monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@georgeob1,

That's fair george, because you amuse the hell out of me, so if you're happy I'm happy.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

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.

More evidence that this witch hunt has nothing to do with concerns over the integrity of our elections.

Keep in mind that when Democrats pull crap like this, the Republicans give it right back to them.

Remember how happy the Democrats were to block W's nominees in 2007-8 for no reason other than spite? How did the Democrats like having Obama's Supreme Court nominee blocked as revenge?

If this witch hunt impedes Trump's agenda, look for the same thing to be done to the next Democratic president, even if we have to wait 20 some years before the Democrats regain the White House.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote hawkeye:

Quote:

It is so pathetic that the "GET THE VERMIN OUT OF TOWN" crowd is reduced to getting excited that Team Trump took a meeting on the promise of Russian generated Op Research being offered, which was a lie, it was a trick talk about adoptions of kids. Of course the Trumps wanted dirt on Hilary, politics is a very dirty business, this is what everyone does now, this is not going to be good enough.

Ahem. Mueller and the committees are investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians to affect the election. Well, they just got it. Sorry, but no amount of "Really dahling, surely you aren't serious about this amounting to anything" is going to change that.

2 Replies

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

I suspect there will be more damaging evidence coming out. Only time will tell.

No chance of that. The fact that nothing that has been alleged is even a crime to begin with is a strong indicator that this witch hunt is going nowhere fast.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

Watergate took two years to take full effect from June '72 when the burglars were arrested to August '74 when Nixon resigned.

The Republicans back then were naive and unprepared for the Democrats' witch hunt. No one today is fooled by DNC hatemongering.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

It's a crime. Both Mueller and the committees are investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to affect the election. This is a prime example of exactly that. The investigations have already been justified, now it's just a matter of watching the rats all turn on each other trying to get less jail time.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Ahem. Mueller and the committees are investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians to affect the election.

The only thing these witch hunters care about is trying to prosecute people who disagree with the Democrats.

They don't care about collusion because that doesn't give them a way to prosecute anyone.

They certainly don't care about the integrity of our elections.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

It's a crime.

Can you cite any law against it?

Blickers wrote:

Both Mueller and the committees are investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to affect the election.

No. The only thing they are trying to do is prosecute people for disagreeing with the Democrats. None of them care about collusion and none of them care about the integrity of our elections.

Blickers wrote:

This is a prime example of exactly that.

Absent any law against it, it is a prime example of the Trump family doing absolutely nothing wrong.

Blickers wrote:

The investigations have already been justified, now it's just a matter of watching the rats all turn on each other trying to get less jail time.

If this witch hunt tries to put innocent people in prison, mass pardons will take care of that problem.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

Can you cite any law against it [colluding with the Russians to affect the Presidential election]?

Certainly. The Federal Election Campaign Act forbids it:

Source: Page 85

PS: It's already been established that a contribution does not have to be money.

4 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

The only thing they are trying to do is prosecute people for disagreeing with the Democrats. None of them care about collusion and none of them care about the integrity of our elections.

Clearly untrue. But the thing is, even if what you said was true and they were not interested in finding collusion or violations of election integrity, you have to admit that evidence of both are gushing up like Ol' Faithful.

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

Absent any law against it

There is a law against it. See the Federal Election Campaign Act above.

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

If this witch hunt tries to put innocent people in prison, mass pardons will take care of that problem.

What about all the guilty people? The evidence is pointing to a whole host of them.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Well, just to assure you, I have nothing to do with any "witch hunt". I'm not involved in any investigation. I'm simply stating my personal opinion. That is all.

0 Replies

Quote:

NY Review of Books‏Verified account @nybooks Jul 10
In retrospect, there were some warning signs.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEa9icYXgAA8GFq.jpg

1 Reply

@blatham,

How manly. What the hell is up with his hair, he looks like Michael Douglas's character in 'Greed'. Every girl's crazy bout a sharp dressed man holding a butchered elephant's tail.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Quote oralloy:

Quote:
Can you cite any law against it [colluding with the Russians to affect the Presidential election]?

Certainly. The Federal Election Campaign Act forbids it:

§ 30121.
Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value...

PS: It's already been established that a contribution does not have to be money.

It doesn't have to be money, no. It could be, for example, an expensive yacht. But it has to be a "thing." Information is not a tangible "thing."

Would it be illegal for a Chinese foreign national to inform a campaign official that, for example, China just nuked North Korea? We all value true information, but that does not turn it into a "thing of value," certainly not in the context of what this statute is attempting to address.

Furthermore, in this case, by all accounts, no information of value was ever given. Even if you did call information a "thing," the "of value" qualification would be missing.

Even further, telling someone what you know is not a "campaign contribution or donation." Not even close.

Nice try, cheese-eater.

2 Replies

@layman,

You're embarrassing yourself. Do you honestly think our military wouldn't have a clue about an impending nuclear attack...even in another country????? ...I'm beginning to think it was a mistake to abolish the draft....too many people invent their own ideas about warfare, weapons systems, military strength of our country and alllllllllll of the other countries. Volunteers fill the ranks, make the sacrifices, and the rest of us sit around and bitch about taxes. It's a sorry state of affairs.......Nice try, slacker

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

You're embarrassing yourself. Do you honestly think our military wouldn't have a clue about an impending nuclear attack...even in another country????? ...I'm beginning to think it was a mistake to abolish the draft....too many people invent their own ideas about warfare, weapons systems, military strength of our country and alllllllllll of the other countries. Volunteers fill the ranks, make the sacrifices, and the rest of us sit around and bitch about taxes. It's a sorry state of affairs.......Nice try, slacker

What the **** are you trying so hard to bitch about, Bag? Are you suggesting that a "campaign manager" is "our military?"

Your response is a total non sequitur. Try something on topic, why doncha, cheese-eater?

0 Replies

@Blickers,

This attempt to criminalize the free dissemination of truthful information is quite typical for a cheese-eater who routinely seeks to suppress free speech, eh?

Information is a "thing of value" and therefore it cannot be "given" to somebody else by a "foreign national." If I was a campaign affiliate, visited Paris, and asked a local how to get to the nearest whorehouse, I would be "soliciting" a "thing of value" from a "foreign national" and hence guilty of the most dastardly crime--seeking information.

1 Reply

@layman,

Reporter: So, as campaign manager, what do you do on a typical day?

CM: I start the day by reading all the major newspapers, looking for news.

Reporter: So you consider that to be a valuable thing?

CM: Yeah, I do. I think it's important to be informed about current world events.

Reporter: Did you say world events? Do you read foreign newspapers?

CM: Sure, I read newspapers from Italy, France, Germany, England, China, and many more countries.

Reporter: Thanks for the confession, chump. You're under arrest. I aint no reporter, I'm an undercover FBI agent. You're facing 5-10 now, ************. You took a thing of value from a foreign national.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

PS: It's already been established that a contribution does not have to be money.

"Been established," eh?

PS, cheese-eater: No court has EVER held that information is a "thing of value" within the meaning of this statute. And, guess what? None ever will.

Know what I'm sayin?

0 Replies

Quote:

President Donald Trump has been party to an eye-watering 4,000 lawsuits over the last 30 years, US media say.
And now the mogul turned commander-in-chief has attracted one more, after seven people sued him for blocking them on Twitter.
Mr Trump is an avid user of the social media forum, which he deploys to praise allies and lambast critics.
The lawsuit was filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute, a free speech group at Columbia University.
The seven Twitter users involved claim their accounts were blocked by the president, or his aides, after they replied to his tweets with mocking or critical comments.
People on Twitter are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them.
The legal complaint argues that by blocking these individuals, Mr Trump has barred them from joining the online conversation.
It calls the move an attempt to "suppress dissent" in a public forum - and a violation of their First Amendment right to free speech.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and the president's social media director Daniel Scavino are also named in the lawsuit.
Last month, Mr Spicer said Mr Trump's tweets were considered "official statements by the president of the United States".
The president's @realDonaldTrump Twitter account has 33.7m followers, while the official @POTUS account has 19.3m.
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, said the president's love of Twitter means it has become "an important source of news and information about the government".
"The First Amendment applies to this digital forum in the same way it applies to town halls and open school board meetings," he said.
"The White House acts unlawfully when it excludes people from this forum simply because they've disagreed with the president."
According to the institute, the account's blocking habit should be a concern for everyone.
Why? Because even if they can read the president's tweets, what they see has been consciously cleansed of criticism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40577858

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know