Re: Donald Trump watch

by Blue Barrett Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:18 am

Freeza wrote:Trump Jr must be the dumbest person to ever exist... God damn

Tweeted mails where he colluded with a russian attorney in order to get info on Hillary. He even CC'ed Manafort and Kushner

Apparently, the New York Times were about to publish a story on it and Don Jr.'s camp called them and asked for more time to comment on the story. Then he went ahead and just tweeted it anyway.

by rincon Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:51 am

Its amazing how they can be this dumb

by CBarca Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:56 pm

Why can't Barca's management and the US's management collectively get together and *bleep* off

Both absolutely incompetent from top to bottom

by McLewis Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:46 am

Blue Barrett wrote:
Freeza wrote:Trump Jr must be the dumbest person to ever exist... God damn

Tweeted mails where he colluded with a russian attorney in order to get info on Hillary. He even CC'ed Manafort and Kushner

Apparently, the New York Times were about to publish a story on it and Don Jr.'s camp called them and asked for more time to comment on the story. Then he went ahead and just tweeted it anyway.

And his Dad calls that being "transparent"......goodness me. He's let off some whoppers, but that one is just the gift that keeps on giving.

This is bad for Team Trump. Real bad. I spent a considerable amount of time listening to right-wing radio to see how they are spinning this and it's hilarious. They have no defense basically, just going back to Clinton and her foundation's deals with the Russians, straining and stretching to link that to some sort of collusion. Yes, it's shady as shit and yet she lost. Trump's kid didn't even get caught doing this, he literally volunteered it up, after lying about it and then doubled-down on it by releasing it in its entirety so that it didn't come from the NYT, who smelled a lot of his blood in the water.

I don't know if this is the smoking gun people are looking for, but it's certainly pointing Mueller and his team in the right direction.

Game changer.

by Blue Barrett Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:22 am

McLewis wrote:
Blue Barrett wrote:
Freeza wrote:Trump Jr must be the dumbest person to ever exist... God damn

Tweeted mails where he colluded with a russian attorney in order to get info on Hillary. He even CC'ed Manafort and Kushner

Apparently, the New York Times were about to publish a story on it and Don Jr.'s camp called them and asked for more time to comment on the story. Then he went ahead and just tweeted it anyway.

And his Dad calls that being "transparent"......goodness me. He's let off some whoppers, but that one is just the gift that keeps on giving.

This is bad for Team Trump. Real bad. I spent a considerable amount of time listening to right-wing radio to see how they are spinning this and it's hilarious. They have no defense basically, just going back to Clinton and her foundation's deals with the Russians, straining and stretching to link that to some sort of collusion. Yes, it's shady as shit and yet she lost. Trump's kid didn't even get caught doing this, he literally volunteered it up, after lying about it and then doubled-down on it by releasing it in its entirety so that it didn't come from the NYT, who smelled a lot of his blood in the water.

I don't know if this is the smoking gun people are looking for, but it's certainly pointing Mueller and his team in the right direction.

Game changer.

The amazing thing about special counsels is that they can choose to take the investigation in any direction and expand it however far they like. You can bet this will definitely be factored into Mueller's investigation now. He might even ask for all emails connecting to the campaign from Kushner, Manafort & Dumbo Jr. now.

In more hilarious news, Trump just basically told Reuters that there's nothing wrong with colluding with Russia to influence the election against Hillary/for him.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-interview-exclusive-idUSKBN19X2XF

That should tell you a lot about what he's fearing. They're preparing their defense talking points.

by Hapless_Hans Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:48 am

Why is meeting someone 'colluding' with someone though?

Serious question.

Why can't Trump Jr. meet a Russian lawyer who claims she has damaging stuff on Hillary?

'colluding' implies a crime, no? Why is meeting a foreigner suddenly a crime? Is it a crime to let oneself be given opposition reasearch? I don't see what would be criminal about that?
If it was a Norwegian lawyer, would the reaction be the same?

So what exactly are we talking about here?

by Hapless_Hans Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:52 am

Myesyats wrote:Beautiful speech Mr. President. Truly a great man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQJjILhqj9A

How did the Polish people react to Trump blowing hot steam into their nationalist-conservative arses and then right after meeting his best buddy Putin?
That must have made you uneasy, right?

Or are you basically Trump supporters now, and the fact he's obviously screwing you over does not matter?

by BarrileteCosmico Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:34 am

Hapless_Hans wrote:Why is meeting someone 'colluding' with someone though?

Serious question.

Why can't Trump Jr. meet a Russian lawyer who claims she has damaging stuff on Hillary?

'colluding' implies a crime, no? Why is meeting a foreigner suddenly a crime? Is it a crime to let oneself be given opposition reasearch? I don't see what would be criminal about that?
If it was a Norwegian lawyer, would the reaction be the same?

So what exactly are we talking about here?

Regardless of whether it's illegal or not the ethical thing would have been to contact the authorities. For instance, someone did the same thing to Al Gore in 2000 and he immediately called the FBI rather than use the dirt. Putting legality aside, the fact that Trump Jr responded with "Yes, I love it!" to the email demonstrates a willingness to collude with a foreign govt to affect the election outcome.

by rincon Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:07 pm

BarrileteCosmico wrote:
Hapless_Hans wrote:Why is meeting someone 'colluding' with someone though?

Serious question.

Why can't Trump Jr. meet a Russian lawyer who claims she has damaging stuff on Hillary?

'colluding' implies a crime, no? Why is meeting a foreigner suddenly a crime? Is it a crime to let oneself be given opposition reasearch? I don't see what would be criminal about that?
If it was a Norwegian lawyer, would the reaction be the same?

So what exactly are we talking about here?

Regardless of whether it's illegal or not the ethical thing would have been to contact the authorities. For instance, someone did the same thing to Al Gore in 2000 and he immediately called the FBI rather than use the dirt. Putting legality aside, the fact that Trump Jr responded with "Yes, I love it!" to the email demonstrates a willingness to collude with a foreign govt to affect the election outcome.

Isn't it illegal though? I'll look into it later but I'm pretty sure the law has been cited by news sources about how it is illegal to receive help from a foreign national in a US election campaign. Which makes sense, foreign governments manipulating elections should be 100% illegal. It definitely should have been reported to the FBI and then let them figure it out.

by Blue Barrett Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:01 pm

Hapless_Hans wrote:Why is meeting someone 'colluding' with someone though?

Serious question.

Why can't Trump Jr. meet a Russian lawyer who claims she has damaging stuff on Hillary?

'colluding' implies a crime, no? Why is meeting a foreigner suddenly a crime? Is it a crime to let oneself be given opposition reasearch? I don't see what would be criminal about that?
If it was a Norwegian lawyer, would the reaction be the same?

So what exactly are we talking about here?

The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns. There are two key passages that apply here. This is the first:

"A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election."

he crucial phrase here is “other thing of value,” legal experts tell me. It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods. Like, say, damaging information the Russian government collected about Hillary Clinton.

“To the extent you’re using the resources of a foreign country to run your campaign — that’s an illegal campaign contribution,” Nick Akerman, an assistant special prosecutor during the Watergate investigation who now specializes in data crime, says.

There's more explanation here: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal

Quite plainly, it is very illegal. Doesn't matter if it came from Russia or Canada or China or the UK.

by CBarca Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:50 pm

Yes it's a crime lol or at least it shouldn't be brushed over like you seem to be implying Hans. Barrett's post says it all, but at a base level it should be reasonable that you shouldn't take ANY foreign help during an election, no?

There shouldn't be any interference from foreign agents in a United States election. If it were a Norwegian lawyer it would be looked upon similarly. That she was Russian just further implicates Trump-Russia connections which are likely illegal.

by BarrileteCosmico Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:59 am

rincon wrote:Isn't it illegal though? I'll look into it later but I'm pretty sure the law has been cited by news sources about how it is illegal to receive help from a foreign national in a US election campaign. Which makes sense, foreign governments manipulating elections should be 100% illegal. It definitely should have been reported to the FBI and then let them figure it out.

Yeah I'm pretty sure it's illegal, but my point was that even if it wasn't, it would still be a huge problem

by DuringTheWar Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:00 am

5 bucks says after the lawyers and hyenas are all done interpreting and arguing the legalese, the result will be "nah, it's not illegal in America, in any scenario, to hear words, or intend to hear words, being said"
hmm

by Blue Barrett Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:09 am

DuringTheWar wrote:5 bucks says after the lawyers and hyenas are all done interpreting and arguing the legalese, the result will be "nah, it's not illegal in America, in any scenario, to hear words, or intend to hear words, being said"

I just posted proof that it's illegal and you're still trying to tie yourself in a knot defending Trump. Of course. Laughing

You can bet your 5 bucks that Robert Mueller has included this (if he didn't already know of it prior to the public revelation) in his investigations. I'll bet you 5 bucks somebody important (if not Trump himself) gets indicted at the end of all of this at the very least.

by Warrior Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:14 am

The guy is clueless. Yes it's been a great banter, one of the biggest ever actually, but now is about the right time for common sense to make a come-back. Hope they dismiss him no matter how.

by DuringTheWar Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:32 am

Blue Barrett wrote:
DuringTheWar wrote:5 bucks says after the lawyers and hyenas are all done interpreting and arguing the legalese, the result will be "nah, it's not illegal in America, in any scenario, to hear words, or intend to hear words, being said"

I just posted proof that it's illegal and you're still trying to tie yourself in a knot defending Trump. Of course.

You can bet your 5 bucks that Robert Mueller has included this (if he didn't already know of it prior to the public revelation) in his investigations. I'll bet you 5 bucks somebody important (if not Trump himself) gets indicted at the end of all of this at the very least.

My point remains: 5 bucks says the final interpretation of that law will not outlaw hearing words coming out of someone's mouth, no matter whose mouth it is. Words in this case that provided no value.

I could be wrong, although I wasn't wrong when idiots were trying to claim Jeff Sessions committed perjury, and I doubt I'm wrong now. Like Sessions' supposed perjury, I predict this will result in nothing.
I've never seen so much wishful thinking in my life prior to the last 6 months Laughing

I mean wow the media ( at least the liberal parts ) are gas-lighting themselves and inadvertently their listeners as well.

by Blue Barrett Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:37 am

DuringTheWar wrote:
Blue Barrett wrote:
DuringTheWar wrote:5 bucks says after the lawyers and hyenas are all done interpreting and arguing the legalese, the result will be "nah, it's not illegal in America, in any scenario, to hear words, or intend to hear words, being said"

I just posted proof that it's illegal and you're still trying to tie yourself in a knot defending Trump. Of course.

You can bet your 5 bucks that Robert Mueller has included this (if he didn't already know of it prior to the public revelation) in his investigations. I'll bet you 5 bucks somebody important (if not Trump himself) gets indicted at the end of all of this at the very least.

My point remains: 5 bucks says the final interpretation of that law will not outlaw hearing words coming out of someone's mouth, no matter whose mouth it is. Words in this case that provided no value.

I could be wrong, although I wasn't wrong when idiots were trying to claim Jeff Sessions committed perjury, and I doubt I'm wrong now. Like Sessions' supposed perjury, I predict this will result in nothing.
I've never seen so much wishful thinking in my life prior to the last 6 months

I mean wow the media ( at least the liberal parts ) are gas-lighting themselves and inadvertently their listeners as well.

Sessions paying for perjury would require the Republican controlled congress to actually go after their own former colleague. That was never going to happen. As it is, it would take something overwhelmingly bad for them to even consider moving against Trump. But make no mistake, if Mueller's investigation concludes with him recommending that Trump be impeached and prosecuted, they will impeach Trump. Most of them would like Pence in there as he's a more level headed right winger (in their eyes at least).

Democrats are damn near powerless at the moment so don't expect anything of note to happen unless it's really, really bad.

If this was 1 year ago though and Loretta Lynch had perjured herself, the Republicans would have moved against her before you could even blink.

It's politics.

by CBarca Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:38 am

Every inch of my body wants to see Trump go down in flames, hopefully in an impeach/convict scenario. However, I still don't know if I really do want that.

A Pence presidency is truly frightening and probably no better. Likely worse. They wouldn't be as incompetent, and would actually carry out their backwards far right ideology.

Disgusting situation we have.

by BarrileteCosmico Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:15 pm

DuringTheWar wrote:5 bucks says after the lawyers and hyenas are all done interpreting and arguing the legalese, the result will be "nah, it's not illegal in America, in any scenario, to hear words, or intend to hear words, being said"

There's rumors that Trump may give his son a pardon on Sunday (some legislators want Jr to present himself to congress next week so this would avoid that). Apparently the president can pardon people even if they haven't been convicted of a crime yet.

by Unique Fri Jul 14, 2017 12:55 pm

Quick question to everyone. If trump was a left wing politician would we still see this witch hunt for him.

by CBarca Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:56 pm

Unique wrote:Quick question to everyone. If trump was a left wing politician would we still see this witch hunt for him.

There isn't a witch hunt though. It's not a witch hunt if the media is on your case because you're a terrible president who has been in a number of scandals so far. That's just the media doing their job.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike the liberal media as much as anyone and I see your point--just the other day I was hypercritical of their reaction to the trump WWE tweet, this is where I can agree with you. I think the liberal media is actually quite responsible for trump being in office. However, a witch hunt is being disingenuous to the amount of scandal the trump presidency has been a part of.

You're buying into what he wants you to believe. This level of scandal isn't normal. It's not OK. If it wasn't such a Republican house/Senate, you would be seeing a lot of pressure congressionally on Trump to potentially be looking at impeach and conviction hearings. At this point the only thing missing is the smoking gun.

It's a witch hunt if the media couldn't keep uncovering scandalous stories. Unfortunately for Trump, they are.

by CBarca Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:19 pm

And with that it's revealed that there was another person in the room during the Donald Trump Jr. meeting and he is a Russian American lobbyist and was a Soviet counterintelligence officer.

Hilarious to see the White House lying, then have the media contradict them the very next day. This has happened like 3 or 4 days in a row now Laughing

Can't trust a word out of the president's mouth right now. How he has an approval rating above 25-30% is insane. It's clear he and his administration are just repeatedly lying to the American people. I can't wait to see what else comes out

by Freeza Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:10 am

WATCH: POTUS to Mrs. Macron: "You're in such good shape. She's in such good physical shape. Beautiful." pic.twitter.com/DvJPF6aT5l
— Yashar Ali (@yashar) 13. juli 2017

by Guest Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:14 am

Unique wrote:Quick question to everyone. If trump was a left wing politician would we still see this witch hunt for him.

Quite possibly.

Question back at you:

If Trump were left wing would guys who choke and "slap around" white women have traveled to America to campaign for him?

Trump said Grab them by the vagina, and maybe that meant neck to some people? What do you think?

by Unique Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:25 pm

Betty La Fea wrote:
Unique wrote:Quick question to everyone. If trump was a left wing politician would we still see this witch hunt for him.

Quite possibly.

Question back at you:

If Trump were left wing would guys who choke and "slap around" white women have traveled to America to campaign for him?

Trump said Grab them by the vagina, and maybe that meant neck to some people? What do you think?

I think for the last few weeks you have been acting like a tit but that's whole new debate.

by Guest Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:56 pm

Unique wrote:
Betty La Fea wrote:
Unique wrote:Quick question to everyone. If trump was a left wing politician would we still see this witch hunt for him.

Quite possibly.

Question back at you:

If Trump were left wing would guys who choke and "slap around" white women have traveled to America to campaign for him?

Trump said Grab them by the vagina, and maybe that meant neck to some people? What do you think?
I think for the last few weeks you have been acting like a tit but that's whole new debate.

Funny enough you can speak about how I have "been acting" but you were silent as a church mouse when he told me to go back to China.

#ここに於て我、汝に対し天誅を下す

by Sponsored content