What President Trump Have To Hide?
Comments
-
Wow. You even know all the private things Trump says to Putin. That is an honest man of you for telling the rest of us.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
The number of Russian diplomats expelled by the Trump administration DID surprise me until I remembered that the cause for the expulsion was the Kremlin-commanded poisoning of two persons on British soil, and the collateral damage to the health of other persons.your evidence for your idea of the Kremlin commanded poisoning of two persons on British soil ?????
That was an outrageous, despicable act for which, among the appropriate punishments, when paired with other Moscow's other poisonings and its intervention in the 2016 American election, was economic sanctions that strike as close to and hard upon Vladimir Putin and his crony oligarchs as possible.
the economic sanctions of the USA and its EU puppets against Russia are damaging the EU countries more than Russia ... which actually may be the real aim and reason for those sanctions ?
Expelling diplomats is a laudable first step - especially as part of the coordinated international response announced today - but comments from Russian officials in response to the US action suggest the likelihood of an expulsion war in which the Russians send packing as many of our diplomats as we do theirs.
just shows how stupid the Western regimes are ... "international response" is also a bit incorrect, as those "nations" are all acting as vassals of the neocon dictated regime in Washington.
Had we struck Putin and his cronies personally, the Russians would not have been able to do the same to us.... Oh, wait. It's Donald Trump.
The Russians - as various interviews and publicized information shows - are not as stupid as the neocon mass main-stream media brainwashed Americans ... they know who the real rulers and thus their real enemies in Washington are, and it's certainly not the puppet Trump but the puppet players who have duped many Americans into thinking that Trump is the problem
The Russians almost certainly have SOMETHING on him. Why else is it true that our president has NEVER said an accusatory word against Mr. Putin? The Russians COULD return fire in ways from which Trump would almost certainly choose to hide. My guess is THAT'S why we didn't strike at Putin and his cronies.
The very simple explanation is this: The Russians want cooperation with other nations, the USA regime wants war with those who desire to have their own national policies instead of being vassals under the Washington neocon hegemony/dictatorship.
The other thing that didn't surprise me about today's announcement is that Donald Trump didn't make it. Nor did the president raise the poisoning in his phone call with Mr. Putin last week (I assume he was too focused on congratulating the Russian president on his election victory and trying to convince Vlad to meet with him) Sadly, Mr. Trump's refusal to give his personal voice to America's outrage over the Russian action doesn't surprise me at all.
Keep dreaming your main shit media propagated propaganda ...
I believe, most of America actually have had more than enough of the warmongers in Washington constantly pushing wars of aggression under false pretenses and with lies as "justification" and don't want their sons to be sacrificed for the military industrial complex and few crazies who want to dominate and rule the world. Problem is, they have little choice except a revolution to change things .... electing someone who is not into the warmongering but voicing moderation and attempt to cooperation did not work, as that president was overthrown in a coup by those neocon falcons in little over a year
-
@GaoLu said:
Wow. You even know all the private things Trump says to Putin. That is an honest man of you for telling the rest of us.If you're referring to the my claim that the president didn't raise the poisoning in Britain to Vladimir Putin during his recent phone call, I actually even know what the White House Press Secretary told the nation at her March 20 briefing last week... (look about halfway down the transcript)
Q And you said election meddling didn’t come up in the call. I’m curious — did the recent poisoning in the United Kingdom come up in the call?
MS. SANDERS: I don’t believe that was discussed in today’s call.
Your critique of someone's "know(ing) all the private things Trump says to Putin" is more accurately directed to Sarah Huckabee Sanders. I hope she's encouraged when you tell her how "honest" you think she is "for telling the rest of us."
p.s. If you want the Kremlin's readout of the Trump-Putin phone call, you can find it HERE. SPOILER ALERT: It makes no mention of the poisoning. Perhaps they got their summary from Sarah.
-
If you know everything, then what else is there? Just ask Bill.
-
@Wolfgang said:
your evidence for your idea of the Kremlin commanded poisoning of two persons on British soil ?????1) The nerve agent used was developed by the Soviet Union.
2) There is strong international consensus that Russia is behind the assassination attempt.
3) Assassinations on foreign soil are almost always ordered by national, not local or regional, government structures
4) Russia's is a Kremlin/Putin-centered national decision-making systemthe economic sanctions of the USA and its EU puppets against Russia are damaging the EU countries more than Russia ... which actually may be the real aim and reason for those sanctions ?
You evidence for your idea that the "real aim and reason" for the sanctions against Russia is more to damage EU countries than to impact Russia?
just shows how stupid the Western regimes are ... "international response" is also a bit incorrect, as those "nations" are all acting as vassals of the neocon dictated regime in Washington....
The Russians - as various interviews and publicized information shows - are not as stupid as the neocon mass main-stream media brainwashed Americans ... they know who the real rulers and thus their real enemies in Washington are, and it's certainly not the puppet Trump but the puppet players who have duped many Americans into thinking that Trump is the problem...The very simple explanation is this: The Russians want cooperation with other nations, the USA regime wants war with those who desire to have their own national policies instead of being vassals under the Washington neocon hegemony/dictatorship....
Keep dreaming your mainshit media propagated propaganda ...
I believe, most of America actually have had more than enough of the warmongers in Washington constantly pushing wars of aggression under false pretenses and with lies as "justification" and don't want their sons to be sacrificed for the military industrial complex and few crazies who want to dominate and rule the world. Problem is, they have little choice except a revolution to change things .... electing someone who is not into the warmongering but voicing moderation and attempt to cooperation did not work, as that president was overthrown in a coup by those neocon falcons in little over a year
As I have observed in other posts, Wolfgang, your politics on these matters are much different from mine.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Wolfgang said:
your evidence for your idea of the Kremlin commanded poisoning of two persons on British soil ?????1) The nerve agent used was developed by the Soviet Union.
the place of development or production is no evidence at all for who committed the crime ... to further clarify, the part of the soviet union where such materials were developed was in what is now Uzbekistan (NOT Russia), and the facility was eventually dismantled with cooperation of USA and other Western agencies.
Furthermore, the particular type of material was publicized by a defector scientist and formulas were even published in a book he wrote.
In more recent times, the type of material has been available and worked on in the UK (in a place that is located rather to Salisbury), and some other Western countries ...
Also, do you realize that the lady is a Russian, not a British, citizen who lives in Russia?2) There is strong international consensus that Russia is behind the assassination attempt.
There was strong international consensus that what the US politician Powell claimed in the UNSC were facts ... but were they? NO! It was all false information for which Powell at least publicly apologized ... with no remorse or regrets by any USA regime members or those succeeding them for the millions of Iraqi people killed by USA military forces.
3) Assassinations on foreign soil are almost always ordered by national, not local or regional, government structures
Assassinations, when executed by government agencies (secret services) are usually successful and done far more "professionally" ... what happened in Salisbury carries far more the signs of lack of professionalism
4) Russia's is a Kremlin/Putin-centered national decision-making system
Yes ..... USA is a Washington/Neocon-centered national decision-making system ... the UK is a London/city of London centered national decision making system ... so what???
the economic sanctions of the USA and its EU puppets against Russia are damaging the EU countries more than Russia ... which actually may be the real aim and reason for those sanctions ?
You evidence for your idea that the "real aim and reason" for the sanctions against Russia is more to damage EU countries than to impact Russia?
Oh, the sanctions were of course not implemented with the goal of damaging EU countries, but in fact that is what is happening ... quite a number of EU countries had an extensive trade relationship with Russia, and all of a sudden - because of their crazy regimes - they are sitting on their products since the particular trade has been "cancelled"
By the way, despite the sanctions, the USA has had more trade volume with Russia while the stupid EU vassals are paying the price and suffer (which of course, none of the regimes can acknowledge since they don't want to tell their people how stupid their sanction politics has been and how it amounts to treason because it was in violation of their duty to govern to benefit (and not to damage) their country.
As I have observed in other posts, Wolfgang, your politics on these matters are much different from mine.
Obviously it is ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
I'm not equipped to argue the details of the international consensus on Russia's involvement in the Skripals' poisonings. From what I've read about the father's imprisonment in Russia for treason, his freedom granted as part of a spy exchange, and from what I know about past Russian behavior, I think it's reasonable to conclude they ordered the job. I respect your view that they didn't.
One detail: The woman poisoned does in fact live in Russia. She was in London visiting her father. From what I know about the nerve agent apparently used in that attack, it doesn't discriminate between those targeted and those not; the only issues are contact and proximity. My assumption is that the daughter was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
-
Have a look at the following article about a British person who had pointed out some inconsistencies and possibilities about the British regime's story on Salisbury incident
On Being a Dissenting Voice in 2018
Just shows how "wonderfully honest and truthfully" the British regime is ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
Have a look at the following article about a British person who had pointed out some inconsistencies and possibilities about the British regime's story on Salisbury incidentOn Being a Dissenting Voice in 2018
Just shows how "wonderfully honest and truthfully" the British regime is ...
Most of the article to which you linked, Wolfgang, is the self-defense of a man named Craig Murray, who has precious little to say about the Skripal poisoning. In the comments section, I found the Russian Federation's formal response to British allegations of Russian involvement, but in my view, the "On Being a Dissenting Voice in 2018" column adds little to the discussion.
The Russian response includes this curious statement,
"Russia states that it has not used chemical weapons against Great Britain."
A stickler for word choice, I can't help but notice that the statement DOESN'T say Russia didn't use chemical weapons against Sergei Skripal.
-
Trump seems to have something to hide here in the new budget...this is something over which we might actually have some legitimate concern.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
The Russian response includes this curious statement,"Russia states that it has not used chemical weapons against Great Britain."
A stickler for word choice, I can't help but notice that the statement DOESN'T say Russia didn't use chemical weapons against Sergei Skripal.
Well, the Mrs. May declared the incident to have been a Russian attack on GB/UK ... to which the Russian foreign ministry responded.
I am surprised that you, being such a stickler on words, apparently don't "stickle" on the GB "lady" and her cohorts claiming that the Salisbury incident was an attack on the country and only therefore could she solicitate EU countries to join in on the "harping". Her claim is already indication of a very poorly carried out "false flag" operation.It's furthermore rather weird that now some of the EU countries' governments and the EU apparatchiks in Brussels even react to the GB/UK request, seeing that the UK is already in talks over their brexit !!! On one side, the EU shouts how "hard it is going to be on "exiters", and here in a warmongering effort against Russia some of them join in ... not realizing that the UK draws them in to their self-fabricated problem and in another year has nothing to do with the EU anymore ....
Coming back to the topic here: It's not so much that Trump has anything to hide, the whole of current events is the orchestrated effort by the Anglo/Zionist empire (directed from the city of London with subsidiary neocons across the Atlantic to hide (well, by now it's already sort of in the open) their last ditch attempt to rule the world and as hegemon subdue any country that doesn't want to be their slave.
-
In light of the OP, what's in Mr. Trump's past dealings? What about his convenient silent he's trying to hide? Is he a "good man" and a "good President", surrounded by bad people or vice versa? I don't think he's trying to hide his relationship with GB/UK unless there is some business dealings or...
I guess we have to wait as Mr. Mueller continues to investigate. CM
-
Is that all the options you can think of?
-
No, Why? Just the two, for now. I'm sure others know more. However, I am curious because...
Mr. Trump said his personal finance is a "red line" for Mr. Mueller. Out of that could be a number of things. I will let you tease them out.
His deafening silence (obvious to all) on Ms. Daniels and two lawsuits against him. This is out of character for him (over the span of his life) and his 14-month presidency (tweets, etc.).
So, he appears to be able to discipline himself, but not truly. For his sakes, I hope Mueller finds nothing on him. He has enough problems without future indictments and possible impeachment. CM
-
Nothing burger with onion rings.
-
@GaoLu said:
Nothing burger with onion rings."Here we go again", my CD friend. That was said before the Mueller Investigation started. Guity pleas and indictments were handed down. No, it's not proof of inclusion yet, but crimes committed.
So, the Republican phrase, "Nothing Burger" is tired and worn. It's not correct. There is something! One pleads guilty to nothing? Indictments don't come out of the ethereal regions. Come on, be real. There is some "there, there."
Besides, if this situation is a "Nothing Burger" and just "onion rings"; at best, the odor on their political dealings, stinks. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@GaoLu said:
Nothing burger with onion rings."Here we go again", my CD friend. That was said before the Mueller Investigation started. Guity pleas and indictments were handed down. No, it's not proof of inclusion yet, but crimes committed.
So, the Republican phrase, "Nothing Burger" is tired and worn. It's not correct. There is something! One pleads guilty to nothing? Indictments don't come out of the ethereal regions. Come on, be real. There is some "there, there."
Besides, if this situation is a "Nothing Burger" and just "onion rings"; at best, the odor on their political dealings, stinks. CM
It's nothing. The guilty pleas have nothing to do with the Democrat's overall narrative. They are low hanging fruit and don't mean a thing.
I'm sure you probably break the law every day without realizing it. I'm sure we all do.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
It's nothing. The guilty pleas have nothing to do with the Democrat's overall narrative. They are low hanging fruit and don't mean a thing.In my view, lying while under oath or to the FBI or other Federal officials is a crime irrespective of political parties' "narratives," irrespective of its "height" on the judicial tree. Bill Clinton lied under oath about his sex life. Low hanging fruit, David? Or the crime of perjury which our justice system had to punish because its pursuit of justice depends on truth-telling?
I'm sure you probably break the law every day without realizing it. I'm sure we all do.
But do we all lie to the FBI or Federal officials "every day without realizing it"? The Mueller probe is not everyday life.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
It's nothing. The guilty pleas have nothing to do with the Democrat's overall narrative. They are low hanging fruit and don't mean a thing.In my view, lying while under oath or to the FBI or other Federal officials is a crime irrespective of political parties' "narratives," irrespective of its "height" on the judicial tree. Bill Clinton lied under oath about his sex life. Low hanging fruit, David? Or the crime of perjury which our justice system had to punish because its pursuit of justice depends on truth-telling?
Did I claim that lying under oath should not be punished? No I didn't.
I'm sure you probably break the law every day without realizing it. I'm sure we all do.
But do we all lie to the FBI or Federal officials "every day without realizing it"? The Mueller probe is not everyday life.
If you don't realize it you don't realize it. Doesn't matter the circumstance.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Did I claim that lying under oath should not be punished? No I didn't.Then what meaning should we attach to your assertion that the guilty pleas in the Mueller probe are "low hanging fruit" that "don't mean a thing"?
If you don't realize it you don't realize it. Doesn't matter the circumstance.
I don't understand the relevance to the Mueller probe of what you deem our "every day" law-breaking. How is lying to Federal officials at all related to our "every day" jaywalking, for example?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Did I claim that lying under oath should not be punished? No I didn't.Then what meaning should we attach to your assertion that the guilty pleas in the Mueller probe are "low hanging fruit" that "don't mean a thing"?
Don't mean a thing to the overall purpose which is to prove that Donald Trump's campaign conspired and colluded with the Russians.
If you don't realize it you don't realize it. Doesn't matter the circumstance.
I don't understand the relevance to the Mueller probe of what you deem our "every day" law-breaking. How is lying to Federal officials at all related to our "every day" jaywalking, for example?
First, who are you referring to lying to the FBI. I am assuming you are talking about Michael Flynn?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Don't mean a thing to the overall purpose which is to prove that Donald Trump's campaign conspired and colluded with the Russians.I think you mis-state the purpose of the Mueller probe. Its purpose is not "to prove that the Trump campaign conspired and colluded with the Russians." It is to investigate whether the Trump campaign conspired and colluded with the Russians. (I can't help but think, David, that had you been writing this paragraph about one of my statements that you thought mis-stated a fact, you would have accused me of being "dishonest.")
I contend the willingness of witnesses to lie to Federal officials in the probe of the Trump campaign's connections to Russia does "mean a thing."
First, who are you referring to lying to the FBI. I am assuming you are talking about Michael Flynn?
Three people have pleaded guilty to making false statements. Flynn, yes, but also Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos.
-
CORRECTION: I've just come across the fact that four people, not three, have pleaded guilty to lying to the Mueller probe. The fourth person is Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan, who had previously worked with Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. He pleaded guilty to lying about his contacts with Gates.
And wouldn't you know it, yesterday Mueller's team filed a court motion in the van der Zwaan case that revealed a newly-discovered connection between Gates and a person with ties to a Russian intelligence service, a person with whom Gates communicated in September and October of 2016.
Will the coincidences never end?! ALL those Trump campaign officials having SO MANY contacts with Russians during the campaign, and yet we ALL know - well, at least Trumpsters tell us - NONE of those many contacts had ANYTHING to do with possible cooperation/coordination/collusion.
After a while, so many coincidences almost become too coincidental, don't they?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
After a while, so many coincidences almost become too coincidental, don't they?
No. Not without evidence.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
After a while, so many coincidences almost become too coincidental, don't they?
No. Not without evidence.
I'm sure you're right, David. In fact, I can't remember a single presidential campaign since the Cold War began - either the winning or losing side - that didn't have AT LEAST 20 people make AT LEAST 70 contacts with Russians as happened in the Trump campaign.... Well, I guess I can think of one... or a couple... okay, maybe a handful... but other than every campaign other than the Trump '16 campaign, I can't think of a SINGLE presidential campaign that didn't have that many contacts with Russians! So OF COURSE it's all coincidental!
The Mueller probe is probably taking as long as it is only because investigators need extra time to catalog all the coincidences that arise when 20+ people have 70+ contacts with Russians.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley said:
After a while, so many coincidences almost become too coincidental, don't they?
No. Not without evidence.
I'm sure you're right, David. In fact, I can't remember a single presidential campaign since the Cold War began - either the winning or losing side - that didn't have AT LEAST 20 people make AT LEAST 70 contacts with Russians as happened in the Trump campaign.... Well, I guess I can think of one... or a couple... okay, maybe a handful... but other than every campaign other than the Trump '16 campaign, I can't think of a SINGLE presidential campaign that didn't have that many contacts with Russians! So OF COURSE it's all coincidental!
The Mueller probe is probably taking as long as it is only because investigators need extra time to catalog all the coincidences that arise when 20+ people have 70+ contacts with Russians.
Bill, do you believe in innocent until proven guilty?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Bill, do you believe in innocent until proven guilty?FWIW, from what I've read, "innocent until proven guilty" is a term of art specific to the judicial system, and doesn't apply to online forum political conjecture such as ours. Similarly, the Trumpsters who, at the 2016 GOP convention and subsequent campaign rallies, of Hillary Clinton yelled "Lock her up!" were not accountable to the "innocent until proven guilty" creed.
But I certainly believe Paul Manafort is innocent of the charges on which he's been indicted until he's proven guilty in a court of law, as are the thirteen Russians indicted for conspiring to defraud the United States (who will never stand trial in an American court of law). I'd say the same thing about the other Trump campaign people charged in the probe, but they've all taken plea deals, I'm guessing to avoid conviction on the more serious charges that were dropped because they decided to cooperate with Mueller.
-
Just curious, but how on earth do you have time and interest to follow all this stuff and perpetually come up with all these conspiracy theories against your perceived enemies? I guess we are all made differently.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Bill, do you believe in innocent until proven guilty?FWIW, from what I've read, "innocent until proven guilty" is a term of art specific to the judicial system, and doesn't apply to online forum political conjecture such as ours. Similarly, the Trumpsters who, at the 2016 GOP convention and subsequent campaign rallies, of Hillary Clinton yelled "Lock her up!" were not accountable to the "innocent until proven guilty" creed.
At least with her there was ACTUAL evidence in her case. There is a major difference. Apples and Oranges.
-
At least with her there was ACTUAL evidence in her case. There is a major difference. Apples and Oranges.
Assume Person X wants to comment on what he or she believes is the potential criminality of a president's conduct. Your argument SEEMS to exempt Person X from the "innocent until proven guilty" limitation on such comments if "ACTUAL evidence" exists to support them. Who decides whether "ACTUAL evidence" exists to support Person X's view of the president's conduct? Person X, or someone listening/reading Person X's comments?
In our present exchange, YOU seem to be the one deciding whether there was "ACTUAL evidence" to support GOP conventioneers' cries of "Lock her up!" AND whether there is "ACTUAL evidence" to support my comments about the conduct of Trump campaign members. That is, this is another example of "apples and oranges" (hello, old friend!) because YOU say it is; I don't seem to play any role in either determination.
Are you saying that "innocent until proven guilty" applies to my comments about the Trump campaign' ties to Russia unless YOU decide there is "ACTUAL evidence" to allow such comments? What if I decide there IS "ACTUAL evidence" to support my comments? May I make them then?
And what if I decide there is NO "ACTUAL evidence" to support a "Lock her up!" shout from Trump campaign rally crowds? Do those crowds then have to stop shouting it?
Bottom line: I'm not at all clear as to when the "innocent until proven guilty" aphorism that you raised in your previous post applies. Does it apply if I believe there is "ACTUAL evidence" to support my views, or only when YOU decide there is "ACTUAL evidence" to support my views?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
