Off-topic post reported and removed.  

 

On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 3:29 AM, heybruce said:

He insists he has evidence but never comes up with anything. 

That sounds like the Mueller investigation- never came up with anything related to Russian collusion, even though we were told constantly there was evidence by posters on TVF.

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

How can you tell the difference between Trump's grandstanding and when he is serious?  He is equally loud and nonsensical at all times.

 

What allies has Trump turned on?  How about everyone in his inner circle who is no longer there.  Everyone who does not indulge his every whim, such as Jeff Sessions, is turned on by Trump.

LOL. Using that incompetent Sessions as an example is ludicrous. He should have been booted the minute he told Trump he'd recused himself. That he wasn't was probably the biggest mistake Trump ever made as president, and I can't think of a reason other than misplaced loyalty to a once ally.

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That sounds like the Mueller investigation- never came up with anything related to Russian collusion, even though we were told constantly there was evidence by posters on TVF.

The Mueller investigation came up with a great deal.  Mueller concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy, which is not the same thing as "never came up with anything".  He also found many examples of obstruction of justice by Trump, but for reasons stated repeatedly felt he could not bring charges.

 

Regarding this topic, what evidence is there that anything illegal led to the Mueller investigation?

23 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Using that incompetent Sessions as an example is ludicrous. He should have been booted the minute he told Trump he'd recused himself. That he wasn't was probably the biggest mistake Trump ever made as president, and I can't think of a reason other than misplaced loyalty to a once ally.

Sessions was one of Trump's more competent appointees (a low bar I admit), but had the ethics and professionalism to recuse himself from an investigation involving his actions while in Congress.  Trump didn't want an ethical, professional Attorney General, he wanted an Attorney General who placed the President above the law.  He found such an Attorney General in Barr.

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Trump didn't want an ethical, professional Attorney General, he wanted an Attorney General who placed the President above the law. 

The AG is a political appointment. Of course Trump wanted someone that supported him. Should he nominate someone that doesn't want to support him?

When the US wants a non partisan AG they'll go the route of permanent appointments to the bureaucracy that are not nominated politically.

Sessions was, IMO, a waste of space and I, for one, was thankful to see him given the order of the boot.

 
I think it's safe to say that for many hardcore Trump supporters (yourself included), pretty much anything goes as long as it serves to deflect or obfuscate negative issues associated with the President. I think this applies to Trump himself as well. Granted, this can be applied to other politicians, but Trump seems to be less scrupulous than most. You can now try and whitewash this by labeling him a mere "blowhard".
 
 
 

I imagine that to you (and most everyone else here) anyone that does not believe Trump is a criminal that should be driven from office is a “hard core supporter”, yes?

I think if he is or has collided with Russia against the interests of the US he should be executed.

If he is involved in criminal activity he should be prosecuted.

I don’t think “anything goes”, but so far I am happy that he won the election.

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

The Mueller investigation came up with a great deal.  Mueller concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy, which is not the same thing as "never came up with anything".  He also found many examples of obstruction of justice by Trump, but for reasons stated repeatedly felt he could not bring charges.

 

LOL....I "almost charge" you of a heinous crime.

 

Prosecutors' work is binary....as is the way the law operates....you are either guilty or not guilty.

Not almost guilty...even a child knows that, unless prone to severe mental retardation.

 

The bitter liberals are adrift and awash with nonsense, yet again.

3 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Prosecutors' work is binary....as is the way the law operates....you are either guilty or not guilty.

Not almost guilty...even a child knows that, unless prone to severe mental retardation.

Classic. Won't make any difference to the resistance though. Trump is guilty of something, in their opinion, and they will find it even if it takes demanding every piece of paper he ever used, and interrogating every person he ever talked to.

klapper, rannon, comney getting pretty nervous on tv , have they anything to cover up ??? finally we are getting to the bottom of the russian collusion hoax. interesting today robert mueller's spokes men issued a strong denial about a paper draft indictment of president trump, which was mentioned in wolff's book trump under siege.

 

today jared kushner, pompeo and several us ceos attending the bilderberger meeting in montreux a code about the meeting everything must be kept secret what is talked about. but it is believed also matters of us security matters are topic which are of national interest. hence could dem congress subpeona kushner, pompeo to testify in a congress hearing ???

 

wbr

roobaa01

 

 

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Classic. Won't make any difference to the resistance though. Trump is guilty of something, in their opinion, and they will find it even if it takes demanding every piece of paper he ever used, and interrogating every person he ever talked to.

 

"While we recognize that the man did not actually steal any horses, he is obviously guilty of trying to resist being hanged for it." the resistance

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Trump is guilty of something, in their opinion, and they will find it even if it takes demanding every piece of paper he ever used, and interrogating every person he ever talked to.

 

He is guilty of whupping their collective asses....and subjecting them to the worst humiliation a seasoned politician can face. Being rear ended by a rookie.

Edited May 29, 20197 yr by JHolmesJr

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I imagine that to you (and most everyone else here) anyone that does not believe Trump is a criminal that should be driven from office is a “hard core supporter”, yes?

I think if he is or has collided with Russia against the interests of the US he should be executed.

If he is involved in criminal activity he should be prosecuted.

I don’t think “anything goes”, but so far I am happy that he won the election.
 

 

 

What you imagine doesn't interest me much, but no - that would be your own nonsense assertion. I think that posters applying unconditional defense of anything and everything Trump does, and who are engaged in constant deflection whenever any negatives are raised, qualify.

 

Reading your posts, doesn't seem you're half as bothered as you claim about his conduct, conflicts of interest, or pretty much anything, really. As said, for some reason, the bar is lowered when it comes to this President.

 
What you imagine doesn't interest me much, but no - that would be your own nonsense assertion. I think that posters applying unconditional defense of anything and everything Trump does, and who are engaged in constant deflection whenever any negatives are raised, qualify.
 
Reading your posts, doesn't seem you're half as bothered as you claim about his conduct, conflicts of interest, or pretty much anything, really. As said, for some reason, the bar is lowered when it comes to this President.

Reading your posts it doesn’t seem you differentiate between one Trump supporter and another. It’s been my experience that every Trump supporter is held pretty much in the same contempt here.

I do not now, nor have I ever applied an unconditional defense.

I do not believe he colluded with Russia.

Do not think he is guilty of obstruction of justice, and I believe that had Mueller had enough evidence to come to a conclusion on obstruction one way or another, he would have made that clear.

I do not believe he is doing anything illegal using Trump Tower or Mar-A-Lago. I would rather he didn’t.

I do not think there will be anything illegal in his tax returns, and I imagine he’ll release them a few days before the next election.

I believe their will be a lot of things in his returns the press will pick through attack him with.

Do I claim to be bothered by his behavior? I don’t mean to. I care more about what he does than what he says.

How am I lowering the bar? I think he is and has been much better for our country that the alternative would have been.

Some off topic deflection posts and replies have been removed. 

25 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Reading your posts it doesn’t seem you differentiate between one Trump supporter and another. It’s been my experience that every Trump supporter is held pretty much in the same contempt here.

I do not now, nor have I ever applied an unconditional defense.

I do not believe he colluded with Russia.

Do not think he is guilty of obstruction of justice, and I believe that had Mueller had enough evidence to come to a conclusion on obstruction one way or another, he would have made that clear.

I do not believe he is doing anything illegal using Trump Tower or Mar-A-Lago. I would rather he didn’t.

I do not think there will be anything illegal in his tax returns, and I imagine he’ll release them a few days before the next election.

I believe their will be a lot of things in his returns the press will pick through attack him with.

Do I claim to be bothered by his behavior? I don’t mean to. I care more about what he does than what he says.

How am I lowering the bar? I think he is and has been much better for our country that the alternative would have been.

 

 

 

Not even remotely correct with regard to my take on Trump supporters, and this was expended on many past posts. So you're either making it up or plain lying. I do thing that there a contingent of Trump fans on this forum which is happy enough cheering anything whatsoever.

 

You apply an almost reflexive deflection (or in other words, defense) even of things which are matter of public record, while engaging in the bizarre unrelated whataboutist commentary.

 

Your take on the obstruction of justice bit as referenced in Muller's report has been repeatedly shown to be misleading, at best.

 

Framing issues of conduct as being merely legal/illegal is part of the bar being lowered. Many things aren't illegal, but are still frowned upon, or not considered proper. I think most people expect the President to be someone who isn't the lowest-common-denominator on this front.

 

That you don't think there's nothing in his tax returns doesn't rely on anything much. If anything, there's quite a bit of information regarding dodgy business practices and conflicting interests which may give some pause. Not you, obviously. Whether he'll release them or not remains to be seen - again, not quite the point.

 

You care more about what he does? Fair enough. Well, almost. Meeting in private with Putin doesn't bother you? Him or his family having business interests in countries concerning USA economic and foreign policy don't bother you? Having a chaotic foreign policy or a merry-go-round-rotation at the White House doesn't bother you? Oh well...

 

You lower the bar by choosing to ignore things which you'd be all over if done or said by another President. Even if one believes he was/is better than the alternative, that (maybe) plays up to a point. If all he's got going is not being Hillary, that's not really saying a whole lot (again, that lowered bar) about his merits. Nor does it serve as much of a credible basis for the spirited defense and support on offer.

 

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The AG is a political appointment. Of course Trump wanted someone that supported him. Should he nominate someone that doesn't want to support him?

When the US wants a non partisan AG they'll go the route of permanent appointments to the bureaucracy that are not nominated politically.

Sessions was, IMO, a waste of space and I, for one, was thankful to see him given the order of the boot.

President's are expected to appoint Attorney General's who share their judicial philosophy.  There is a difference between that and putting loyalty to the President above the law.  That's why officials of the Justice Department take an oath to defend the Constitution, not a loyalty oath to the President.

4 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

LOL....I "almost charge" you of a heinous crime.

 

Prosecutors' work is binary....as is the way the law operates....you are either guilty or not guilty.

Not almost guilty...even a child knows that, unless prone to severe mental retardation.

 

The bitter liberals are adrift and awash with nonsense, yet again.

Not charged, not guilty, and innocent are three different things. 

 

However the "lock her up" crowds at Trump rallies don't draw such distinctions.  I'll bet you don't either when it serves your purpose.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Classic. Won't make any difference to the resistance though. Trump is guilty of something, in their opinion, and they will find it even if it takes demanding every piece of paper he ever used, and interrogating every person he ever talked to.

He is obviously guilty of obstruction of justice, defying Congressional subpoenas, and resisting Congressional oversight.  However it is his frantic efforts to prevent legitimate oversight of his finances that shows the most promising approach to proving crimes that everyone outside of Trump's base can understand.

24 minutes ago, albertik said:

I mean the foundation that received 500,000 for a speech given by her husband following the Uranium One deal. Strange how the foundation dried up when she wasn't elected.

Oh look, a Uranium One troll.  And a newby to TV as well. 

 

Show us what was illegal, unusual, or contrary to US interests in the Uranium One deal.

 

BTW, what happened to the Trump Foundation after he was elected?

I mean the foundation that received 500,000 for a speech given by her husband following the Uranium One deal. Strange how the foundation dried up when she wasn't elected.

But but but Hillary...

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

1 hour ago, albertik said:

I mean the foundation that received 500,000 for a speech given by her husband following the Uranium One deal. Strange how the foundation dried up when she wasn't elected.

Why don't you ask republicans to investigate.

Quick everybody get your batsuit pajamas on. Mueller is do to speak in less than an hour.

23 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Quick everybody get your batsuit pajamas on. Mueller is do to speak in less than an hour.

no q and a, just a statement. 

 

 

Edited May 29, 20197 yr by cbtstorm
mistake

Not sure what Avenatti has to do with Mueller speaking. He was the left's darling poster boy for awhile.

Just now, Cryingdick said:

Not sure what Avenatti has to do with Mueller speaking. He was the left's darling poster boy for awhile.

mistake, it left over from an unfinished post.

 

1 minute ago, cbtstorm said:

mistake, it left over from an unfinished post.

 

 

Fair enough. I was struggling to find the meaning. ????

Well looks like mr muller is going to speak soon knowing Donald and Barr they wouldn’t let him speak unless he is toeing the company line so to speak I am expecting lots of threats and hot air from Donald after this oh well here we go

Even Fox News isn't spinning this completely away. At least, not yet.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in his first public appearance since being appointed to lead the Russia investigation, said it was “not an option” to charge President Trump with a crime, citing Department of Justice policy, but maintained that if they had “confidence” that the president did not commit a crime, they "would have said so.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/special-counsel-robert-mueller-to-make-statement-at-justice-dept-amid-pressure-to-testify

Just now, bristolboy said:

Even Fox News isn't spinning this completely away. At least, not yet.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in his first public appearance since being appointed to lead the Russia investigation, said it was “not an option” to charge President Trump with a crime, citing Department of Justice policy, but maintained that if they had “confidence” that the president did not commit a crime, they "would have said so.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/special-counsel-robert-mueller-to-make-statement-at-justice-dept-amid-pressure-to-testify

 

All that happened is he repeated his report. The dems can now move to impeach should they so desire. Mueller will not willingly be involved in a marathon circus of testimony at their request. The dems can continue to do everything they will to drag this out and will most likely never move to impeach which they know is a very bad move. Much of this depends on Pelosi and if she now caves to the outraged impeachment tribe.

 

They should be gnashing their teeth and getting pitch forks and torches now. By all means impeach the man if you think this has given more ammunition.

Just now, Cryingdick said:

 

All that happened is he repeated his report. The dems can now move to impeach should they so desire. Mueller will not willingly be involved in a marathon circus of testimony at their request. The dems can continue to do everything they will to drag this out and will most likely never move to impeach which they know is a very bad move. Much of this depends on Pelosi and if she now caves to the outraged impeachment tribe.

 

They should be gnashing their teeth and getting pitch forks and torches now. By all means impeach the man if you think this has given more ammunition.

Yes. He repeated his report. The one that Barr misrepresented. And now it's indisputable that Barr misrepresented what the report said. Had Barr released the executive summary along with his characterization of the report, his misleading version would never have gained the traction it did.