Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

weisses

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Wow, just wow. 'Because he said so in his testimony'. Right, are we dealing with Jesus Christ here? Mueller said it, so it must be real. Did he by any chance substantiate his claim with any actual evidence?

Uhh yes ... because it is his testimony about his report.... so you are saying he was lying before Congress on this matter ? Do you have any evidence for that ??

Timberrrrrrrr

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Eh, sorry? Am I not to be permitted to respond to defamatory comments? You guys are pretty myopic in your perspective. You can insult and label anyone as you please, simply for expressing a different opinion. How dare they respond in kind!

You may need to look up the meaning of defamatory because you have in no way beeen defamed on here. Your responses are childish name calling and insults.

Aretheymyfeet

weisses wrote: »

Uhh yes ... because it is his testimony about his report.... so you are saying he was lying before Congress on this matter ? Do you have any evidence for that ??

I don't think you actually understand the process. The Report is publicly available now. You say he was providing testimony on his Report. So, where in his Report do you think the evidence is? He does not in his report nor in his testimony provide any actual real evidence of Russian State interference in the US election. Him making claims and allegations is not evidence. You bizarrely treat his statements as if they are gospel despite his known capacity for lying to Congressional Committees already being a recorded and established fact. I refer once again to his 2003 testimony on Iraqi WMDs.

listermint

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You may need to look up the meaning of defamatory because you have in no way beeen defamed on here. Your responses are childish name calling and insults.

I guess we can add hyperbole to folks who defend Trump. Learning it from a renowned master of hyperbole

Aretheymyfeet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You may need to look up the meaning of defamatory because you have in no way beeen defamed on here. Your responses are childish name calling and insults.

You may need to look up defamatory yourself as labelling somebody as an asset of the intelligence community of another country is most certainly so.

'Your responses are childish name calling and insults'. And your labelling of other posters as trolls or bots is so mature and intellectual? You are getting terribly upset that I have dared come into your cosey club and challenge your misguided consensus.

Aretheymyfeet

listermint wrote: »

I guess we can add hyperbole to folks who defend Trump. Learning it from a renowned master of hyperbole

Yeah, and add a lack of any factual basis or evidence to the thinking of those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Timberrrrrrrr

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

You may need to look up defamatory yourself as labelling somebody as an asset of the intelligence community of another country is most certainly so.

Nah it really isn't.

'Your responses are childish name calling and insults'. And your labelling of other posters as trolls or bots is so mature and intellectual? You are getting terribly upset that I have dared come into your cosey club and challenge your misguided consensus.

Can you show me where i have done that please?

duploelabs

For those still spouting the lie that Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election



"He concluded that Russia had interfered in the election with the intention of benefitting Mr Trump's campaign."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49100778

During the course of our investigation, we charged more than 30 defendants with committing federal crimes, including 12 officers of the Russian military. Seven defendants have been convicted or pled guilty.

First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/24/robert-mueller-testimony-opening-statement-on-trump-russia-probe.html

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh and as for those boos, I'd be more worried if the DC elite were cheering him. He's draining the swamp of people who put money in a large amount of that crowd's pockets.

Pull the other one Pete, that is absolute rubbish and I don't know how you could post that and expect to be taken seriously.
Trump and his family are utterly corrupt and their ongoing brazen corruption makes a farce of the justice system you laud whenever you mention Bill Barr or Durham.

Aretheymyfeet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nah it really isn't.

Actually, it really is. "Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed".

As I am neither Russian, nor a Bot, and the claim has been made on a public forum, it is a defamatory false statement. This really isn't that complicated. You guys don't really do facts or evidence, do you?

Professor Moriarty

What's defamatory about being called Russian?

Aretheymyfeet

duploelabs wrote: »

For those still spouting the lie that Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election



"He concluded that Russia had interfered in the election with the intention of benefitting Mr Trump's campaign."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49100778

During the course of our investigation, we charged more than 30 defendants with committing federal crimes, including 12 officers of the Russian military. Seven defendants have been convicted or pled guilty.

First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/24/robert-mueller-testimony-opening-statement-on-trump-russia-probe.html

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

Oh dear Jesus, another idiot who doesn't know the difference between allegations and evidence. Yes, Mueller and indeed the US intelligence community have all claimed that the Russian State interfered in the US election. What they have never been able to do was substantiitate those claims with any actual evidence. Why do you have such difficulty understanding that basic distinction?

I can claim you're a dirty paedophile. In your world, me making that claim alone is evidence that you are in fact a paedophile. I don't need to provide any evidence whatsoever to support this. Can you see how ridiculous your position is now?

The idea that anyone would take the claims of known liar (See again 2003 testimony) Mueller or indeed known and admitted liars (the list here is long) like the US intel agencies, at face value without any supporting evidence is utterly and completely laughable and ridiculous.

Aretheymyfeet

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What's defamatory about being called Russian?

A Russian troll or Bot or intelligence asset is not the same as just a 'Russian' but nice try. Weak.

Professor Moriarty

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

A Russian troll or Bot or intelligence asset is not the same as just a 'Russian' but nice try. Weak.

Unless Aretheymyfeet is your real name, how are you being "defamed"?

duploelabs

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Oh dear Jesus, another idiot who doesn't know the difference between allegations and evidence. Yes, Mueller and indeed the US intelligence community have all claimed that the Russian State interfered in the US election. What they have never been able to do was substantiitate those claims with any actual evidence. Why do you have such difficulty understanding that basic distinction?

I can claim you're a dirty paedophile. In your world, me making that claim alone is evidence that you are in fact a paedophile. I don't need to provide any evidence whatsoever to support this. Can you see how ridiculous your position is now?

The idea that anyone would take the claims of known liar (See again 2003 testimony) Mueller or indeed known and admitted liars (the list here is long) like the US intel agencies, at face value without any supporting evidence is utterly and completely laughable and ridiculous.

The evidence I'm sure was produced in court to support the convictions of those 12 Russian agents detailed here
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44825345

Outlaw Pete

looksee wrote: »

Could you be more specific about which bit of the swamp he has drained? Who has gone as a result of his swamp draining?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

D.C elite at a baseball game? Have you evwr been to a baseball game? Are you saying the fans were booing because they are not getting money since Trump "drained the swamp"?

Misquoting me there, I said draining, not drained.

DC is brim full of those that make money from leftist politicking. Trump's attack on the Biden's for what they partook in won't have gone down well with those kind of people. It threatens their summer home in the Hamptons.

Also, only 4% voted for Trump there. It's extremely left leaning. Which is why I wouldn't read too much into the boos.

Aretheymyfeet

duploelabs wrote: »

The evidence I'm sure was produced in court to support the convictions of those 12 Russian agents detailed here
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44825345

Eh, they weren't convicted. Those are indictments. Again, claims are not evidence. Those claims conveniently will never be proven in a court of law. Check out the shock Mueller got when the Russians appointed a US legal team and demanded discovery, as they were entitled to do.

weisses

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

I don't think you actually understand the process. The Report is publicly available now. You say he was providing testimony on his Report. So, where in his Report do you think the evidence is?

Page 1

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and
systematic fashion

You did read the report I hope

Aretheymyfeet

weisses wrote: »

Page 1



You did read the report I hope

Quote:
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and
systematic fashion.

Yes. Once again you've posted a claim. Now, please detail where in the Report that claim is substantiated by actual evidence. It feels like we're going in circles here. You seem incapable of understanding the basic distinction between claims and evidence.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Also, only 4% voted for Trump there. It's extremely left leaning. Which is why I wouldn't read too much into the boos.

Well then, for a guy who foresaw Osama bin laden's potential, not being able to foresee an adverse reaction by the crowd seems a bit like amateur hour..

weisses

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Yes. Once again you've posted a claim. Now, please detail where in the Report that claim is substantiated by actual evidence. It feels like we're going in circles here. You seem incapable of understanding the basic distinction between claims and evidence.

You seem to forget that all what is claimed is in the report is based on investigations which are also mentioned in the report.

Did you read it ? ... looking at your deflections ...I doubt it

Was Mueller lying ? if so where is the evidence ...

If Russian interference was not properly established why was the Trump team and all who opposed the Mueller report not slapping us with evidence to that fact. apart from your silly attempt

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

Well then, for a guy who foresaw Osama bin laden's potential, not being able to foresee an adverse reaction by the crowd seems a bit like amateur hour..

What makes you think that he believed he would get a warm welcome?

He smiled through the boos. Good for him.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What makes you think that he believed he would get a warm welcome?

He smiled through the boos. Good for him.

So he went in there, knowing that he would get that reaction? Gotcha.

Better add masochism to his list of fetishes.

Outlaw Pete

So the President (who was there along with many members of congress by the way) shouldn't be attending a World Series game unless he is sure all in attendance will cheer him? :rolleyes:

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So the President (who was there along with many members of congress by the way) shouldn't be attending a World Series game unless he is sure all in attendance will cheer him? :rolleyes:

Of couse he can attend.

But if you think he went expecting the boos, you absolutely know nothing of the man. Nothing.

Outlaw Pete

If you if think he believed everyone in a DC crowd would cheer him, then you absolutely know nothing of DC. Nothing.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If you if think he believed everyone in a DC crowd would cheer him, then you absolutely know nothing of DC. Nothing.

Let me spell it out for you.

He announced via tweet this "big news".

Then the press release happened.

Then he attended.

Aretheymyfeet

weisses wrote: »

You seem to forget that all what is claimed is in the report is based on investigations which are also mentioned in the report.

Did you read it ? ... looking at your deflections ...I doubt it

Was Mueller lying ? if so where is the evidence ...

If Russian interference was not properly established why was the Trump team and all who opposed the Mueller report not slapping us with evidence to that fact. apart from your silly attempt

Jesus, once more. You, Mueller, the US intel agencies all CLAIM Russian State interference in the US election. Nobody, not Mueller, not the Intel agencies, nor you, have been able to provide one single piece of actual evidence to support your ludicrous conspiracy theory. Not one single piece. It is not for me or anyone else to disprove something you have completely failed to establish. Once again, you're a dirty paedo. I won't support this with evidence. Disprove my claim. Can you see how ridiculous your position is, no? You repeatedly offer claim and allegations as your evidence, completely misunderstanding the clear and obvious distinction between the two.

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

Let me spell it out for you.

He announced via tweet this "big news".

Then the press release happened.

Then he attended.

lol. So you think he tweeted 'Big news' (referring to the death of the ISIS leader) only because he was due to attend a World Series game?? LMAO :P

duploelabs

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Jesus, once more. You, Mueller, the US intel agencies all CLAIM Russian State interference in the US election. Nobody, not Mueller, not the Intel agencies, nor you, have been able to provide one single piece of actual to support your ludicrous conspiracy theory. Not one single piece. It is not for me or anyone else to disprove something you have completely failed to establish. Once again, you're a dirty paedo. I won't support this with evidence. Disprove my claim. Can you see how ridiculous your position is, no? You repeatedly offer claim and allegations as your evidence, completely misunderstanding the clear and obvious distinction between the two.

The evidence you seek is detailed right here if you'd take the time to peruse

https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download