What President Trump Have To Hide?
Is Mr. Trump being treated unfairly? What is the behavior of an innocent man? If the Mueller investigation is a "Nothing Burger" and no "there, there", how come the indictments and why the cry to end or fire Mr. Mueller? Why is the President suing Ms. Daniel (Friday night) to keep her from talking in view of claiming to have no relations with her? What does Russia have on this man? Should America be concerned beyond Mr. Trump's moral deficiency; that he may not have been legitimately elected because of recently discovered stolen data (Facebook User Profile Data [50-Million people])? What's in Mr. Trump's "closet"? When and should Mr. Trump comes clean before given a pass? CM
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
Is Mr. Trump being treated unfairly? What is the behavior of an innocent man? If the Mueller investigation is a "Nothing Burger" and no "there, there", how come the indictments and why the cry to end or fire Mr. Mueller? Why is the President suing Ms. Daniel (Friday night) to keep her from talking in view of claiming to have no relations with her? What does Russia have on this man? Should America be concerned beyond Mr. Trump's moral deficiency; that he may not have been legitimately elected because of recently discovered stolen data (Facebook User Profile Data [50-Million people])? What's in Mr. Trump's "closet"? When and should Mr. Trump comes clean before given a pass? CMAmong the many tells of the gathering storm that's headed for Mr Trump is the content of Mr Trump's Twitter feed. The most recent example is the correspondence of his weekend tweet storm that included, for the first time, his naming Robert Mueller by name, with his reported receipt from Mueller's team of a list of subject areas or specific questions the team wants to explore in a sit-down interview with the president. Might there be a connection between his weekend online meltdown and the questions/areas he he had just learned Mueller wants to talk about? I think so.
How many weekend Obama meltdowns do you remember during the years of the eight or nine congressional Benghazi hearings? The answer is zero. Innocent people have meltdowns FAR less often than do guilty people.
Basically from the beginning of the Mueller probe, Donald Trump has not acted like an innocent man. The simplest explanation for that fact is that Donald Trump is not an innocent man.
Innocent men and women don't fear the questions of prosecutors, question to which they reply simply with the truth. In my view, it's not likely Mr Trump's lawyers even know all the truth about their client given the president's well documented penchant for pathological lying. Even if the attorneys know all the truth, they also know that their client will, almost without doubt, lie repeatedly if questioned by the Mueller team. No wonder that Ted Olsen, the highly regarded D.C. area attorney who happens to be a Republican, turned down the White House's invitation to join the Trump legal team.
With almost every new day's news, I grow more certain of my conviction that Mr Trump will not serve a full term in office. The storm is gathering from virtually all sides now. Mueller's team is closing in and will not relent in its pursuit of justice.
-
@C_M_ said:
Is Mr. Trump being treated unfairly? What is the behavior of an innocent man? If the Mueller investigation is a "Nothing Burger" and no "there, there", how come the indictments and why the cry to end or fire Mr. Mueller? Why is the President suing Ms. Daniel (Friday night) to keep her from talking in view of claiming to have no relations with her? What does Russia have on this man? Should America be concerned beyond Mr. Trump's moral deficiency; that he may not have been legitimately elected because of recently discovered stolen data (Facebook User Profile Data [50-Million people])? What's in Mr. Trump's "closet"? When and should Mr. Trump comes clean before given a pass? CM- The indictments have nothing to do with the actual mission of the investigation. Mission creep.
- The cry to fire Mueller is because of the mission creep and the fact that there is no basis for the investigation in reality.
- Not interested in the Ms. Daniels story. Just a distraction.
- There is zero evidence that he was not legitimately elected. That's absurd.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
1. The indictments have nothing to do with the actual mission of the investigation. Mission creep.Vox described one set of those indictments this way...
"13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin."
David, is it your contention that those indictments - the ones "related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign" - have NOTHING to do with the "actual mission of the investigation," which, according to its authorizing letter, concerns "i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a)"?
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election have NOTHING to do with the Trump campaign's possible coordination with Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 election?
- The cry to fire Mueller is because of the mission creep and the fact that there is no basis for the investigation in reality.
Or perhaps the cry to fire Mueller is because those making the call fear what Mueller has found in the bank records, on his tax returns, and from all those cooperating witnesses. And perhaps the people making the call also fear the lie-fest likely to erupt during Trump's appearance before Mueller's team or grand jury.
- Not interested in the Ms. Daniels story. Just a distraction.
I suggest that you withhold judgment on the Daniels' matter at least until Sunday night's interview on 60 Minutes... or until Karen McDougal litigates her request to get out of what she claims was an invalid NDA with Trump... or until the president is deposed in Summer Zervos' defamation against him, a suit a New York State Supreme Court judge today allowed to go forward.
- There is zero evidence that he was not legitimately elected. That's absurd.
I agree with you here, David. Donald Trump is the duly elected president of the United States.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
- There is zero evidence that he was not legitimately elected. That's absurd.
May I suggest, you read up a little more the stolen data from Facebook Users (50-Million people) Profile Data, overseen by Mr. Steve Bannon, to benefit the Trump Campaign. We can talk later about this. CM
-
Forty-some years ago, I had a neighbor who walked around outside his house on snowshoes during a furious storm, then called the local TV station saying Bigfoot had walked by. The TV station sent a crew out there and my neighbor got the corner of his house on TV. Yes, some people actually believed it.
Same kind of deal. People haven't changed much.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
1. The indictments have nothing to do with the actual mission of the investigation. Mission creep.Vox described one set of those indictments this way...
"13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin."
David, is it your contention that those indictments - the ones "related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign" - have NOTHING to do with the "actual mission of the investigation," which, according to its authorizing letter, concerns "i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a)"?
Ok, let's be clear, that may be what the authorization says but it's about trying to nail trump for collusion. So yes, in the technical sense those indictments do have to do with the mission as legally stated. But not with the actual purpose of the investigation which is blatantly a witch hunt. The Americans that have been indicted, which is what I was referring to, do not have anything to do with the actual mission of the investigation even as legally stated.
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election have NOTHING to do with the Trump campaign's possible coordination with Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 election?
See above
- The cry to fire Mueller is because of the mission creep and the fact that there is no basis for the investigation in reality.
Or perhaps the cry to fire Mueller is because those making the call fear what Mueller has found in the bank records, on his tax returns, and from all those cooperating witnesses. And perhaps the people making the call also fear the lie-fest likely to erupt during Trump's appearance before Mueller's team or grand jury.
No fear there at all actually.
- Not interested in the Ms. Daniels story. Just a distraction.
I suggest that you withhold judgment on the Daniels' matter at least until Sunday night's interview on 60 Minutes... or until Karen McDougal litigates her request to get out of what she claims was an invalid NDA with Trump... or until the president is deposed in Summer Zervos' defamation against him, a suit a New York State Supreme Court judge today allowed to go forward.
- There is zero evidence that he was not legitimately elected. That's absurd.
I agree with you here, David. Donald Trump is the duly elected president of the United States.
Well at least you aren't one of the crazies!
-
@GaoLu said:
Forty-some years ago, I had a neighbor who walked around outside his house on snowshoes during a furious storm, then called the local TV station saying Bigfoot had walked by. The TV station sent a crew out there and my neighbor got the corner of his house on TV. Yes, some people actually believed it.Same kind of deal. People haven't changed much.
That may be so. However, all truth can endure close examination. This is why I don't understand why Mr. Trump and lovers of him don't want Mr. Mueller to finish his work. They investigated Benghazi, President Clinton ($ 70 million)- Whitewater Deal, Watergate, and 9/11; why not Russia's interference, payment to porn stars, possible collusion, and this-- the stolen data from Facebook Users (50-Million people) Profile Data? Don't you want your President's name cleared of all suspicions?
So, rather it's "Bigfoot" or "Snowshoes", investigate to eliminate. Failure to do can lead to hate. CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Ok, let's be clear, that may be what the authorization says but it's about trying to nail trump for collusion. So yes, in the technical sense those indictments do have to do with the mission as legally stated. But not with the actual purpose of the investigation which is blatantly a witch hunt. The Americans that have been indicted, which is what I was referring to, do not have anything to do with the actual mission of the investigation even as legally stated.It's not that the authorization "may" say what I quoted it as saying, David. It's that the authorization DOES say what I quoted it as saying.
The investigation is about "nail(ing) Trump for collusion"? I believe you have I have agreed on more than one occasion that "collusion" is not a crime. But Mueller's job is to prosecute the crimes he believes were committed. Hence, his investigation CAN'T be about "nail(ing) Trump for collusion."
A "witch hunt"? Your view, not mine.
The Americans indicted and those who have plead guilty to-date "do not have anything to do with the actual mission of the investigation even as legally stated"? Remember the language of the authorization:
"ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"
We probably don't know all we need to know about Manafort's and Gates' indictments. But as for some the guilty pleas, if a witness lies as a witness in Mueller's investigation, I believe the prosecution of his or her perjury (or "false statements") is a matter that arises "directly from the investigation." Do you?
Well at least you aren't one of the crazies!
You don't know me as well as you think, David.
-
@C_M_ said:
@GaoLu said:
Forty-some years ago, I had a neighbor who walked around outside his house on snowshoes during a furious storm, then called the local TV station saying Bigfoot had walked by. The TV station sent a crew out there and my neighbor got the corner of his house on TV. Yes, some people actually believed it.Same kind of deal. People haven't changed much.
That may be so. However, all truth can endure close examination. This is why I don't understand why Mr. Trump and lovers of him don't want Mr. Mueller to finish his work. They investigated Benghazi, President Clinton ($ 70 million)- Whitewater Deal, Watergate, and 9/11; why not Russia's interference, payment to porn stars, possible collusion, and this-- the stolen data from Facebook Users (50-Million people) Profile Data? Don't you want your President's name cleared of all suspicions?
So, rather it's "Bigfoot" or "Snowshoes", investigate to eliminate. Failure to do can lead to hate. CM
Why end it? If they really have something, fine, investigate. Take Trump to the cleaners and prison if he should be there. Trouble is they haven't found a thing, nada, and it has become a witch hunt, McCarthyism warmed over, and its all a Democratic agenda to use US and especially Republican tax dollars to fund partisan politics for a party that is broke. Republicans tolerated it just to prove that Trump was innocent (we hoped he was anyway) and so far he looks pretty clean regarding what was investigated. We are about sick of the Democratic nonsense however and its time to end it. What a waste of money and time and energy! That is why we want it ended.
-
Wow, GaoLu, I didn't expect you to be wearing such thick "rose-colored glasses? This is very revealing. You are much more Republican than I was led to believe. Regardless, Mueller investigation will go on. Calm down, so it will be proven Mr. Trump is clean. Right now, he seems not so. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Wow, GaoLu, I didn't expect you to be wearing such thick "rose-colored glasses? This is very revealing. You are much more Republican than I was led to believe. Regardless, Mueller investigation will go on. Calm down, so it will be proven Mr. Trump is clean. Right now, he seems not so. CMHe seems very much so. Nothing to suggest any wrong doing with regard to Russia. Not a shred or even a hint.
-
I do not belong to any party. Just my personal choice. I do see the chicanery of the Dem's asking Repubs and American families and businesses to foot the bill for their political sham. If Republicans did that I would call them out the same. They don't.
And you support that nonsense. CM!
-
@GaoLu said:
I do not belong to any party. Just my personal choice. I do see the chicanery of the Dem's asking Repubs and American families and businesses to foot the bill for their political sham. If Republicans did that I would call them out the same. They don't.And you support that nonsense. CM!
Fear not, America has plenty of money to do what she wants to do. Have you forgotten about President Clinton ($ 70 million)- Whitewater Deal investigation? Conclusion? It was about sex. For Mr. Trump, it's going to be sex, money, and obstruction. Don't jump on me. I'm just the messenger, as things look now. CM
-
@GaoLu said:
Why end it? If they really have something, fine, investigate. Take Trump to the cleaners and prison if he should be there. Trouble is they haven't found a thing, nada, and it has become a witch hunt, McCarthyism warmed over, and its all a Democratic agenda to use US and especially Republican tax dollars to fund partisan politics for a party that is broke.Gao Lu, you tell us "they haven't found a thing, nada." How do you you know what Mueller's team has found or not found? I follow the news quite closely, and to my knowledge, there have no leaks whatsoever from within the team as to what they have and haven't found, or as to anything else.
To my knowledge, federal prosecutors don't offer progress updates on their investigations. They address the public only when they have guilty pleas or criminal indictments to announce. That means, the public has no way of knowing that an investigation has found "not a thing, nada" until it ends without guilty pleas or indictments - and even THAT doesn't mean investigators found "nada." It means only that they didn't find evidence sufficient to charge people with crimes.
Yet you tell us "they haven't found a thing, nada." Please share with us the factual basis for your assertion.
[I'd also ask you about your "witch hunt" claim, but it seems to depend on the accuracy of your "they haven't found a thing" claim, so I start with that one.]
-
Please share with us the factual basis for your assertion.
Same as yours.
-
@C_M_ said:
@GaoLu said:
I do not belong to any party. Just my personal choice. I do see the chicanery of the Dem's asking Repubs and American families and businesses to foot the bill for their political sham. If Republicans did that I would call them out the same. They don't.And you support that nonsense. CM!
Fear not, America has plenty of money to do what she wants to do. Have you forgotten about President Clinton ($ 70 million)- Whitewater Deal investigation? Conclusion? It was about sex. For Mr. Trump, it's going to be sex, money, and obstruction. Don't jump on me. I'm just the messenger, as things look now. CM
Oh brother. There is a MAJOR difference here. Clinton's moral failure in that area happened inside the OVAL OFFICE. Big difference.
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
Why end it? If they really have something, fine, investigate. Take Trump to the cleaners and prison if he should be there. Trouble is they haven't found a thing, nada, and it has become a witch hunt, McCarthyism warmed over, and its all a Democratic agenda to use US and especially Republican tax dollars to fund partisan politics for a party that is broke.Gao Lu, you tell us "they haven't found a thing, nada." How do you you know what Mueller's team has found or not found? I follow the news quite closely, and to my knowledge, there have no leaks whatsoever from within the team as to what they have and haven't found, or as to anything else.
To my knowledge, federal prosecutors don't offer progress updates on their investigations. They address the public only when they have guilty pleas or criminal indictments to announce. That means, the public has no way of knowing that an investigation has found "not a thing, nada" until it ends without guilty pleas or indictments - and even THAT doesn't mean investigators found "nada." It means only that they didn't find evidence sufficient to charge people with crimes.
Yet you tell us "they haven't found a thing, nada." Please share with us the factual basis for your assertion.
[I'd also ask you about your "witch hunt" claim, but it seems to depend on the accuracy of your "they haven't found a thing" claim, so I start with that one.]
The fact that the investigation is still going a year later is pretty good evidence they haven't found anything. Not to mention two congressional investigations of the same topic found nothing.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
The fact that the investigation is still going a year later is pretty good evidence they haven't found anything. Not to mention two congressional investigations of the same topic found nothing.The federal investigation into the Whitewater land deal began in January 1994 with the appointment of a "special prosecutor." A three judge panel then appointed Ken Starr as "independent counsel" in the matter in August 1994. Starr didn't make an impeachment referral to the House until the fall of 1997, three years later.
The moral of the story? Federal investigations take time, and the fact that after ten months, Mueller's team has only secured three guilty pleas (Flynn, Papadopolous, and Gates), one lengthy indictment (against Manafort), and several cooperating witnesses, while still taking evidence and preparing to take testimony from the president of the United States, is neither surprising nor indicative that their efforts have found nothing. As I noted to Gao Lu, prosecutors don't give progress updates except in the form of guilty pleas and indictments.
David, you claim TWO congressional investigations have "found nothing." I know that the Republican-controlled House Intel committee is about to approve the conclusion that they found nothing. What's the second congressional investigation that has reached that conclusion?
And as for the House Intel probe, take a look at the data gathered by a progressive-leaning watchdgog group, the Center for American Progress’s Moscow Project, which alleges the House committee missed or incompletely reported on 81% of the contacts between Russians (or groups with strong ties to Russia) and Trump campaign officials. The group's new report asserts that at least 22 Trump campaign officials knew about those contacts. [Find a news report/summary HERE, and the group's documented report HERE.]
-
This is EXACTLY the kind of thoughtful, substantive, and fact-filled response I expected from you, Gao Lu.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Oh brother. There is a MAJOR difference here. Clinton's moral failure in that area happened inside the OVAL OFFICE. Big difference.
David, please,
1. It was about sex for Clinton and it's going to be about sex for Mr. Trump--who is no "Altar-boy."
2. Mr. Trump drafting a false account of the Trump Tower meeting on Air Force One, obstructing justice and possible collusion with the Russian to get dirt on Hillary.The fact that the investigation is still going a year later is pretty good evidence they haven't found anything. Not to mention two congressional investigations of the same topic found nothing.
Any investigation must run its course before one can say with certainty there is nothing. To do so before such time is dishonest, incomplete, and/or "down-right" silly. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Oh brother. There is a MAJOR difference here. Clinton's moral failure in that area happened inside the OVAL OFFICE. Big difference.
David, please,
1. It was about sex for Clinton and it's going to be about sex for Mr. Trump--who is no "Altar-boy."I never said Trump was. I also understand it is the same type of action. HOWEVER, one was done while in office, one was as a private citizen. There is a major difference there. The fact that you cannot see/understand that is amazing and shows your bias.
- Mr. Trump drafting a false account of the Trump Tower meeting on Air Force One, obstructing justice and possible collusion with the Russian to get dirt on Hillary.
What in the world are you talking about? And there has been no evidence produced regarding collusion so you should reserve the guilty verdict until there is evidence.
The fact that the investigation is still going a year later is pretty good evidence they haven't found anything. Not to mention two congressional investigations of the same topic found nothing.
Any investigation must run its course before one can say with certainty there is nothing. To do so before such time is dishonest, incomplete, and/or "down-right" silly. CM
Yet, you have declared Trump guilty in your mind..... hmm....
-
@C_M_ said:
2. Mr. Trump drafting a false account of the Trump Tower meeting on Air Force One, obstructing justice and possible collusion with the Russian to get dirt on Hillary.@davidtaylorjr said:
What in the world are you talking about? And there has been no evidence produced regarding collusion so you should reserve the guilty verdict until there is evidence."No evidence produced." The added word makes a substantive difference, David. Well done.
I don't think you're correct, however. How is Don Jr's June 2016 emailed eagerness to receive dirt on Hillary Clinton - dirt he was told was "obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump" - not evidence of at least his OPENNESS to collusion with Russia?
Whether there actually WAS such information from the Russian government is not relevant to the specific point I'm making in this post. Trump Jr's eagerness to receive the information, even when he thought it was coming from the Russians, I contend, showed his openness to colluding with them.
In my view, that's evidence of collusion. Not conclusive evidence. Not sufficient evidence. But it IS evidence. So, I contend your claim that there has been "no evidence produced regarding collusion" is not correct.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
2. Mr. Trump drafting a false account of the Trump Tower meeting on Air Force One, obstructing justice and possible collusion with the Russian to get dirt on Hillary.@davidtaylorjr said:
What in the world are you talking about? And there has been no evidence produced regarding collusion so you should reserve the guilty verdict until there is evidence."No evidence produced." The added word makes a substantive difference, David. Well done.
I don't think you're correct, however. How is Don Jr's June 2016 emailed eagerness to receive dirt on Hillary Clinton - dirt he was told was "obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump" - not evidence of at least his OPENNESS to collusion with Russia?
Perhaps we should define collusion.
Whether there actually WAS such information from the Russian government is not relevant to the specific point I'm making in this post. Trump Jr's eagerness to receive the information, even when he thought it was coming from the Russians, I contend, showed his openness to colluding with them.
In my view, that's evidence of collusion. Not conclusive evidence. Not sufficient evidence. But it IS evidence. So, I contend your claim that there has been "no evidence produced regarding collusion" is not correct.
We disagree, but I think you and I define terms differently.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Perhaps we should define collusion.I define collusion as secretive cooperation between parties for purposes the colluding parties (and likely the public at large) would find embarrassing, improper, unethical, and/or illegal were they revealed.
We disagree, but I think you and I define terms differently.
If Don Jr's eagerness to receive dirt from the Russian government wasn't evidence of his openness to collusion with Russians, what was it?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Oh brother. There is a MAJOR difference here. Clinton's moral failure in that area happened inside the OVAL OFFICE. Big difference.
David, please,
1. It was about sex for Clinton and it's going to be about sex for Mr. Trump--who is no "Altar-boy."I never said Trump was.
I didn't say, you said, David. Why you seem to focus on the nebulous word or phrase in the sentence and miss the point? Is this a practice habit or you're just reading too fast?
...There is a major difference there. The fact that you cannot see/understand that is amazing and shows your bias.
Stop it! It's a different view, from a different approach. Don't tag me.
- Mr. Trump drafting a false account of the Trump Tower meeting on Air Force One, obstructing justice and possible collusion with the Russian to get dirt on Hillary.
What in the world are you talking about?
They both committed illegal acts on Federal Property. I thought that was an easy one for you.
And there has been no evidence produced regarding collusion so you should reserve the guilty verdict until there is evidence.
May I suggest, you slow your pace of reading, and note the word, "POSSIBLE"
The fact that the investigation is still going a year later is pretty good evidence they haven't found anything. Not to mention two congressional investigations of the same topic found nothing.
Any investigation must run its course before one can say with certainty there is nothing. To do so before such time is dishonest, incomplete, and/or "down-right" silly. CM
Yet, you have declared Trump guilty in your mind..... hmm....
David, you are not me, and I am sure you don't want desire too. In case you do, it would make one of us unnecessary in these forums.
Given that you're not in my head, you can't speak for me, ever! I know it hard, but you have to accept it.
What you have done above, in your head, declared that I "have declared Trump guilty". How do I know? Because you (David) said:
"...you have declared Trump guilty in your mind..... hmm...."
You're not in my head nor you can't get into my head. Use your head, to monitor your head and be satisfied. You are ahead, with your head.
Just in case you didn't get it, I don't need you to speak for me. Thanks, I know you would understand. Peace and love. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Oh brother. There is a MAJOR difference here. Clinton's moral failure in that area happened inside the OVAL OFFICE. Big difference.
David, please,
1. It was about sex for Clinton and it's going to be about sex for Mr. Trump--who is no "Altar-boy."I never said Trump was.
I didn't say, you said, David. Why you seem to focus on the nebulous word or phrase in the sentence and miss the point? Is this a practice habit or you're just reading too fast?I can read between the lines.
...There is a major difference there. The fact that you cannot see/understand that is amazing and shows your bias.
Stop it! It's a different view, from a different approach. Don't tag me.
It's a ridiculous view that doesn't take in key differences.
- Mr. Trump drafting a false account of the Trump Tower meeting on Air Force One, obstructing justice and possible collusion with the Russian to get dirt on Hillary.
What in the world are you talking about?
They both committed illegal acts on Federal Property. I thought that was an easy one for you.
Um, what illegal act did Trump commit on federal property?
And there has been no evidence produced regarding collusion so you should reserve the guilty verdict until there is evidence.
May I suggest, you slow your pace of reading, and note the word, "POSSIBLE"Once again, I've seen everything you said about the president and your thoughts are quite clear.
The fact that the investigation is still going a year later is pretty good evidence they haven't found anything. Not to mention two congressional investigations of the same topic found nothing.
Any investigation must run its course before one can say with certainty there is nothing. To do so before such time is dishonest, incomplete, and/or "down-right" silly. CM
Yet, you have declared Trump guilty in your mind..... hmm....
David, you are not me, and I am sure you don't want desire too. In case you do, it would make one of us unnecessary in these forums.
Given that you're not in my head, you can't speak for me, ever! I know it hard, but you have to accept it.
You have made it very plain. It's no secret what you mean. Don't try to run from it now that you are being called out on it.
What you have done above, in your head, declared that I "have declared Trump guilty". How do I know? Because you (David) said:
"...you have declared Trump guilty in your mind..... hmm...."
You're not in my head nor you can't get into my head. Use your head, to monitor your head and be satisfied. You are ahead, with your head.
Just in case you didn't get it, I don't need you to speak for me. Thanks, I know you would understand. Peace and love. CM
I'm not speaking for you. I'm just saying that it is plain to me what you mean. I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way. You may want to phrase your arguments more clearly.
Post edited by dct112685 on -
@davidtaylorjr said:
Once again, I've seen everything you said about the president and your thoughts are quite clear...- All that I believe about your President, I have not said. There are some positive ones, believe it, or not. Don't ask me, now to say. When the time is ripe...
- All that I have said thus far (factually, opinion, prediction or comparison), can be independently verified (by experts, professionals, and policial analysts who are not too close to the Trump Tree, where they can still see the American Forest.
- You don't know what I am going to say about Mr. Trump view of unfolding events. To some degree, I am just connecting the dots of his actions or lack thereof.
- Much about Mr. Trump has been known before he became President of your beloved USA. I am not one who wear "rose-colored glasses" and hates Obama more than truth or reality. I call it like it is.
- Is your Mr. Trump is beyond critical review?
- Mr. Trump past life, present behavior, and inexperience are so evident.
- Mr. Trump is his own worst enemy.
- What Mr. Trump did (in the past) and who he is, as a person (character) are all being played out on the world's stage, for all to see. So don't label me as a "Trump hater". Open your eyes, see the man, his policies and his administration's operation for yourself, without political party glasses.
- I am not beholding to the Democratic or the Republican Party. I can see and speak freely truth that is revealed and exposed.
- I am not suggesting you give up your party's affiliation, but I do firmly suggest that you don't suspend with reality regardless of how painful it may be. Carrying Mr. Trump's water, you will endure must discomfort; if not, unnumbered embarrassments.
More the next time. **Let's abide in peace and love. CM **
-
@C_M_ said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Once again, I've seen everything you said about the president and your thoughts are quite clear...- All that I believe about your President, I have not said. There are some positive ones, believe it, or not. Don't ask me, now to say. When the time is ripe...
- All that I have said thus far (factually, opinion, prediction or comparison), can be independently verified (by experts, professionals, and policial analysts who are not too close to the Trump Tree, where they can still see the American Forest.
- You don't know what I am going to say about Mr. Trump view of unfolding events. To some degree, I am just connecting the dots of his actions or lack thereof.
- Much about Mr. Trump has been known before he became President of your beloved USA. I am not one who wear "rose-colored glasses" and hates Obama more than truth or reality. I call it like it is.
- Is your Mr. Trump is beyond critical review?
- Mr. Trump past life, present behavior, and inexperience are so evident.
- Mr. Trump is his own worst enemy.
- What Mr. Trump did (in the past) and who he is, as a person (character) are all being played out on the world's stage, for all to see. So don't label me as a "Trump hater". Open your eyes, see the man, his policies and his administration's operation for yourself, without political party glasses.
- I am not beholding to the Democratic or the Republican Party. I can see and speak freely truth that is revealed and exposed.
- I am not suggesting you give up your party's affiliation, but I do firmly suggest that you don't suspend with reality regardless of how painful it may be. Carrying Mr. Trump's water, you will endure must discomfort; if not, unnumbered embarrassments.
More the next time. **Let's abide in peace and love. CM **
The proof is in the fact that you say "your president." Are you American? If so, he is YOUR president too.
-
"It's the message, not the vessel, one should be concern about when it comes to Mr. Trump and his presidency. When you go to the "emergency room" or having surgery, do you ask the attendant his/her party's affiliation and nationality? "Keep the main thing, the main thing." "Oh, say, can you see?" CM
-
Here on Thursday night, after another "craziest day yet" of the Trump administration, there is a major break in the Mueller investigation of the Trump campaign's possible connections with Russia.
The Daily Beast reports that Guccifer 2.0, the mysterious online hacker who took and has generally been granted credit for hacking the DNC's emails in 2016, was not, as he and others had claimed, a Romanian lone wolf "hacktivist" who hacked the emails for his personal agenda. Now, according to the Daily Beast, the FBI has determined that Guccifer 2.0 was "an officer of Russia’s military intelligence directorate (GRU)." So when Trump loyalist Roger Stone communicated with Guccifer 2.0 - as Stone acknowledged he did in August 2016 - he communicated with one who the article describes as "an officer of Russia’s largest foreign intelligence agency." [In a blogpost in March of last year, Stone denied ever communicating with Russian intelligence. It's probably because he just didn't know.
]It's a wonder they found the link to the GRU. The article says it happened only because Guccifer 2.0 forgot to turn on his VPN for one of his social media posting sessions. That left the fingerprints of his true IP address, which authorities used to identify his actual location - a GRU office, not a Romanian apartment.
Now, the Daily Beast says, the Mueller team has taken over the Guccifer 2.0 investigation; it's not hard to figure out why. Guccifer 2.0 connects the email hacking directly to the Russian government, AND perhaps, via Roger Stone, to the Trump campaign.
I'll repeat myself from an earlier post: The Mueller team is closing in on Donald Trump and company. The president can feel the heat building. Look for more and more intentional chaos as the president tries to distract from the rising storm clouds.
-
Another nothing-burger.
A monk recently told me he has heart problems every year on the spring equinox. Something to do with the zodiac and planets and Buddhism. I don't get that the same way I don't get this fresh new stale nothing-burger (I like that term).
