money now Stone will walk free and this will be just another failure to prove Russian collusion.

I bet you don't live in the US.

Cheerful Spring

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Mueller has literally convicted multiple people.


That's actually not what he's charged with though is it?


Investigated by a Republican Justice Department and found no evidence of any crime.


I bet you don't live in the US.

Convicted multiple people. You ignore they are crimes they did by themselves in the past and after Trump got elected. Manafort conviction had nothing to do with Russian collusion.

FreudianSlippers

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Convicted multiple people. You ignore they are crimes they did by themselves in the past and after Trump got elected. Manafort conviction had nothing to do with Russian collusion.

Huh?

Captain Obvious

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You entitled to speak your mind if you see someone telling lies about what you did. Stone is alleged to have done this and lied to Congress. Not yet shown to be true.

It amazing with all the resources Mueller has to carry out an investigation, he not been able to tie Trump win to the Russian GRU or Putin. If truly was something there leaks would be happening by now.

Muller investigation is about Hilary. What do you think the Democrats push this Russian collusion fake story non stop?

I posted the quotes from him. Did you not see them?

Cheerful Spring

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Huh?

Why is Trump in office then if all these people are turning on him?. Look how excited the Media got when they thought Cohen was told by Trump to lie. That story was debunked. There no evidence Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to leak info or Trump is working for Putin. Trump campaign might have taken an interest in legitimate leaks released by Wikileaks that not a crime, that's politics.

FreudianSlippers

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why is Trump in office then if all these people are turning on him?. Look how excited the Media got when they thought Cohen was told by Trump to lie. That story was debunked.

The story was not debunked at all.

There no evidence Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to leak info or Trump is working for Putin.

You mean not public yet.

Trump campaign might have taken an interest in legitimate leaks released by Wikileaks that not a crime, that's politics.

Yep, except we have both video evidence and physical evidence that his campaign did collude.