Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[kiidcarter8]

Reward (Russia's) meddling?

How so?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/politics/sanctions-oleg-deripaska-russia-trump.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-moves-to-return-russian-compounds-in-maryland-and-new-york/2017/05/31/3c4778d2-4616-11e7-98cd-af64b4fe2dfc_story.html?utm_term=.85b503931227

https://centralnewsnow.com/trump-questions-the-core-of-nato-mutual-self-defense/

...could go on.  And these efforts probably would have been much more present had the heat not been on Trump re: Russia from the start of his administration.

Stop.......

[NeedsAdjustments]

You think Putin was behind it all.  That's fine.  Rational, knowing the subject.

Trump says he believed Putin when he was told Putin had no knowledge.

Trump has admitted there was interference.  Just believes Putin that Putin did not orchestrate it.  (or is putting out that signal despite what he really feels).

Maybe - as with the McCain ship thing (hating to bring that up again) someone under Putin did the deed - and it WAS in fact unknown to the Russian president. 

Vlad said he didnt know about it, not that he didnt appreciate it.

Dude, stop.  Just fucking stop, and actually read the link I posted.  Putin denied Russia's involvement.  Trump said he believed him over his intelligence agencies. 

Putin didn't fucking say "we may have interfered but I didn't know about it."  Putin would never say that, and its not what he said, and you are willfully mischaracterizing the facts to absolve Trump.

Stop.  Or just continue to have zero credibility in this discussion.

[kiidcarter8]

Centralnewsnow.com

Thanks for the link.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Reward (Russia's) meddling?

How so?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/politics/sanctions-oleg-deripaska-russia-trump.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-moves-to-return-russian-compounds-in-maryland-and-new-york/2017/05/31/3c4778d2-4616-11e7-98cd-af64b4fe2dfc_story.html?utm_term=.85b503931227

https://centralnewsnow.com/trump-questions-the-core-of-nato-mutual-self-defense/

...could go on.  And these efforts probably would have been much more present had the heat not been on Trump re: Russia from the start of his administration.

Stop.......

You asked how Trump could reward Russia.  He tried to lift sanctions, tried to return properties Obama took from them in response to their meddling, has questioned NATO and has undeniably made those bonds weaker, a few months into his administration he passed classified info directly to the Russians.

In his capacity there innumerable ways he can reward Russia's interference, and he has, despite the spotlight on that cooperation.  Imagine what he would be doing without it.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Centralnewsnow.com

Thanks for the link.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/trump-nato-self-defense-montenegro.html

[kiidcarter8]

You think Putin was behind it all.  That's fine.  Rational, knowing the subject.

Trump says he believed Putin when he was told Putin had no knowledge.

Trump has admitted there was interference.  Just believes Putin that Putin did not orchestrate it.  (or is putting out that signal despite what he really feels).

Maybe - as with the McCain ship thing (hating to bring that up again) someone under Putin did the deed - and it WAS in fact unknown to the Russian president. 

Vlad said he didnt know about it, not that he didnt appreciate it.

Dude, stop.  Just fucking stop, and actually read the link I posted.  Putin denied Russia's involvement.  Trump said he believed him over his intelligence agencies. 

Putin didn't fucking say "we may have interfered but I didn't know about it."  Putin would never say that, and its not what he said, and you are willfully mischaracterizing the facts to absolve Trump.

Stop.  Or just continue to have zero credibility in this discussion.

We must, in the end, agree to disagree on this matter.

[NeedsAdjustments]

You think Putin was behind it all.  That's fine.  Rational, knowing the subject.

Trump says he believed Putin when he was told Putin had no knowledge.

Trump has admitted there was interference.  Just believes Putin that Putin did not orchestrate it.  (or is putting out that signal despite what he really feels).

Maybe - as with the McCain ship thing (hating to bring that up again) someone under Putin did the deed - and it WAS in fact unknown to the Russian president. 

Vlad said he didnt know about it, not that he didnt appreciate it.

Dude, stop.  Just fucking stop, and actually read the link I posted.  Putin denied Russia's involvement.  Trump said he believed him over his intelligence agencies. 

Putin didn't fucking say "we may have interfered but I didn't know about it."  Putin would never say that, and its not what he said, and you are willfully mischaracterizing the facts to absolve Trump.

Stop.  Or just continue to have zero credibility in this discussion.

We must, in the end, agree to disagree on this matter.

You continue to hold your opinion despite being presented facts that contradict it...dude, that's just another day here.

[kiidcarter8]

Centralnewsnow.com

Thanks for the link.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/europe/trump-nato-self-defense-montenegro.html

Yeah - I have heard of the Times

[LarryBnDC]

Alan the Noble:

Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.

Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one-sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.

That determination of guilt or innocence requires a full adversarial trial with a zealous defense attorney, vigorous cross examination, exclusionary rules of evidence and other due process safeguards. Such safeguards were not present in this investigation, and so the suggestion by Mueller that Trump might well be guilty deserves no credence. His statement, so inconsistent with his long history, will be used to partisan advantage by Democrats, especially all those radicals who are seeking impeachment.

1. Russia attacked our election to help Trump

2. Trump welcomed the help... “Russia, if you’re listening.”

3. Trump tried to prevent the investigation into him by firing FBI director and trying to shut down SC investigation.

4. And is Refusing to cooperate with document requests and witness appearances.

[kiidcarter8]

1 - evidently

2 - well, he won, so......

3 -   eh....

4 -   eh...

Shame you can't.... I don't know - bring him to court or something - to prove 3 and 4

[barton]

Well that's the point of an impeachment proceeding.  It's purpose is to provide a court wherein facts may be determined as to possible presidential malfeasance. 

As for former KGB director Putin not knowing that someone under him "did the deed," or generally not knowing about Russian ops against the U.S., doesn't this seem pretty improbable?  If it doesn't to you, I've got this great deal on a timeshare in Okeefenokee swamp to sell you!  Amazing views! 



 

[facilitatorn]

The House is getting ready to drag his blubbery carcass before the dock.

The financial crimes eclipse all the others and will be the core of the impeachment. The House is trump obstruct a bit more in plain sight as the receipts roll in.

Putin is on tape declaring he wanted trump to win and helped trump win through the work of his military apparatus. Trump is on tape asking for the help and in ink accepting a multimillion dollar bribe as a leg of quid-pro-quo with the Moscow tower letter of intent.

Kiid, your politics is both venereal and degenerative. Very impressive 

[NeedsAdjustments]

1 - evidently

2 - well, he won, so......

3 -   eh....

4 -   eh...

Shame you can't.... I don't know - bring him to court or something - to prove 3 and 4

Neither needs proving.  3, Trump said it on national TV, and to Russian Envoys in the oval office the day after the firing.  And Don McGahn has zero reason to lie to Mueller about Trump's attempts to fire him.

4 is just fact.  He isn't cooperating with lawful subpoenas of document requests and is holding up witnesses, in McGahn's case threatening the law firm he works for.  Not for nothing, failure to cooperate with Congress's right to oversight was one of the points in Nixon's impeachment referral.

[NeedsAdjustments]

2 - well, he won, so......

So...what?

[NeedsAdjustments]

On Gerrymandering and the related voting laws drive, critics have warned about voter disenfranchisement as the GOP seeks to game the system.  The GOP meanwhile always has a perfectly innocent rationale that falls apart completely after inspection.

Latest case, the Citizenship Question:

Files on those drives showed that he wrote a study in 2015 concluding that adding a citizenship question to the census would allow Republicans to draft even more extreme gerrymandered maps to stymie Democrats. And months after urging President Trump’s transition team to tack the question onto the census, he wrote the key portion of a draft Justice Department letter claiming the question was needed to enforce the 1965 Voting Rights Act — the rationale the administration later used to justify its decision...

Mr. Hofeller’s exhaustive analysis of Texas state legislative districts concluded that such maps “would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites,” and would dilute the political power of the state’s Hispanics.

The reason, he wrote, was that the maps would exclude traditionally Democratic Hispanics and their children from the population count. That would force Democratic districts to expand to meet the Constitution’s one person, one vote requirement. In turn, that would translate into fewer districts in traditionally Democratic areas, and a new opportunity for Republican mapmakers to create even stronger gerrymanders.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/census-citizenship-question-hofeller.html