Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Status
Not open for further replies.
ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
Why wouldn't Papadopoulos consider this option? He was a volunteer and likely very zealous for a Trump win and /or a Hillary loss. At you meaning it's curious someone would even consider colluding with the Russians. Right wingers don't watch CNN. The thought of getting dirt on Hillary from Russian sources probably seemed perfectly fine. It takes an impeach Trump at all costs mindset to even think the action would be treasonous. Papa probably had no idea about the illegalities of the action much less that it was treasonous.

Volunteers are not experts in the law. Neither are they fully informed on campaign legalities..... campaign officials are. That's why his suggestion was rebuffed by campaign officials.
 
ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
rexlunae said:
Indictment Monday did not disappoint.
Click to expand...
A hatred of a president over disagreements with policy and personality are not the reasons the founders had for the use of impeachment.

Elections mean something in a democracy. They are not meant to be turned over by people who hate the results. If you want Trump removed, try again in 2020.

The use of the FBI to achieve your partisan goals is an abuse of that agency. The FBI has no business issuing indictments against volunteers and totally ignoring real collusion between actual government officials and the Ukrainians in the 2016 election. The FBI is not supposed to be a branch of the DNC. The justice department should indict all upper officials in the FBI and lock them up including former Obama administration officials and DNC officials involved in this corruption of democracy.
 
J

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
ClimateSanity said:
A hatred of a president over disagreements with policy and personality are not the reasons the founders had for the use of impeachment.

Elections mean something in a democracy. They are not meant to be turned over by people who hate the results. If you want Trump removed, try again in 2020.

The use of the FBI to achieve your partisan goals is an abuse of that agency. The FBI has no business issuing indictments against volunteers and totally ignoring real collusion between actual government officials and the Ukrainians in the 2016 election. The FBI is not supposed to be a branch of the DNC. The justice department should indict all upper officials in the FBI and lock them up including former Obama administration officials and DNC officials involved in this corruption of democracy.
Click to expand...

Then Trump should lead the perp walk. After all he fired the FBI director in an attempt to stop that Russian investigation. How is it that a president is willing to ignore the obvious attempts by the Russians to interfere in our election? Now it maybe that neither he nor his campaign was "involved", "colluded" etc. If that were the case then why not pursue this? Would make him look like he cared more about the country than his brand. More about what is right for the US than his ego.
Despite all his wealth and power he is driven by his lack of self-esteem. Perhaps something to do with small hands or potty training issues.
 
ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
A Breitbart commenter has this to say about the recent indictments:

" It's not illegal to talk to Russians. It's not even illegal for Russians to be involved in the campaign. It's not against the law.

The Mueller "investigation" is illegal because no crime was ever cited as the reason for the investigation.It's a fishing expedition, which is inappropriate under the rules of special prosecution. Our government is not supposed to conduct witch hunts looking for a crime, any crime."

I agree wholeheartedly
 
intojoy

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
Meanwhile, Kim Jun Cln’ton’s nuclear test site has leaked radioactive waste 200 dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
intojoy

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
Jonahdog said:
Then Trump should lead the perp walk. After all he fired the FBI director in an attempt to stop that Russian investigation. How is it that a president is willing to ignore the obvious attempts by the Russians to interfere in our election? Now it maybe that neither he nor his campaign was "involved", "colluded" etc. If that were the case then why not pursue this? Would make him look like he cared more about the country than his brand. More about what is right for the US than his ego.
Despite all his wealth and power he is driven by his lack of self-esteem. Perhaps something to do with small hands or potty training issues.
Click to expand...

Yes he (trump) should but he won’t. So devastating isn’t it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
ClimateSanity said:
A Breitbart commenter has this to say about the recent indictments:

" It's not illegal to talk to Russians. It's not even illegal for Russians to be involved in the campaign. It's not against the law.

The Mueller "investigation" is illegal because no crime was ever cited as the reason for the investigation.It's a fishing expedition, which is inappropriate under the rules of special prosecution. Our government is not supposed to conduct witch hunts looking for a crime, any crime."

I agree wholeheartedly
Click to expand...
Actually, collusion is not a crime either.
 
J

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
patrick jane said:
Nothing on Trump. By all means don't think about the real Russian collusion. You'll see.
Click to expand...

Trump-birther-to-believer.png


"Patrick jane" is promoting "Birther 2" - another Trump "nothingburger" whereby he spent 5 years trying to undermine the legitimacy of America's first "black" president!

1. The "uranium" decision was made by a council of 9 government departments with the Secretary of the Treasury, not State, serving as Chair. This decision was largely handled at the Assistant-Secretary level.

2. The Republicans had majorities in Congress, so why didn't they take it upon themselves to make this an issue?

3. If this was such a bad decision, why didn't Trump immediate;y take steps to revoke it back in January?

4. My information is that the contribution to the Clinton Trust came from an individual who had already sold his stock and no longer had no financial interest in this uranium deal!

5. "Patrick jane" is never going to refute these points because like most conservatives, he's unwilling/unable to to extend himself beyond a 15 word blurb!
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
jgarden said:
Trump-birther-to-believer.png


"Patrick jane" is promoting "Birther 2" - another Trump "nothingburger" whereby he spent 5 years trying to undermine the legitimacy of America's first "black" president!

1. The "uranium" decision was made by a council of 9 government departments with the Secretary of the Treasury, not State, serving as Chair. This decision was largely handled at the Assistant-Secretary level.

2. The Republicans had majorities in Congress, so why didn't they take it upon themselves to make this an issue?

3. If this was such a bad decision, why didn't Trump immediate;y take steps to revoke it back in January?

4. My information is that the contribution to the Clinton Trust came from an individual who had already sold his stock and no longer had no financial interest in this uranium deal!

5. "Patrick jane" is never going to refute these points because like most conservatives, he's unwilling/unable to to extend himself beyond a 15 word blurb!
Click to expand...
I'm not wasting my time with you anymore, cartoon man.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Anyone see that crazy White House briefing by Sarah Sanders yesterday?

Manafort, Gates and Papadopolous - and she starts out by reading a long, meandering chain letter from 2001 about 10 reporters drinking beer and how to split the tab?

Sarah Huckabee Sanders should dress up as Baghdad Bob for Halloween.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top