Why Doesnt "Me Too" Apply to Democrats?

[simple1]

22 hours ago, Slip said:

I hope this is not considered off-topic.  A fascinating read for those not au-fait with the propaganda machine at play in modern U.S. politics an how complicit the republicans are in protecting and nurturing it.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/04/trump-twitter-russians-release-the-memo-216935

Correct. The subject IT architecture has  been around for a while, but very busily denied by guess who...the Right of Centre, not only in the US, but also in Europe. Interestingly Right of Centre organisations, more often than not, propose supporting alignment to Russian interests. The deniers self identify as 'Patriots' - LOL.

[Srikcir]

48 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I think the house can overrule a "trump" block by vote.

Sent from my [device_name] using http://Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

There's PR and then there's reality of political power:

"Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee refuse to say if they would override the President if he blocks the Democratic rebuttal or redacts key portions of it -- despite their unanimous vote on Monday to release it."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/06/politics/adam-schiff-memo-house-gop/index.html

Whatever decision is made, it will probably come from White House chief of staff John Kelly!

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Nunes has said the footnote shows that the Steele Dossier was paid for by a political organization. You think that the judge is too stupid to know that this means it could be biased?

Or as someone put it:

"Notice how “The FBI LIED about the Steele dossier” has been scaled back to, “The FBI did not highlight the truth about the Steele Dossier in the part of the application we bothered to read.” So now the main attack on the FBI is about font size."

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/nunes-fine-the-fbi-didnt-lie-but-its-font-was-too-small.html

 

The complaint was that the FBI was economical with the truth about the nature of the dossier. Why do you think it's ok for the FBI to make the FISA judges second guess?

 

Where the FBI definitely did lie is in demanding that the memo not be released because they claimed that doing so would compromise national security. We now know that not to be true.

 

Maybe the part that was left out contained highly classified information?

[lannarebirth]

7 hours ago, Srikcir said:

But it is the President that decides what if any of the Democrat memo will be released to the public.

Chances are he (aka his senior advisors and attorney) will redact so much of it to render it illegible.

 

Trump is meeting with who he is supposed to with regard to the Democrat memo. Hopefully he is not casually obstructing justice while doing so.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/06/trump-rosenstein-democratic-memo-394853

[boomerangutang]

The memo written by Trump-shielder Nunes (who didn't read the data he's basing his text upon) serves several purposes;

 

>>>  It tries to stall the Mueller probe

>>>  It fails in it's flaccid attempt to besmirch Mueller and/or the FBI

>>>  It pleases Putin, because anything that debilitates the US, serves to prop up Russia.

>>>  It gives Trump false hope that he has a toothpick to keep him afloat, from continuing to flounder in rough seas.

>>>  It shows how dirty and low class Republicans will go to try to shield the Dufus in Chief.

>>>  When Mueller's team publishes their findings, they will show Trump and many of his cohorts were breaking laws.  Trump can then shout to everyone, "You see! It's personal!  Mueller hates me - that's why he came out against me!!!"

 

BTW, Trey Gowdy has read the underlying data.  Some readers may recall, Gowdy was the chief attack dog going after HRC time after time after time.  He and his Republican attack dogs weren't able to pin anything illegal on her, despite desperate and vindictive attacks.

Yet now Gowdy is saying his fellow Republican's memo is a nothing burger.  Probably the reason Gowdy is reasonable is because he's not running for re-election, so he doesn't need to lick Trump's shoes.

 

 

[jamesmacleod]

do Americans in general mostly believe Trump colluded with Putin?

 

I personally don't believe Hilary's campaign was even hacked by Russia', if the campaign was hacked then perhaps the evidence could be shown to the general public about this because all these people that say it was hacked by Russia are known for misleading people with untruthful statements!

[Srikcir]

18 minutes ago, jamesmacleod said:

do Americans in general mostly believe Trump colluded with Putin?

 

I personally don't believe Hilary's campaign was even hacked by Russia', if the campaign was hacked then perhaps the evidence could be shown to the general public about this because all these people that say it was hacked by Russia are known for misleading people with untruthful statements!

Your information is about 1 year old...need to update.

As far as people known for misleading people with untruthful statements, Trump is the foremost person that comes to mind. And that is a fact.

[boomerangutang]

11 minutes ago, jamesmacleod said:

do Americans in general mostly believe Trump colluded with Putin?

I personally don't believe Hilary's campaign was even hacked by Russia', if the campaign was hacked then perhaps the evidence could be shown to the general public about this because all these people that say it was hacked by Russia are known for misleading people with untruthful statements!

For starters, Mueller's team knows a whole lot more about what went on, than we do.

Secondly, there's already been a lot of info about Russian-backed hacking.  All US intel agencies agree, and told the public as far back as August 2016.  At least one book written in July 2016 (by Malcolm Nance, an intel expert) articulates a lot of the breaches that subsequently came to light at later dates.

 

Trump has more going on with Putin than he does with Melania.  Money laundering will be (or should be) one of several serious charges launched against Trump.  Trump will squeal like a stuck pig, each time money laundering is mentioned - which may be enough to cause Mueller to take a step back.  This year should be interesting.  

 

Remember, Mueller is a Republican, and though he is/will be doing a good job, he won't be as thorough as someone who really wanted to dig deep to find out about all serious law-breaking of Trump and his cabal.    

 

Ken Starr, who officially hounded Bill Clinton for years, started with a minor real estate deal, and wound up looking into several other tangents, and wound up focusing on a sperm stain on a blue dress.  Will Mueller be as dogged and determined as Starr?  We'll see.

[jamesmacleod]

5 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Your information is about 1 year old...need to update.

As far as people known for misleading people with untruthful statements, Trump is the foremost person that comes to mind. And that is a fact.

 

I agree Trump should be many persons foremost go to guy for untruthful statements, so I'm not surprised he is your go to guy for that, and while I am sure Trump has broken thousands of laws, I'm highly doubtful he colluded with Russia to rig his own election.... Beyond that the evidence presented about the Russian government being involved is very weak in this election rigging thingy ma jig!

[boomerangutang]

39 minutes ago, jamesmacleod said:

I agree Trump should be many persons foremost go to guy for untruthful statements, so I'm not surprised he is your go to guy for that, and while I am sure Trump has broken thousands of laws, I'm highly doubtful he colluded with Russia to rig his own election.... Beyond that the evidence presented about the Russian government being involved is very weak in this election rigging thingy ma jig!

jamesmacleod opines: " I'm highly doubtful he colluded with Russia to rig his own election"

 

Boomer responds;  why is that hard to fathom?  there are rafts of evidence.  Just one of thousands of bits:   Trump Jr. saying "I love it!" when he hears of an imminent meeting with Russian agents who have dirt on HRC.   Ok, here's another:   Trump reading a smear piece (out loud, into a microphone) on HRC from Sputnik newspaper, word for word, at his campaign rallies.  Sputnik is the official newspaper for Russia's Politburo. 

 

All his adult life, Trump has been manipulating things and people. He has many financial involvements with Russians, not least money laundering Russian oligarch money.  If a person doesn't see the many connections, then that person doesn't want to see it.  Their choice.

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

 

Trump has more going on with Putin than he does with Melania.  Money laundering will be (or should be) one of several serious charges launched against Trump.  Trump will squeal like a stuck pig, each time money laundering is mentioned - which may be enough to cause Mueller to take a step back.  This year should be interesting.  

 

 

When you were a pot grower did you report that income on your taxes?  If so, did you report the sourse of those funds? Just askin'.

Edited February 8, 2018 by lannarebirth

[Andaman Al]

10 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

and wound up looking into several other tangents, and wound up focusing on a sperm stain on a blue dress.  Will Mueller be as dogged and determined as Starr?  We'll see.

There will be no sperm stain on a blue dress but maybe a urine stain on a Russian mattress.

[Andaman Al]

8 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

When you were a pot grower did you report that income on your taxes?  If so, did you report the sourse of those funds? Just askin'.

Does what anybody else has done exonerate Trump of Federal and state crimes that he commits/committed himself? Just asking'.

 

The funny issue is that people say that the money laundering crime is nothing to do with the Russia investigation (Manafort being a nice example), but when the Feds are looking at you for one thing, if they discover another crime they will not just say "oh nothing to do with our investigation", they will follow up and bang you up. Trump is facing serious jail time along with some family members and then Trump will get what he is always striving for...top ratings on the networks...boy oh boy has he got some record breaking ratings to come. His inauguration was not the most watched inauguration ever, but his sentencing will be the most watched ever, danger, I will have all 11 TVs on in the house.

[lannarebirth]

5 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Does what anybody else has done exonerate Trump of Federal and state crimes that he commits/committed himself? Just asking'.

 

The funny issue is that people say that the money laundering crime is nothing to do with the Russia investigation (Manafort being a nice example), but when the Feds are looking at you for one thing, if they discover another crime they will not just say "oh nothing to do with our investigation", they will follow up and bang you up. Trump is facing serious jail time along with some family members and then Trump will get what he is always striving for...top ratings on the networks...boy oh boy has he got some record breaking ratings to come. His inauguration was not the most watched inauguration ever, but his sentencing will be the most watched ever, danger, I will have all 11 TVs on in the house.

 

Yes, Mueller was given wide lattitude to investigate. If there are suspected crimes found I imagine he will recommend federal charges be brought or make referral to appropriate state agencies as the case may be.

Edited February 8, 2018 by lannarebirth