Democrat Schiff draws Trump ire with House intel probes

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, elmrfudd said:

crimes that are invented after an interview, yeah. and yet a myriad of govt officials get off scott free for the same

thing....amazing isn't it? I am sure it is just a coincidence.

Is Rudy in the house?

[elmrfudd]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

5 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

crimes that are invented after an interview, yeah. and yet a myriad of govt officials get off scott free for the same

thing....amazing isn't it? I am sure it is just a coincidence.

Is Rudy in the house?

no, but hypocrisy is

[joecoolfrog]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IF a US president WAS a Putin stooge I'd agree with you.

You actually have no idea if Trump colluded or not , biased opinion is simply that. Mueller has more knowledge of the facts than anyone on this forum so let him finish his job and present his case.

[joecoolfrog]

54 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

crimes that are invented after an interview, yeah. and yet a myriad of govt officials get off scott free for the same

thing....amazing isn't it? I am sure it is just a coincidence.

Moronic delusion is no substitute for reasoned argument , make believe is no match for truth , partisan bias will always be trumped by independent thought.

[joecoolfrog]

I always wondered how the spouses of child abusers could defend and excuse the appalling behaviour of their partners.

Given the level of willful delusion by certain members on these threads I begin to understand.

It seems that no degree of falsehood and immorality is considered worse than admitting you fell in love with a monster.

[elmrfudd]

20 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

Moronic delusion is no substitute for reasoned argument , make believe is no match for truth , partisan bias will always be trumped by independent thought.

your opinion does not make a truth or a reasoned argument, neither does your partisan bias or insults. 

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

your opinion does not make a truth or a reasoned argument, neither does your partisan bias or insults. 

Yeah "trump" and the fans of the lying-est prez in history don't do insults. 

[joecoolfrog]

38 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

your opinion does not make a truth or a reasoned argument, neither does your partisan bias or insults. 

Im a conservative voting englishman so what partisan bias is at play ? If you consider facts as insults then thank you for confirming my point.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

 

Some posts containing inflammatory comments directed at other members have been removed.  Please be civil when posting:

 

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.
 

[quandow]

Why does Trump behave like someone who has something to hide?

[Otis Cribelcoblis]

On 2/7/2019 at 8:23 AM, Tug said:

You got that right chomper!now Donald will face real examination perhaps enough so that his money and perhaps because  of his position he will be fully exposed for what he is

Silly people.  Trump is the greatest Troll President we have ever had.  He will face nothing except for the thanks of the American People.  Keep on dreaming...

[348GTS]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

but evidence of crimes on the campaign and in Trump's inner circle is abundant.  Trump's lawyer is going to prison for campaign finance violations and other crimes.  His son had a meeting in Trump Tower with Russians in the clear expectation that he get dirt on Hillary Clinton, an obvious attempt at collusion.  Evidence that Roger Stone was working with people to get Russian hacked emails released at conveniently timed moments was strong enough to lead to his arrest.

 

Incorrect on all points I'm afraid... You're just repeating Democrat/MSM talking points. If there was "abundant" evidence of crimes, then there would have been indictments and prosecutions, however there have been NONE. So get your "facts" straight okay? Just because CNN told you there were, doesn't actually make it so. Trump's lawyer is not "going to prison for campaign finance violations". So what if Trump's son had a very short meeting with one Russian lawyer? There was nothing illegal about that, they can meet with whoever they want. (Interesting how you bring that up as "evidence" yet completely overlook the Trump Dossier which was fabricated with the help of Russians and funneled through a foreign agent...). I guess that is "collusion" and only "illegal" if the Trump campaign does it ?? So when (not if) the Clinton campaign does it, ironically by colluding with Russians (ahem,...), then it is suddenly called "opposition research" and completely fine! Then it's quite okay to leak that research to their Democrat cronies in the DOJ and FBI who then leak it to the media in order to justify their partisan investigation, the goal of which was to overturn a legal election result. No, that's all fine and above board right! There is also no evidence that Roger Stone was "working with people to get Russian hacked emails" - you seriously need to stop getting your "news" from CNN because you clearly have no idea as to the facts of the case. Furthermore, and please do pay attention here, there is no evidence that the "hacked" DNC emails originated from a Russian source, something Julian Assange himself has repeated several times. Once again, you are mistaking political talking points and opinions for facts. And I really can't help the fact that you can't tell the difference. Submitting smart ass retorts to my comments with out any facts to contradict them doesn't win you the argument, regardless of how many people agree with you.

[gamb00ler]

The only people indicted having anything to do with Russian interference in the election process were a bunch of Russians trolling around on social media, and it's not like the USA has never interfered in an other countries election. Those individuals will never stand trial. None of the other indictments or convictions have had anything to do with so called Russian collusion.  So what are we left with?  Endless "allegations" that political hacks like Schiff will use to continue this crap ad nauseam for the sole purpose of continuing the partisan bickering. If Schiff wants to release "closed door" congressional testimony, I'm all for it, but release it to the public so the public can decide for themselves.  
 
The intent by the likes of Schiff is to keep anything Trump under a cloud and everything unresolved until 2020. It is certainly NOT to deal with the issues, investigate them and release a report. 
 
For all the good that has taken place regarding the economy as it relates to jobs, business, etc., the Dems won't give Trump any credit and two years into Trumps leadership, idiots like Congressman Brad Sherman say Trump is riding Obama's coattails on the economy.  If the Dems take over in 2020, they will increase taxes and companies will simply invest less, hire less and look back overseas for production.  Unemployment will increase and when that happens the cost of the social services will increase.  Neither the economy nor wages are where anyone would like to see them but it's been a pretty decent start. As the former owner of a manufacturing company, I can tell everyone first hand that confidence in the leadership, tax stability, structural integrity, etc. are paramount in planning business strategy and making businesses grow. One has to have confidence in the future outlook before they take risk. All one has to do is look around Los Angeles to see the building boom that has taken place over the last two years. 
 
 

Yet those Californians handed the GOP their hat in the midterms. Prolly because it was a massive conspiracy by the ..........


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[gamb00ler]

TWO YEARS and ZERO to do with collusion has been discovered.
How long does the taxpayer have to fund this fiasco? For ever? Till Trump leaves office in 2025?

It’s nice to know that you and you alone know everything that the investigation has found. I’m sure glad we have you to consult.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, 348GTS said:

 

Incorrect on all points I'm afraid... You're just repeating Democrat/MSM talking points. If there was "abundant" evidence of crimes, then there would have been indictments and prosecutions, however there have been NONE. So get your "facts" straight okay? Just because CNN told you there were, doesn't actually make it so. Trump's lawyer is not "going to prison for campaign finance violations". So what if Trump's son had a very short meeting with one Russian lawyer? There was nothing illegal about that, they can meet with whoever they want. (Interesting how you bring that up as "evidence" yet completely overlook the Trump Dossier which was fabricated with the help of Russians and funneled through a foreign agent...). I guess that is "collusion" and only "illegal" if the Trump campaign does it ?? So when (not if) the Clinton campaign does it, ironically by colluding with Russians (ahem,...), then it is suddenly called "opposition research" and completely fine! Then it's quite okay to leak that research to their Democrat cronies in the DOJ and FBI who then leak it to the media in order to justify their partisan investigation, the goal of which was to overturn a legal election result. No, that's all fine and above board right! There is also no evidence that Roger Stone was "working with people to get Russian hacked emails" - you seriously need to stop getting your "news" from CNN because you clearly have no idea as to the facts of the case. Furthermore, and please do pay attention here, there is no evidence that the "hacked" DNC emails originated from a Russian source, something Julian Assange himself has repeated several times. Once again, you are mistaking political talking points and opinions for facts. And I really can't help the fact that you can't tell the difference. Submitting smart ass retorts to my comments with out any facts to contradict them doesn't win you the argument, regardless of how many people agree with you.

" You're just repeating Democrat/MSM talking points. If there was "abundant" evidence of crimes, then there would have been indictments and prosecutions, however there have been NONE. "

 

Are you living in a cave?  There have been many indictments, prosecutions, guilty pleas and prison sentences.  Don Jr hasn't been indicted yet, but the investigation isn't over.  The DNC was hacked by Gucifer, which intelligence agencies believe is a Russian organization.  Julian Assange is a liar and a sexual predator who can't be trusted. 

 

Oh right...you indicated you get your news from Fox.  I'll be you can't even name a real news program on Fox, and you get all your "news" from the irrational rants on their pundit programs.

[metisdead]

A post containing a profane misspelling of Schiff's name has been removed.  If you do not want your posts to be removed, spell people's names correctly. 

[348GTS]

36 minutes ago, heybruce said:

" You're just repeating Democrat/MSM talking points. If there was "abundant" evidence of crimes, then there would have been indictments and prosecutions, however there have been NONE. "

 

Are you living in a cave?  There have been many indictments, prosecutions, guilty pleas and prison sentences.  Don Jr hasn't been indicted yet, but the investigation isn't over.  The DNC was hacked by Gucifer, which intelligence agencies believe is a Russian organization.  Julian Assange is a liar and a sexual predator who can't be trusted. 

 

Oh right...you indicated you get your news from Fox.  I'll be you can't even name a real news program on Fox, and you get all your "news" from the irrational rants on their pundit programs.

 

Sigh. Incorrect yet again. Oh dear... If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to inform yourself with FACTS not CNN talking points. And you need to pay more attention when people inform you of things you're clearly not aware of. So let's try one more time shall we ?? There have been ZERO indictments or prosecutions or guilty pleas or prison sentences related to anyone in the Trump campaign concerning Russian collusion. Zero, zilch, nada. The people that have been prosecuted were for issues that had nothing to do with Russian collusion and were either "crimes" from a long time before the election campaign (unrelated to Trump), or, and please do try to keep up, they were for process "crimes" that occurred as a direct result of the special counsel "investigation". Go and watch some interviews with renowned lawyer Alan Dershowitz (a liberal democrat and Clinton voter to boot) on this exact topic and please educate yourself. Or I suppose you know better than he does? Hmmm ????????

[elmrfudd]

11 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

Im a conservative voting englishman so what partisan bias is at play ? If you consider facts as insults then thank you for confirming my point.

  12 hours ago, joecoolfrog said:

Moronic delusion is no substitute for reasoned argument , make believe is no match for truth , partisan bias will always be trumped by independent thought.

 

 

the orange man bad bias is clear, then you just insult and you presented no facts or reasoned arguments or independent thought, I am not

sure why you are getting so twisted over it.

[elmrfudd]

3 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Yet those Californians handed the GOP their hat in the midterms. Prolly because it was a massive conspiracy by the ..........


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

or the ballot harvesting and retirements

[stevenl]

44 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

Sigh. Incorrect yet again. Oh dear... If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to inform yourself with FACTS not CNN talking points. And you need to pay more attention when people inform you of things you're clearly not aware of. So let's try one more time shall we ?? There have been ZERO indictments or prosecutions or guilty pleas or prison sentences related to anyone in the Trump campaign concerning Russian collusion. Zero, zilch, nada. The people that have been prosecuted were for issues that had nothing to do with Russian collusion and were either "crimes" from a long time before the election campaign (unrelated to Trump), or, and please do try to keep up, they were for process "crimes" that occurred as a direct result of the special counsel "investigation". Go and watch some interviews with renowned lawyer Alan Dershowitz (a liberal democrat and Clinton voter to boot) on this exact topic and please educate yourself. Or I suppose you know better than he does? Hmmm ????????

So they're lying under oath, and you blame the investigation. Oh, and earlier crimes don't count.

People in the Trump campaign have been convicted, no denying or spinning that. I think more to follow, but we'll have to wait and see, unless you have insight in the Muller files.

[348GTS]

33 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So they're lying under oath, and you blame the investigation. Oh, and earlier crimes don't count.

People in the Trump campaign have been convicted, no denying or spinning that. I think more to follow, but we'll have to wait and see, unless you have insight in the Muller files.

 

Yeah you're not getting it. The point you're missing is that "People in the Trump campaign" were not convicted of any crimes pertaining to Russian Collusion (ie the basis of the Special Counsel "Investigation"). No denying or spinning necessary, those are the FACTS.

 

Of course you think more will follow, why wouldn't you? If you watch CNN you would think everyone ever remotely linked to Trump is guilty of Russian collusion including the chef for using russian salad dressing on a salad he prepared. And allow me to explain a little something to you about "lying under oath". Someone can be prosecuted for lying to the FBI for remembering something differently than someone else or getting a date wrong. It doesn't need to be a deliberate and malicious lie with the intent to deceive. And anyway, lying to the FBI does not in itself prove conspiracy to collude with the Russians to interfere with an election, which is supposed to be what the Special Counsel Investigation was convened to do, so far without success.

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

Yeah you're not getting it. The point you're missing is that "People in the Trump campaign" were not convicted of any crimes pertaining to Russian Collusion (ie the basis of the Special Counsel "Investigation"). No denying or spinning necessary, those are the FACTS.

 

Of course you think more will follow, why wouldn't you? If you watch CNN you would think everyone ever remotely linked to Trump is guilty of Russian collusion including the chef for using russian salad dressing on a salad he prepared. And allow me to explain a little something to you about "lying under oath". Someone can be prosecuted for lying to the FBI for remembering something differently than someone else or getting a date wrong. It doesn't need to be a deliberate and malicious lie with the intent to deveive. And anyway, lying to the FBI does not in itself prove conspiracy to collude with the Russians to interfere with an election, which is supposed to be what the Special Counsel Investigation was convened to do.

You have some real frustrations with CNN. I watch that about 30 minutes or so every month btw.

 

And yes, I'm getting it, you're not. Many from within the campaign have been convicted, and you have no idea what is to follow. Neither do I, but I don't pretend to know, I just have my suspicions, fueled by facts. These facts that are missing from your rants here.

 

And you'd better stop the arrogance.

[348GTS]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

You have some real frustrations with CNN. I watch that about 30 minutes or so every month btw.

 

And yes, I'm getting it, you're not. Many from within the campaign have been convicted, and you have no idea what is to follow. Neither do I, but I don't pretend to know, I just have my suspicions, fueled by facts. These facts that are missing from your rants here.

 

Sigh... Telling me that you're getting it and I am not does not make it so unless you back it up. Where are all these "facts" that your "suspicions" are fueled by ?? As I already explained, saying "many from within the campaign have been convicted" without the proper context is completely meaningless. The point is (once again...) that they were not convicted of any crimes pertaining to the Russian investigation. Seriously man, this is a matter of public record, look it up for heavens sake. I am sorry if you think bombarding you with facts qualify in your uninformed mind as "rants", I can't help that I'm afraid. Anyway I am done with you until you go and do some research. As I suggested earlier, go and watch some Alan Derschowitz interviews on this subject, you may learn something. Or maybe not, who knows.

[348GTS]

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

And you'd better stop the arrogance.

 

Or else what ?? Sorry if my superior knowledge on the topic comes across as "arrogance". I can't help what you choose to perceive unfortunately...

[stevenl]

29 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

Or else what ?? Sorry if my superior knowledge on the topic comes across as "arrogance". I can't help what you choose to perceive unfortunately...

It is not becoming. Only those who know what they're talking about could show arrogance, still not a good character treat, on others it just shows stupidity. See your previous post as a prime example, so I'm out of any discussion with you.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, 348GTS said:

 

Sigh. Incorrect yet again. Oh dear... If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to inform yourself with FACTS not CNN talking points. And you need to pay more attention when people inform you of things you're clearly not aware of. So let's try one more time shall we ?? There have been ZERO indictments or prosecutions or guilty pleas or prison sentences related to anyone in the Trump campaign concerning Russian collusion. Zero, zilch, nada. The people that have been prosecuted were for issues that had nothing to do with Russian collusion and were either "crimes" from a long time before the election campaign (unrelated to Trump), or, and please do try to keep up, they were for process "crimes" that occurred as a direct result of the special counsel "investigation". Go and watch some interviews with renowned lawyer Alan Dershowitz (a liberal democrat and Clinton voter to boot) on this exact topic and please educate yourself. Or I suppose you know better than he does? Hmmm ????????

Sigh.  You are significantly rephrasing your incorrect statement so you can pretend you didn't post something stupid.  You posted:

 

" If there was "abundant" evidence of crimes, then there would have been indictments and prosecutions, however there have been NONE." 

 

You did not limit your post to crimes of collusion.  This topic isn't limited to crimes of collusion.  Collusion isn't a crime.  However obstruction of justice, lying to the FBI, money laundering, tax evasion, and violating campaign finance laws are crimes.  There have been indictments, charges, prosecutions and guilty pleas regarding many crimes.  Trump has a knack for hiring people who have had suspicious dealings with unsavory Russians.  He also fathered at least one child who did the same.

 

BTW:  The intelligence agencies believe that the DNC was hacked by Russian trolls.  They won't release the evidence because that would show the trolls how they were discovered and allow them to become better trolls.  You may choose to trust the words of a sexual predator over the US intelligence agencies, but I don't.

 

Do you have any source for information other than Fox pundits?

 

[roobaa01]

the usual populous left wing propaganda useless and wasting tax payer money to create political nonsense bomshells like the buzzfeed one or the cohen one....

it can also be compared to ocasia-cortez new green deal or like pelosi said new dream deal, which is political nonsense, which would cost millions of us jobs.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[goferman]

9 hours ago, 348GTS said:

NONE

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/09/643444815/all-the-criminal-charges-to-emerge-so-far-from-robert-muellers-investigation

[FritsSikkink]

3 hours ago, 348GTS said:

 

Sigh... Telling me that you're getting it and I am not does not make it so unless you back it up. Where are all these "facts" that your "suspicions" are fueled by ?? As I already explained, saying "many from within the campaign have been convicted" without the proper context is completely meaningless. The point is (once again...) that they were not convicted of any crimes pertaining to the Russian investigation. Seriously man, this is a matter of public record, look it up for heavens sake. I am sorry if you think bombarding you with facts qualify in your uninformed mind as "rants", I can't help that I'm afraid. Anyway I am done with you until you go and do some research. As I suggested earlier, go and watch some Alan Derschowitz interviews on this subject, you may learn something. Or maybe not, who knows.

"As I already explained, saying "many from within the campaign have been convicted" without the proper context is completely meaningless."

What a load of nonsense. Trump claiming to drain the swamp, what did he do? He employed a bunch of criminals. 

That you only care they were not convicted of another crime is ludicrous. 

[goferman]

4 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

He employed a bunch of criminals. 

But that's not what he told us … ???