monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@layman,

layman wrote:

Assuming that the NYT's claims are true that they have 5 sources for the contents of Trump's emails and that they have actual copies, then the question would be: "How was that information obtained and disseminated?"

Think hard now, eh?

As I recall there were claims that the FBI/NSA secretly infiltrated the trump tower communications system, eh?

It might be the Democratic Party connected group that set this meeting up who is pushing the information about this meeting.

So far it is a big yawn.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Just answer the damn question, eh?

Quote:
How did you find this administrative REGULATION? [Note: you're accusing people of CRIMES, but regulations are not criminal statutes]. What article led you there? What did that author have to say?

My bet is that the author cited it, and rejected it as a valid ground for accusing Trump of any "crimes," but that YOU, all by your lonesome, deleted that and took it upon YOURSELF to announce that Trump was guilty of "crimes." The "liar by ommission" here is probably you.

Kinda strange that Rev never would answer this question and rather than accept my bet, she just declared that she would never speak to me again, know what I'm sayin?

0 Replies

Quote:

Michael Gerhardt, a law professor who testified in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearings, said Trump’s most likely offense could have been violating a federal election law against soliciting something “of value” from foreign nationals.

“It could be argued that Trump Jr. was doing that,” Gerhardt, who teaches at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told the Daily News.

The Times reported that Trump set up a meeting in Trump Tower with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya after she promised damaging information about Clinton, just weeks after Donald Trump clinched the GOP nomination. Trump Jr. brought campaign manager Paul Manafort and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner with him.

Trump claimed that Veselnitskaya quickly revealed that she had “no meaningful information,” and she instead pressed the Trump associates about a Russian adoption program.

Based on Trump’s statement, “he was sitting there and evaluating whether she had anything to share,” Gerhardt said.

“The thing to do was stand up and walk out of the room. He was sitting there thinking she was in possession of information (on Clinton).”

“Based on this single incident, it would be hard to show there was an actual crime committed,” Gerhardt said.

“You need bad faith and you need a bad act. You could still argue that neither of those happened.”

Gerhardt said the most damaging result of this story might be new questions about whether the Trump family or campaign is hiding any other secret Kremlin talks. This meeting alone contradicts the campaign's previous claims that it never had any conversations with Russian nationals.

“I suspect it was not an isolated meeting, as probably a lot of other people suspect,” Gerhardt said.

NYDN

So, if Veselnitskaya actually had what she said she had and Trump took it and used it by revealing it to the press, then he would have broke federal election law. As it is, not sure. In any event, it is just one more thread in otherwise bunch of dirty threads in the Trump Russia investigation.

3 Replies

@layman,

Kinda the way Snooty fails to respond to this question, ya know?:

layman wrote:

Nice try, cheese-eater. What source do you have for the claim that he denied the meeting occurred?

Hmmmmmmm?

The reason is obvious, aint it? He aint got no damn source. There aint any cause it never happened.

Like the other cheese-eaters here, he just makes **** up that he thinks will "sound good."

Then he proceeds to engage in a pathetic round of high-fiving with other cheese-eaters for having "proved" that the legitimate claims of others are false.

The chumps, them.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

Thank you. Without knowing it, you just answered the question I asked, and proved that my bet was right.

revelette1 wrote:

Michael Gerhardt, a law professor who testified in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearings, said Trump’s most likely offense could have been violating a federal election law against soliciting something “of value” from foreign nationals.

“Based on this single incident, it would be hard to show there was an actual crime committed,” Gerhardt said.

Lie "by omission" much, eh, Rev?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

We are into our ninth month of these clods trying to figure how to off-load THE PEOPLES CHOICE, they should be ashamed of the quality of their workm

Well, the STATE's choice at least.

But I think you're going too far Hawkeye. I, for one, do not want to see Trump leave office before his first term is up. What I want to see happen is this trickle, trickle, trickle of self imposed 'crap' to derail the republican agenda for the next four years. I want Trump to stay right where he is and I want his staff and supporters to encourage more Tweeting and presidential personal attacks.

For someone with a left leaning agenda like me, an ineffective, always on defense, foot in his mouth Trump is much more preferable to a (possibly) effective Pence presidency.

Just because people are posting anti-Trump stuff does not mean that they want to see Trump removed from office.

4 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

We are into our ninth month of these clods trying to figure how to off-load THE PEOPLES CHOICE, they should be ashamed of the quality of their workm

Well, the STATE's choice at least.

But I think you're going too far Hawkeye. I, for one, do not want to see Trump leave office before his first term is up. What I want to see happen is this trickle, trickle, trickle of self imposed 'crap' to derail the republican agenda for the next four years. I want Trump to stay right where he is and I want his staff and supporters to encourage more Tweeting and presidential personal attacks.

For someone with a left leaning agenda like me, an ineffective, always on defense, foot in his mouth Trump is much more preferable to a (possibly) effective Pence presidency.

Just because people are posting anti-Trump stuff does not mean that they want to see Trump removed from office.

This is not about you or other A2K members, this is about the Washington Elite.....they had a choice to make, either try to govern through Trump which in part means to try to help him out because do the best they count for America given the situation was the most important thing, or they could "RESIST!" and get Trump out of town ASAP. They had made their choice by the first of Feb. But they have been unable to get the job done.

Also, you are mistaken that Trump is not getting anything done, he is getting a lot done, we have spent the last 50 years adding more power to the Presidency, it can not be taken away the minute an unapproved person gets the chair because the little people refused to follow instructions.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

I, for one, do not want to see Trump leave office before his first term is up. What I want to see happen is this trickle, trickle, trickle of self imposed 'crap' to derail the republican agenda for the next four years. I want Trump to stay right where he is and I want his staff and supporters to encourage more Tweeting and presidential personal attacks.

For someone with a left leaning agenda like me, an ineffective, always on defense, foot in his mouth Trump is much more preferable to a (possibly) effective Pence presidency.

Just because people are posting anti-Trump stuff does not mean that they want to see Trump removed from office.

ditto

0 Replies

@revelette1,

Quote:

So, if Veselnitskaya actually had what she said she had and Trump took it and used it by revealing it to the press, then he would have broke federal election.

You also prove, yet again, that you can't understand even the articles you cite and that you will just "read" them to say something YOU want them to say.

Nothing in the article says anything about it being a crime, if you revealed it to the press.

But, assuming that was the law, then it was the democrats who paid russians to compile a false "dossier" about Trump, then ran around for months, giving it to virtually every media outlet in the country and begging them to print it (even the fake news networks knew better than to try that), who would have broken it, eh?

Yet I haven't once seen you complain about that, even though it has repeatedly been brought to your attention.

Go figure, eh?

0 Replies

@snood,

I think he meant the three are different (though not sure).

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

I'm beginning to think I'm one of the youngest people on this board

I won't hold it against you. Smile

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Hardly a rational response. Enjoy your pouting.

Tut, tut, tut, harrumph, (clears throat loudly). tut tut sputter (adjusts monocle), tut tut tut checks pocket watch, puffs on prized Calabash, chortles dryly, heaves amused sigh, takes a deep draw from the Calabash, leans back and attempts to blow smoke rings into the rarified air.

Tres amusant, merci mon bon ami

And a titter ran thru the crowd

I warned you george! Smile

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Also, you are mistaken that Trump is not getting anything done, he is getting a lot done, we have spent the last 50 years adding more power to the Presidency, it can not be taken away the minute an unapproved person gets the chair because the little people refused to follow instructions.

Well, he's pissing a lot of people off and making some international faux pas. He's also appointed some unqualified people into some cabinet positions who may set the country back somewhat for the next 4 years.

Other than that, the only significant thing he's done is the SCOTUS pick, which any president would have done (even Obama, except....).

He's made a lot of noise, that's for sure. What else?

2 Replies

Quote:

The progression of Trump Jr.'s position can be summarized like this:

• I never represented the campaign in a meeting with a Russian.
• Actually, I did, but the meeting was about adoption.
• Well, the pretext of the meeting was incriminating information about Clinton, but we didn't actually get any.
• This kind of meeting is totally normal.
• The meeting didn't seem like such a bad idea at the time because the media wasn't focused on Russia yet.

WaPo

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Illegal immigration has been reduced by about 60%

All sorts of prosperity killing regulations have been killed

That alone, in seven months, is pretty damned good

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Citing WaPo as a source is ridiculous. They, along with CNN, have forfeited all credibility.

Even the NY Times has more credibility.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Not to even mention negotiating a cease-fire, couple with a safe-haven for refugees, with Putin.

Or the great increase in jobs.

Or withdrawing from the useless, but extremely expensive, Paris accord.

Or making the deadbeat NATO "allies" pay the **** up.

Or exposing the lying MSM for what they really are.

Or..well, I could just go on, and on, and on, but that's enough for now, eh?

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

President Donald Trump has yet to nominate individuals for over 400 key government positions requiring Senate confirmation, including the surgeon general and 93 U.S. attorneys.

A collaboration between The Washington Post and The Partnership for Public Service shows that, as of Monday afternoon, 442 of 559 key positions requiring Senate confirmation remain unfilled. Just 39 nominees for these positions have been confirmed.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/30/hundreds-of-top-government-positions-remain-unfilled/

That's not getting things done, that's putting things in the way of getting things done, because businesses, foreign governments etc. don't know who they can talk to.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Citing WaPo as a source is ridiculous. They, along with CNN, have forfeited all credibility.

Even the NY Times has more credibility.

What major outlet/publication do you consider credible?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Illegal immigration has been reduced by about 60%

All sorts of prosperity killing regulations have been killed

That alone, in seven months, is pretty damned good

If you're happy Finn, then I guess that's all that matters.

I don't think that sounds like too much at all. I remember a good chunk of those regulations he 'killed' hadn't even been enacted yet as they were held up by courts.

Even things like pulling out of the voluntary Paris agreement, had no real impact as states and cities have vowed to stick by them and most major companies have too.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know