Democrat Schiff draws Trump ire with House intel probes

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Tell us of any arrests for collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to influence the elections. Can't, can you?

Mueller is fishing for a shark and is catching minnows.

You, like the rest of us, have no idea what Mueller is doing.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, keith101 said:

Is the commitee going to look into how much of the Trump Inauguration money has gone into his campaign fund and back pocket

SDNY are on it.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/sdny-investigation-real-peril-for-trump/

[simple1]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Tell us of any arrests for collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to influence the elections. Can't, can you?

Mueller is fishing for a shark and is catching minnows.

As mentioned above I really doubt you have any knowledge concerning evidence gathered by the Muller investigation or not. However, do read the investigation remit before commenting further.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You, like the rest of us, have no idea what Mueller is doing.

 

True, but IMO the chances of a leak if they actually had something on Trump or his immediate associates/ family would be 100%.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, simple1 said:

As mentioned above I really doubt you have any knowledge concerning evidence gathered by the Muller investigation or not. However, do read the investigation remit before commenting further.

 

See my previous post.

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

True, but IMO the chances of a leak if they actually had something on Trump or his immediate associates/ family would be 100%.

So far no leaks whatsoever from the investigation.

 

So I'd say IMO the chances of a leak if they actually had something on Trump or his immediate associates/ family would be 0%. Even more so if they had something on Trump himself.

[stevenl]

31 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Then nobody can be upset, since it is making money. The only ones paying for it are the convicted criminals.

But maybe you can explain how this can be a waste of tax payers money if it is making money?

@ thaibeachlovers,

 

Still waiting for your answer.

[metisdead]

Inflammatory posts, off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

True, but IMO the chances of a leak if they actually had something on Trump or his immediate associates/ family would be 100%.

And when there’s no leak you assume your opinion to be correct.

 

I for my part am happy to wait and see.

[smotherb]

15 hours ago, goferman said:

Surely, you must be jesting.

Trump's name before politics was anything but good save the gullible Apprentice-worshippers.

He was known for lying, cheating, defrauding innocent, hard-working people.

He was also known for his mob connections and being a sleaze.

Need I continue or can you accept my point?

Did you actually duck, or do things generally go over your head?

[smotherb]

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not upset, as I'm not paying for it. If I was, I'd be livid.

If they haven't found any evidence after 2 years, either they are incompetent, or there isn't any, perhaps both. It's just a waste of tax payers money.

That is my point. I suspect you are one of those who can see the emperor's new clothes.

 

Why would you be livid? The US Justice Department and US Courts system think there is enough evidence to continue investigation and trying the cases indicted. If they did not, they would stop it.

 

And perhaps you are denying the point that Russia tried to influence the election in favor of Trump. Even if true, that does not make Trump complicit in the Russian hacking. However, Trump openly denying the Russians hacked our election and blatantly siding with Putin against our own intelligence agencies; makes some wonder if he was guilty.  The fact that there have been 8 convictions and 30 indictments from Mueller's investigation make some believe something is there.

 

It is true that Trump has not been directly linked, yet. Will he be? That is the question. Yet, you would deny the taxpayers the piddling amounts spent on Mueller's investigation--approx. $25M over two years, when $36B/year is spent on Foreign Aid and $639B/year is spent on Defense.

 

I suggest we simply cut either budget to pay for the Mueller investigation. If it were just a witch hunt, what innocent person would try to stifle the investigation that could clear their good name?  

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And when there’s no leak you assume your opinion to be correct.

 

I for my part am happy to wait and see.

You may be happy to wait and see, but most of the anti Trump brigade have him already guilty and off to the jail house. I guess they never heard of "innocent till PROVEN guilty", or if they have, it only applies to people they like.

 

I don't know, so obviously what I write is my opinion, but it's just that, OPINION. Only events in the future will determine if correct or not. As for leaks, IMO if they had anything on Trump, it would indeed be leaked all over the place. No news is usually good news.

 

Sooooo, deflect away if you must.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, smotherb said:

That is my point. I suspect you are one of those who can see the emperor's new clothes.

 

Why would you be livid? The US Justice Department and US Courts system think there is enough evidence to continue investigation and trying the cases indicted. If they did not, they would stop it.

 

And perhaps you are denying the point that Russia tried to influence the election in favor of Trump. Even if true, that does not make Trump complicit in the Russian hacking. However, Trump openly denying the Russians hacked our election and blatantly siding with Putin against our own intelligence agencies; makes some wonder if he was guilty.  The fact that there have been 8 convictions and 30 indictments from Mueller's investigation make some believe something is there.

 

It is true that Trump has not been directly linked, yet. Will he be? That is the question. Yet, you would deny the taxpayers the piddling amounts spent on Mueller's investigation--approx. $25M over two years, when $36B/year is spent on Foreign Aid and $639B/year is spent on Defense.

 

I suggest we simply cut either budget to pay for the Mueller investigation. If it were just a witch hunt, what innocent person would try to stifle the investigation that could clear their good name?  

 

 

25 million may be piddling to you, but to a farmer in Nebraska facing ruin it is probably money ill spent. Outside the Washington bubble I doubt many people give a rat's bottom as to whether Trump "colluded" with the Russians or not, especially as many voted for him.

Comparing budgets is just deflection. Of course all government budgets are excessive, given politicians desire to spend other people's money on their little empires.

 

Why would I be livid? Because IMO it's just another example of government waste. If most people couldn't get a job done in TWO YEARS they'd be sacked. IMO it's just a bureaucratic makework to finance their great lifestyle at the taxpayer's expense.

The US Justice Department and US Courts system think there is enough evidence to continue investigation

Since when was it up to the courts to decide anything about any investigations continuing? Given the proven cases of blatent anti Trump bias ( and sackings to boot ) in the Justice department, of course they are going to continue with the investigation. Any opportunity to disparage him will never be passed by.

 

Are you perhaps trying to imply that Russia did something that America doesn't do. It's well known that the US influence elections all over the place.

 

Trump openly denying the Russians hacked our election and blatantly siding with Putin against our own intelligence agencies

He's president; perhaps he knows something we don't.

I don't recall where Trump sided with Putin against the intelligence agencies. A quote or two would be helpful.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, stevenl said:

Yes, easy: don't believe facts, just deny them.

I haven't seen any "facts" to prove that the defendants are paying in more than the cost of the investigation. Do tell.

[simple1]

47 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I haven't seen any "facts" to prove that the defendants are paying in more than the cost of the investigation. Do tell.

Do you ever fact check?

 

Though the investigation comes with a hefty price tag, it may have actually paid for its own investigation, with its probe leading to monetary estimated gains of up to $48 million for the government through the tax evasion the investigation has revealed.

 

http://fortune.com/2018/12/14/mueller-investigation-cost-tax-cheats/

[stevenl]

50 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's not up to me to prove other posters contentions. If there is proof, they should quote it.

BTW, I note that you say "MAY" in your post, as it may not actually work out that well. It's rare that government committees actually benefit the peasants financially.

Really easy, just admit your contention was wrong.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's not up to me to prove other posters contentions. If there is proof, they should quote it.

BTW, I note that you say "MAY" in your post, as it may not actually work out that well. It's rare that government committees actually benefit the peasants financially.

Because investigating the Russian attack on the US election is of no benefit?

 

 

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Really easy, just admit your contention was wrong.

In addition, you claim, without proof, it is costing money. I contradicted and said it was making money. Why should I have to proof my contention and you not?

[smotherb]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

25 million may be piddling to you, but to a farmer in Nebraska facing ruin it is probably money ill spent. Outside the Washington bubble I doubt many people give a rat's bottom as to whether Trump "colluded" with the Russians or not, especially as many voted for him.

Comparing budgets is just deflection. Of course all government budgets are excessive, given politicians desire to spend other people's money on their little empires.

 

Why would I be livid? Because IMO it's just another example of government waste. If most people couldn't get a job done in TWO YEARS they'd be sacked. IMO it's just a bureaucratic makework to finance their great lifestyle at the taxpayer's expense.

The US Justice Department and US Courts system think there is enough evidence to continue investigation

Since when was it up to the courts to decide anything about any investigations continuing? Given the proven cases of blatent anti Trump bias ( and sackings to boot ) in the Justice department, of course they are going to continue with the investigation. Any opportunity to disparage him will never be passed by.

 

Are you perhaps trying to imply that Russia did something that America doesn't do. It's well known that the US influence elections all over the place.

 

Trump openly denying the Russians hacked our election and blatantly siding with Putin against our own intelligence agencies

He's president; perhaps he knows something we don't.

I don't recall where Trump sided with Putin against the intelligence agencies. A quote or two would be helpful.

Oh please, not only do you see the Trump's new clothes, but you found that Nebraska farmer who is facing ruin due to the investigation.

 

I am certainly outside the Washington bubble and I care if my president colluded with the Russians. 

 

Why put a time-line on it? Remember, it is about whether or not the American people were duped. 

 

And, be careful not to violate TV rules about quotations, you forgot to add the rest of my sentence, " . . . and trying the cases indicted." You see; either a preliminary hearing may decide if the prosecution has enough evidence to continue to trail--and that decision is by a judge--or the investigation may lose momentum if the courts do not convict anyone.  

 

Proven cases of anti-Trump bias? Were there any convictions for that proven bias? Or is it that liberals often possess anti-Trump bias just as conservatives often express anti-Obama bias--or have you failed to notice that?  In fact, the typical contard refrain seems to be the "look over there" at what Obama or Hillary or some other entity did that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.  The old delusive tactic.

 

Oh, you're doing the delusive contard refrain again. Only this time it is, "Are you perhaps trying to imply that Russia did something that America doesn't do." The investigation is not about whether or not the US influences elections; it is about whether or not Trump colluded with the Russians to influence his own election--you can see a difference, can you not? 

 

And, you don't recall Trump siding with the Russians? Bless your heart; you do see his new clothes don't you? Just google "Trump sides with Russia against US" and you will get plenty of quotes.

 

 

 

[FarangutanMao]

two years of anti trump conspiracy theories with no evidence according to

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-has-uncovered-no-direct-evidence-conspiracy-between-trump-campaign-n970536

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, FarangutanMao said:

two years of anti trump conspiracy theories with no evidence according to

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-has-uncovered-no-direct-evidence-conspiracy-between-trump-campaign-n970536

 

 

 

Seems to me that even the die hard anti Trumpers are losing hope that anything will bring the Donald down. Even the leader of the "resistance" on TVF doesn't post much about it anymore.

IMO, Trump will stand again, and if he wins will see out his 8 years, but the sniping will continue as long as he is in office. If the Dems keep the house, expect more of the same as now.

However, if Trump's family have had enough of the BS, they may convince him not to stand again. I wouldn't blame them if they try.

[heybruce]

On 2/12/2019 at 12:27 PM, FarangutanMao said:

two years of anti trump conspiracy theories with no evidence according to

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-has-uncovered-no-direct-evidence-conspiracy-between-trump-campaign-n970536

 

From your link:

 

""We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said."

"The series of contacts between Trump's associates, his campaign officials, his children and various Russians suggest a campaign willing to accept help from a foreign adversary, the Democrats say."

"By many counts, Trump and his associates had more than 100 contacts with Russians before the January 2017 presidential inauguration."

 

As we now know, Trump's people were negotiating with Russia for a major real estate project in Moscow at the same time that Trump was claiming to have no dealings with Russia, and while he was softening the Republican party's platform regarding Ukraine before the Republican convention.

 

The Republican Senate doesn't think there is direct, iron-clad evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  Mueller may reach a different conclusion.  Besides, I and many others always assumed the best bet for finding illegal conflicts of interest between Trump and the Russians is by following the money.

[spidermike007]

Trump has devoted his entire career, to committing misdemeanors and felonies. That is just who he is. So, the only difference now, is that Congress is interested in investigating his behavior. I seriously doubt he will make it to the end of this term, and if he does, he will not run again. They just have too much on him. He will be buried, by his past. He should have remained out of politics. This will probably end up being the biggest mistake of his sorry lifetime. There is no doubt he colluded with Russia, and there is no doubt that Putin has alot of dirt on him. 

[Berkshire]

On 2/13/2019 at 4:51 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems to me that even the die hard anti Trumpers are losing hope that anything will bring the Donald down. Even the leader of the "resistance" on TVF doesn't post much about it anymore.

IMO, Trump will stand again, and if he wins will see out his 8 years, but the sniping will continue as long as he is in office. If the Dems keep the house, expect more of the same as now.

However, if Trump's family have had enough of the BS, they may convince him not to stand again. I wouldn't blame them if they try.

You're kidding, right?  New reports of Trump's corruption comes out practically every week.  The NY Times just put out a piece about his continuous "corrupt intent" in trying to interfere with all manners of investigations. 

 

[The story of Mr. Trump’s attempts to defang the investigations has been voluminously covered in the news media, to such a degree that many Americans have lost track of how unusual his behavior is. But fusing the strands reveals an extraordinary story of a president who has attacked the law enforcement apparatus of his own government like no other president in history, and who has turned the effort into an obsession.]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/intimidation-pressure-and-humiliation-inside-trumps-two-year-war-on-the-investigations-encircling-him/ar-BBTOY1R?ocid=wispr